Steorn Effect Successfully Reversed Engineered!

[sebosfato]

Ok Ok i will, i just couldn't understand well what Tc you were talking about when you meant 5... i will read those links...

Thanks again

[broli]

GB you can use an online latex editor if you want to put equations in your posts:

LaTeX Equation Editor - SITMO
http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?E=\frac{I^{2}L}{2}

After you created the equation with that simple editor you can use this page here to generate image files which you can use in your posts between the [IMG] tag:

Roger's Online Equation Editor

Just write the equation and then create the link. Then you can use the link between image tags in your posts like this:


But do notice it's a temporary link, it's best to upload it somewhere else yourself for more permanency. Would be even better if this forum had a LaTex tag.

As for the subject, I'm interested but I'm not completely with you so far. Where exactly is the exploit? Can you be more concrete about this "impedance match".

[gravityblock]

Let's try to simplify things. This may help.

When the TC in seconds of the voltage is equal to the same TC in seconds of the current, then 100% of the energy can be transferred in the first TC, thus no BEMF. If the TC in seconds of the voltage does not equal the TC in seconds of the current, then only 63% of the energy can be transferred while 37% of the energy is reflected back to work against the applied voltage, thus the voltage will fall approximately 37% in a time equal to the time constant.

GB

[gravityblock]

In the below images, you can see how both the current and voltage varies in time (t) at a different rate which are not related when there is an impedance mismatch between them, thus the voltage and current will vary in time (voltage will drop 37% while current increases 63%). When there is an impedance match in "t" between them and they are related by the same relationship relative to each other, then they will not vary in time relative to each other, and the voltage/current will remain constant (100% of the voltage and 100% of the current appears together across the inductor within the same time constant of "t").





GB

[RedRightHand]

Dear Gravity Block,

Thank you for all your detailed explanation behind the steorn orbo effect. I will be pondering this for weeks, I am sure!

Keep up the awesome work!

Red

[thedude]

Well I'm leaping into the frey!

Hi guys and thanks GB and everyone discussing the Orbo. I'm learning from this thread! I've already been working on a simple, proof of concept model of my own. My hall effect sensor should be in this week from my supplier.

By no means am I declaring any specific knowledge with regard to electrodynamic principles of the Orbo. At this moment I believe the principles are actually quite simple and have reproduced the cancellation field effect in much the same way that J L Naudin has illustrated on his site.

I can see that it is a very slight effect and needs to be timed very carefully in order to optimize the full potential of the magnetic attraction between the magnets and ferrite cores of the toroid coils. Optical sensors would be a much better way to trigger the cancellation field as Naudin used in his Version 4. For now i am leaping in head first as that seems to be the way I learn best.

Here is a web page I set up illustrate the model I'm hoping to have up and running this week, rather than cluttering up this tread with big pictures. :P Oh ya, I'm calling it "The Worbo" (cuz it wobbles a little until it picks up speed) It is mounted on 2- $70 PC controlled (serial com port driven) Case Fans for magnetic hub berrings. Each generates 4 volts with the other running the wheel ATM, with minimal resistance. However both will be generating once Orbo effect is operational.

Here is the schematic (primarily borrowed from Naudin), which i've modified with my own components, that i am assembling as I write this post.
Any suggestions would be appreciated and can be sent to Dklyne@gmail.com. (waiting for response from Naudin ATM)


I can see that we are very involved with the technical specs of the device in this thread and its not my intention to over simplify the topic with my archaic fabrication and novice engineering. :P

Thanks for letting me share. I hope to gleam something from the build.

Edit - Oh yes. Perhaps we could discuss this issue of layers of windings and the need to counter wind toroid to eliminate CEMF as stressed by Naudin. I did try this with 4 lateral windings of 23 gauge wire around toroid circumference and tested with shots of current and magnets to see if i could observe a difference with and with out. There was none that i could see. (could use better instrumentation here) Perhaps flat ribbon winding is what is needed. (ie: I have four layers of windings making four revolutions around coil, and would need to counter wind a series of flat ribbon four times to maximize the elimination of counter EMF???) I really don't know if that is what Naudin intended to convey. Any suggestions?

