The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

Been watching Steorn since they made their first public face plant into the pavement with their non-working model they showed in 2007. After seeing a model of what they were trying to show I came across John Bedini. Bedini seems to be thinking along the same lines as the Steorn engineers, but has tried many different models to test this "effect" he was seeing.

Bedini has a number of different models that are shown in his videos, a pendulum, wooden rotor, large machined rotor, and one made with a bicycle wheel and a single coil.

I thought it was good to see he had tried a number of different models just to compare efficiency across different designs, even if he thought it would do worse he would build those models to test the theory. And there's the part that gets me......

Everyone who talks of free energy or radiant energy can't really explain where it comes from and none have an effective way to capture said energy. Bedini (And Steorn I'd assume) depend on batteries to capture said radiant energy because it is such a high voltage spike for a short period of time. I'm alright with accepting that batteries are the most effective method for capturing that we have available to us today, but it seems to be more of an accident that we found something that could capture this energy.

Also, another stumbling block for me with Bedini is in his videos he shows a very large motor he has made that charges a HUGE bank of batteries on the other side of the wall. (You can see this motor and batteries in action in this youtube video: Clip of one of Bedini's videos)

Okay, so if this system creates this much power so efficiently, why doesn't he just use that to power the entire shop that he's working in and completely disconnect from the mains service? There's a point in the video that he speaks of when they lose power from service that they really don't lose anything as they can run the entire shop from that system. Well, if you CAN do it and save lots of $$$ and grab attention for what you're doing, then why not DO SO?

My real hang up with systems that claim over unity never are shown in a manner where the inventors are using them to do something that shows a daily use for the technology. Perhaps the batteries can't take this type of application for long periods of time? Maybe there is a large danger when you scale it up to the Kw production needed to run a home that would kill many "garage scientists"? Or just maybe these devices are incredibly efficient, but don't actually produce more output then input?

Not sure where I stand on the whole thing, I'm maintaining a middle man stance to it all because I see potential in whats happening with these designs, but I'm not convinced it has been explored enough to have a practical application as a means to generate power for a household. Steorn's demonstration model certainly does not make enough power to do much beyond possibly lighting a few lower wattage light bulbs.

I think if someone on the board wants to try this out, I would start with making a Bedini "School Girl Motor" with cheap parts that would prove that you're charging the secondary battery faster then draining the primary source battery. If you can do it on a small scale and actually keep the other battery charged at a greater rate then you deplete the source, then you'll have your answer as to whether these designs work or not. Only questions after that is, how well does it scale and do the effects scale linearly with size?

Now, who's going to sign up to make a school girl motor?
Information on design and building of a Bedini School Girl Motor

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Whenever you have a dipole (magnet), there's a ridiculous amount of Negative Energy or Radiant energy coming in

Yeah, this looks like a silly speculation at the very best. Do you know how magnets work anyway? Nothing to do with "cosmic vacuum" or acoustic energy of Steorn's flatulence.

Actually physicists don't know how magnetism works. They have a theories and some equations that fit the the behaviour at the macro level. At the quantum level they still don't know as the humble/honest ones admit. The arrogant ones will get very upset at reading this.

reply to post by malcr

If any device produces more power than it uses, one should be able to disconnect the battery after start-up without stopping it from running. If I were setting up a demonstration model, I would have a quick-disconnect
to remove the battery easily during a demonstration.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with needing an initial charge, but the videos and descriptions so far have been concerning a device which requires a battery for operation continuously.

Now, if they connect this motor to a generator which charges the battery without it running down (meaning the battery could be removed during operation), we have something to get excited about. There are expectations for this to happen, but until they do happen talk about this being over-unity is premature.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by HaTaX
I think if someone on the board wants to try this out, I would start with making a Bedini "School Girl Motor" with cheap parts that would prove that you're charging the secondary battery faster then draining the primary source battery. If you can do it on a small scale and actually keep the other battery charged at a greater rate then you deplete the source, then you'll have your answer as to whether these designs work or not. Only questions after that is, how well does it scale and do the effects scale linearly with size?

Now, who's going to sign up to make a school girl motor?

Actually, this has already happened! ATS Member RogerT built a Bedini SG and said he was getting a COP of 1.28 (Overunity).

'Free Energy' DIY Anyone?

So I personally am satisfied that Bedini is the real deal just from the number of successful replications of the School Girl motor.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I do believe that there is an inherent property in permanent magnets that appears to defy the laws Conservation of Energy

Appearance is a good word to use here. Magnets can be arranged so that they appear to possess anti-gravity. A piece of metal (such as copper) can shoot up when placed next to an electromagnet, when you inject a pulse of current in that magnet. In that case, there is an appearance of telekinesis. When you look inside a water-moderated nuclear reactor (I did), the water appears to burn like a blue flame.

But, my friend, appearances are notoriously deceptive. Unless you embrace a blind belief in paranormal or absurd (i.e. free energy etc), all of the above is strictly within, and explained by, precise laws of physics. And no, over-unity can not be obtained for real. Appearances are another matter

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And no, over-unity can not be obtained for real.

Well, tell that to RogerT, and the hundreds of other people who have built a Bedini SG motor and got a COP > 1.0

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And no, over-unity can not be obtained for real.

Well, tell that to RogerT, and the hundreds of other people who have built a Bedini SG motor and got a COP > 1.0

Yeah right, that's exactly why half of all discussions in the fora that these people participate in is strictly about properly charging batteries, and the other half are complaints about "batteries losing conditioning". Sorry pal, but once the battery is gone, they cry mama and rush to an outlet to recharge it. Some perpetual motion.

Of course these are honest people who just practice the art of self-deception. There is also an evil kind, which deceive on purpose and even get some venture capital to pursue this and other impossible free energy BS.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yeah right, that's exactly why half of all discussions in the fora that these people participate in is strictly about properly charging batteries, and the other half are complaints about "batteries losing conditioning". Sorry pal, but once the battery is gone, they cry mama and rush to an outlet to recharge it. Some perpetual motion.

Prove ANYTHING you just said.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Nature does not care whether your head is stuck in the sand. Nature does not care if you call its head its arm. Nature does not care if you break man made laws. Nature does not care about you.

I'm sure your ancestors believed the earth was flat .

reply to post by TheRedneck


hi - you say [ paraphrasing ] ` its simply a very efficient electric motor driven off the battery `

ok - thats a slightly different stance ,but any theoreticall efficency level is utterly worthless if it is as unreliable as steorns white elephant is .

the company ` engineers ` cannot even get it to run - what chance does it have in the real world ?

edit to add :

also whats its peak torque , and power to weight ratio ?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ignorant_ape]

Originally posted by HaTaX

My real hang up with systems that claim over unity never are shown in a manner where the inventors are using them to do something that shows a daily use for the technology. Perhaps the batteries can't take this type of application for long periods of time? Maybe there is a large danger when you scale it up to the Kw production needed to run a home that would kill many "garage scientists"? Or just maybe these devices are incredibly efficient, but don't actually produce more output then input?

Bedini did show that bank of batteries powering a huge panel of 100 watt light bulbs, and then how quickly the batteries got recharged. I just think that he is not ready for making use of it yet. He's an inventor, and he is interested in fully understanding it all first, and then at some point, he will make the definitive device for his own full-time use. I would think that inventors modify, tear-down, and enhance their test models, so depending on them fully would not be a wise thing to do.

These are still works in progress and largely experimental. Remember how the first micro-computers were, before the IBM PC? There were kits and systems that were very primitive. Only after a good amount of time where hobbyists built them, did we see true commercial systems coming out.

These ZPE systems aren't even at that stage yet, since very few people have actually undertaken to build one. That may be about to change, however.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Appearance is a good word to use here.

Hence my using it.

I am a firm believer that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I will not state "I have produced over-unity power" until I can prove I have done so. In this case, I believe there is more to both magnetism and gravity than meets the physic professor's eye, yet I cannot at this time prove such. Thus my use of the phrase "appears to".

My reasoning is this: A single NIB (Neodymium-Iron-Boron, or 'rare earth') permanent magnet will retain its properties of attraction and repulsion of other magnets for years, even while it is being used as such. The same electromagnet will require a great deal of energy to do this. So where is the energy from the NIB magnet coming from? Either it is tapping into some unknown source, or our beliefs concerning Conservation of Energy are incomplete. I personally believe the latter; you may disagree.

A piece of metal (such as copper) can shoot up when placed next to an electromagnet, when you inject a pulse of current in that magnet. In that case, there is an appearance of telekinesis. When you look inside a water-moderated nuclear reactor (I did), the water appears to burn like a blue flame.

In both these examples, you are talking about illusionary phenomenon. I am speaking of observable, documentable, repeatable apparent contradictions to our understanding of the basic forces in physics. A magnet does not possess 'telekinesis', but ot does possess the ability to attract nearby ferrous materials, without an adequate physical explanation other than "it just does".

And no, over-unity can not be obtained for real.

As I have already said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Are you ready to offer such proof?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by malcr

If any device produces more power than it uses, one should be able to disconnect the battery after start-up without stopping it from running. If I were setting up a demonstration model, I would have a quick-disconnect
to remove the battery easily during a demonstration.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with needing an initial charge, but the videos and descriptions so far have been concerning a device which requires a battery for operation continuously.

Now, if they connect this motor to a generator which charges the battery without it running down (meaning the battery could be removed during operation), we have something to get excited about. There are expectations for this to happen, but until they do happen talk about this being over-unity is premature.