This is Naudin's quote from the site "The patent below is very interesting because it says that in a common toroidal coil, each layer is equal to a "one turn coil" whose axis is parallel to the axis of the toroid. So, one layer of toroidal coil is equal to a flat coil of one turn and thus it can tap or produce EMF outside the torus. So, to counter this interference effect, the only thing to do is , for each layer of the toroidal coil, to wound a one turn flat coil along the circumference of the toroid so as to produce a magnetic field which nullify the virtual one turn coil created by each layer of the toroidal coil... This is very simple and a very important thing to do for canceling the weak CEMF induced in the toroid by the motion of the magnet and this is one of the most important key of the Orbo motor... "

PS- need to fashion a way of measuring inductance in my coils with out a flyback meter. researching now.

[broli]

GB the problem is that you say there's an impedance match, but you don't say how, at least not in a concrete setup or circuit. The term "impedance match" is quite vague.
The real question is, what do you EXACTLY mean by impedance match and how do you propose to achieve it.

I assume this all relates to inductance change. So does it mean the inductance has to change at a certain rate or with a certain proportion, in order for an inductive coil to get "charged" with close to 0 inductive energy.

Please be concrete and more technical.

[gravityblock]

GB the problem is that you say there's an impedance match, but you don't say how, at least not in a concrete setup or circuit. The term "impedance match" is quite vague.
The real question is, what do you EXACTLY mean by impedance match and how do you propose to achieve it.

I assume this all relates to inductance change. So does it mean the inductance has to change at a certain rate or with a certain proportion, in order for an inductive coil to get "charged" with close to 0 inductive energy.
Please be concrete and more technical.

Yes, It relates to an inductance change at a certain rate while the inductance, voltage, and current must be of a certain value based upon a specific number (which is more than likely based on the total change in inductance of 24.153667093235831809872029250457 to be precise).

We know the TC = L / R. This means the inductance and resistance is related to the TC. The current will increase 63.2120559% while the voltage will fall 36.7879441% within the first TC. If the inductance can be changed at a certain rate within or during the first TC, then a time variant field can occur during this TC, to allow for a 100% transfer in energy (meaning the current will rise 100% at a rate of the TC in seconds, almost instantaneously. Think of this as a superconductor at room temperature during the time the circuit is closed). If this occurs, then the total energy can be transferred in 1 TC instead of the traditional 5 TC. As it is now in the traditional way of doing things with an impedance mismatch, the inductance may only be able to change in between the 5 TC's, but we need it to be changing during the first TC at a specific rate. The inductance, voltage, and current are all related by a specific number for a perfect impedance match.

It's similiar to the resonance frequency, where there is only one frequency where there is an impedance match between them. Instead of there being only one frequency for an impedance match, there is only 1 number for an impedance match between the voltage, current, and inductance. I believe my calculations strongly suggest this to be the case, but I don't know how to calculate the inductance, voltage, and resistance from the specific number. I think the specific number is based on 24.153667093235831809872029250457, or 1.094, or 1,094,000 or some variations of those numbers in regards to their decimal positions. This is like knowing "N", without knowing the two prime numbers producing "N". Example, 13 * 19 = 247. I know the "247", but the 13 and 19 producing the 247 is unknown to me. For my limited math skills, it's like trying to break a 512 bit encrytion code. I wish I could be more concrete and technical than this. Hope this makes a little sense.

Thanks for trying to help,

GB

[bugler]

I wish Peter studied GB's explanation and gave us this opinion.

[Armagdn03]

Not to discourage you,
But my only problem with this theory, is that I have seen more than a few successful replications that do not have an inductance change over a 23mh value.

Here is a good page by Naudin which shows an inductance change of 980-230mh or so, which still shows the effect clearly.

Orbo

I have had success in this realm taking advantage of the parametric equations which describe the relationship of inductance to time (also capacitance) with respect to EMF.



This explains the math seen perfectly, and also applies to a wide range of inductance changes seen in many variations of replications.

Also Im a bit shaky on dividing a a "Webber per Ampere" by a time constant for a first order differential equation for this because the time constant would be a moving target as time progresses. Since we are dealing with a parameter change (inductance) with respect to time, I would personally choose the equation above.