TheRedneck

Redneck, you are assuming that the battery is used in a conventional means, but if you go and study the Bedini motors, you will find out that the batteries are used as a ZPE/Energy converter. In this type of motor, the battery is not there to power anything, it is there to convert the back EMF pulses into usable energy. This takes place in the chemicals of the battery. If you are going to be involved with science, you really need to understand that not everything is so simple that a child could understand it. To really see if this is producing more energy that it consumes, you just need to use reliable meters. They don't lie.

reply to post by ignorant_ape

ny theoreticall efficency level is utterly worthless if it is as unreliable as steorns white elephant is .

Reliability is an issue I have not seen addressed. Obviously, it would be vital in any commercial endeavor.

the company ` engineers ` cannot even get it to run - what chance does it have in the real world ?

I have seen two prototypes, one by Steorn and one by JLN, running in videos without any apparent method of driving them from an external source (other than what is explained in the videos, of course). Do you have further information that these videos are faked in such a way?

also whats its peak torque , and power to weight ratio ?

I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps the engineers at Seorn would be in a better position to answer those questions. They have a contact page.

I really do not expect all electric motors to be based on this design any time soon, if ever. The main use I see for this is niche work. For example, I have designed many magnetic drive systems to operate within sealed chambers... for such a purpose, this design appears well-suited. I will probably wind up building such a device before all is said and done, simply because a lack of back EMF would prove useful at times.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
My reasoning is this: A single NIB (Neodymium-Iron-Boron, or 'rare earth') permanent magnet will retain its properties of attraction and repulsion of other magnets for years, even while it is being used as such. The same electromagnet will require a great deal of energy to do this. So where is the energy from the NIB magnet coming from?

When you lift a box of nails using the NIB magnet or any other, it is you who's doing work and not the magnet. The field in such magnet is produced by aligned magnetic momenta of a multitude of electrons. These electrons do not experience friction or anything. A remote analog would be a superconducting magnet, which when injected with current, will create a magnetic field which will exist as long as superconductivity exists, i.e. potentially for an infinite amount of time. LHC is built like this.

A conventional electromagnet, unfortunately, is made of a wire with finite resistance, hence it dissipates energy. Hence it needs to be supplied from an external source for the magnet to keep operating.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Redneck, you are assuming that the battery is used in a conventional means, but if you go and study the Bedini motors, you will find out that the batteries are used as a ZPE/Energy converter. In this type of motor, the battery is not there to power anything, it is there to convert the back EMF pulses into usable energy.

They could have done it with a diode and a capacitor. But they didn't. The reason why the battery is indeed to obtain the deceptive result lies in chemistry of a battery -- it is possible to cause a transient effect of voltage being higher than usual (although total energy stored of course does not change).

[edit on 29-12-2009 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by downisreallyup

Redneck, you are assuming that the battery is used in a conventional means, but if you go and study the Bedini motors, you will find out that the batteries are used as a ZPE/Energy converter.

I have studied it, but admittedly some years ago. I am going back over the design now to refresh my memory. I have been working in electronics for over 30 years, and one does tend to forget details over that course of time.

The conversion you are speaking of can be accomplished with an inductive/capacitive network just as well as a battery. For initial tests, a battery would be appropriate, since they are typically fairly hardy devices and capacitors are not. Once the values of the pulses are determined, there is no need to use a battery; indeed, a battery would only give the impression of a need for outside current from a conventional source.

If you are going to be involved with science, you really need to understand that not everything is so simple that a child could understand it.

You know, it does seem strange to me that some people complain that I am being too technical, while at the same time others accuse me of being simplistic.

Forgive me for not typing in a language that most people can not read.

To really see if this is producing more energy that it consumes, you just need to use reliable meters. They don't lie.

They also do not excite.

The purpose of a demonstration prototype is to excite, to demonstrate (hence the name) operation to the public in the most effective manner. That means that you can throw all the technical jargon out the window and just crank the critter up to get your point across. Of course, one must be able to explain the workings of the model to those with a detailed background, but scientists and engineers do not finance projects: bankers and investors do. Bankers and investors do not understand the jargon. They understand, however, that when something is running with no external power source and no possible known method of powering itself, that it works. Even the US Patent Office now requires that any design which claims over-unity must be accompanied by a working prototype... not readings on a meter.

Really, you do realize this SchoolGirl motor design was hosted on YouTube, right? How many YouTube viewers would understand how to design and construct a simple circuit, much less interpret results obtained on a numeric display?

I cannot comment further on the SchoolGirl motor until I have re-researched it more.

TheRedneck

reply to post by buddhasystem

Assume that I have a NIB magnet mounted a few feet above the ground. I then push a wheeled container of nails under said magnet and the magnet lifts the nails out of their container. Where did the energy come from to lift those nails?

Just so you don't go back to the electromagnet again (which is not what I have discussed as having any disagreement with known physics... you seem intent on including them in this discussion), I am speaking only of using a permanent magnet.

Also:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
They could have done it with a diode and a capacitor. But they didn't. The reason why the battery is indeed to obtain the deceptive result lies in chemistry of a battery -- it is possible to cause a transient effect of voltage being higher than usual (although total energy stored of course does not change).

Possible, but a poor design approach, Depending on the voltage you would expect from the source as well as the pulse duration, frequency, and rate of voltage drop after the pulse, a capacitor that can withstand that amount of voltage and still have enough capacitance to operate effectively as a voltage buffer can cost thousands of dollars and be the size of a small building. A simple inductor-capacitor arrangement would allow for much cheaper, smaller, and more available capacitors to be used.

A diode would only be necessary after a few stages when the capacitive value began to exceed limits on commercially available non-polarized capacitors, and when the peak voltage did not exceed 6000V (generally the limit for stock diodes), and then only if the pulses changed polarity. Pulsed DC would not require a diode at all.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by downisreallyup

Redneck, you are assuming that the battery is used in a conventional means, but if you go and study the Bedini motors, you will find out that the batteries are used as a ZPE/Energy converter.

I have studied it, but admittedly some years ago. I am going back over the design now to refresh my memory. I have been working in electronics for over 30 years, and one does tend to forget details over that course of time.

The conversion you are speaking of can be accomplished with an inductive/capacitive network just as well as a battery. For initial tests, a battery would be appropriate, since they are typically fairly hardy devices and capacitors are not. Once the values of the pulses are determined, there is no need to use a battery; indeed, a battery would only give the impression of a need for outside current from a conventional source.

If you are going to be involved with science, you really need to understand that not everything is so simple that a child could understand it.

You know, it does seem strange to me that some people complain that I am being too technical, while at the same time others accuse me of being simplistic.

Forgive me for not typing in a language that most people can not read.

To really see if this is producing more energy that it consumes, you just need to use reliable meters. They don't lie.

They also do not excite.

The purpose of a demonstration prototype is to excite, to demonstrate (hence the name) operation to the public in the most effective manner. That means that you can throw all the technical jargon out the window and just crank the critter up to get your point across. Of course, one must be able to explain the workings of the model to those with a detailed background, but scientists and engineers do not finance projects: bankers and investors do. Bankers and investors do not understand the jargon. They understand, however, that when something is running with no external power source and no possible known method of powering itself, that it works. Even the US Patent Office now requires that any design which claims over-unity must be accompanied by a working prototype... not readings on a meter.

Really, you do realize this SchoolGirl motor design was hosted on YouTube, right? How many YouTube viewers would understand how to design and construct a simple circuit, much less interpret results obtained on a numeric display?

I cannot comment further on the SchoolGirl motor until I have re-researched it more.

TheRedneck

I am sorry... I did not read all your comments, so I can now see that you are technically competent. Please forgive me for assuming you were not.

Now, I would highly suggest that you go and see ALL the videos by Bedini, where he discusses at length the reason for the battery. And no, you can't just use something other than the battery, as he found out in his testing and experiments. The School Girl design is really not the best example of his designs and work.

Like he said, it is the high-energy Spikes that occur when the motor is pulsed which are being gathered and sent into the battery, and it is the CHEMICAL (yes, and that precludes other things) action in the battery, between the lead and acid, that allows for the radiant energy in the vacuum to be pulled into the battery, thereby charging it. He tried other types of configurations (besides lead-acid batteries) and found that nothing worked like they did. He even points out that the battery can be highly sulfated and dead, and it will still function as a converter between ZPE and normal usable energy.


This is Bedini's design, and both him and Bearden explain how they believe it works. You will not find that your classical electronics training will explain this to you, any more than Tesla could use classical electronics to explain his dielectric field energy experiments.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Originally posted by buddhasystem
They could have done it with a diode and a capacitor. But they didn't. The reason why the battery is indeed to obtain the deceptive result lies in chemistry of a battery -- it is possible to cause a transient effect of voltage being higher than usual (although total energy stored of course does not change).

Possible, but a poor design approach, Depending on the voltage you would expect from the source as well as the pulse duration, frequency, and rate of voltage drop after the pulse, a capacitor that can withstand that amount of voltage and still have enough capacitance to operate effectively as a voltage buffer can cost thousands of dollars and be the size of a small building. A simple inductor-capacitor arrangement would allow for much cheaper, smaller, and more available capacitors to be used.

I've dealt with capacitors of various designs, rated up to 50kV. I think you are greatly exaggerating the requirements for a capacitor needed to store energy ostensibly produced in a small device like the demos discussed here. Seriously. If you quoted thousands of dollars, please explain how you came up with that number.