[gravityblock]

Not to discourage you,
But my only problem with this theory, is that I have seen more than a few successful replications that do not have an inductance change over a 23mh value.

Here is a good page by Naudin which shows an inductance change of 980-230mh or so, which still shows the effect clearly.

Orbo

I have had success in this realm taking advantage of the parametric equations which describe the relationship of inductance to time (also capacitance) with respect to EMF.

This explains the math seen perfectly, and also applies to a wide range of inductance changes seen in many variations of replications.

Also Im a bit shaky on dividing a a "Webber per Ampere" by a time constant for a first order differential equation for this because the time constant would be a moving target as time progresses. Since we are dealing with a parameter change (inductance) with respect to time, I would personally choose the equation above.

According to Steorn, nobody in the Open Source Community has successfuly replicated the Orbo Effect, while Ash is saying nobody on the internet has the specific value needed for the Orbo Effect, including Naudin.

Yes we are still here and working on it, when we get results we will post them , we have not been abducted by aliens, killed by MIB's or are wasting time making stupid posts like the mole trap FREAKS or Paul lowerence

We have re wound our coils to get the inductance needed for the E orbo effect, , time variant magnetic interactions have come a long way with Steorn, i say dont wait for our results with the E-orbo, i have seen enough from our Trustee to indicate their effect is REAL (solid state video). So go for it .

Our SS board has already been ordered and will be here soon, we spin our E-orbo this weekend, you need a certain mH and voltage current to get the orbo effect happening,it takes time.. Naudin and no one on the net has this needed value, its a specific number, i cant say any more. Or my ass gets beat.The reason for us taking so long was to learn this mH and voltage current to get the time variant field happening. The solid state board rectifies these learning curves. so when its here (we already ordered it) it will be instant, analog Dc in and measured through an analog meter into a resistive load (heat) . We are not giving up on LEARNING the E- orb , no way

Ill post when we have results my friend be patient cheers:
we do not sleep or waste time, you can ask the members of Steorn

Ash

If you have any better alternatives to what I'm saying, then the thread is all yours. I don't care what road we take as long as it takes us in the right direction. It's time for everyone to get serious about this. It doesn't matter who is right and wrong. What matters is to have a discussion which has the ability to obtain the desired results.

GB

[Armagdn03]

According to Steorn, nobody in the Open Source Community has successfuly replicated the Orbo Effect, while Ash is saying nobody on the internet has the specific value needed for the Orbo Effect, including Naudin.



If you have any better alternatives to what I'm saying, then the thread is all yours. I don't care what road we take as long as it takes us in the right direction. It's time for everyone to get serious about this. It doesn't matter who is right and wrong. What matters is to have a discussion which has the ability to obtain the desired results.

GB

I did not know about the specific effect. I also have not built the Orbo. That being said, I could be wrong. I have built quite a few devices now which operate on the change of parameter with respect to time principle, but perhaps this is something else.

However...There is a definite change with respect to time, which means that this is at least part of what is needed to model this interaction.

About the math behind dividing Henries by time constants. My issue is that the time constant is derived from the inductance value. As the inductance changes so do the time constants. You would have to keep a constant eye on the instantaneous rate of change of inductance to time constant, and
since L/R=t there is a proportional relationship, then the change would always be the same. So you would have different time constants all the way through the varying inductance cycle.

I don't see it yet, im not saying you are wrong...I just dont get it yet...

Either way, i like how you are attempting to apply Znidarsic's work in many places, keep it up. Dont let me or anybody else discourage you. Weather the abuse, lol.

[Armagdn03]

What do you think happens to the voltage in the inductor? The voltage in the inductor will fall approximately 37% of the initial voltage in a time equal to the TIME CONSTANT

P.S.

I believe that at one time constant current will be at 63% of its value dictated by ohms law, but voltage will be at 37% of its initial value meaning it lost 63 percent, where originally I believe you said it would have dropped 37% which is opposite. They are inverse relationships.

At initial switch open, voltage will be at 100%, after 5 time constants it will be reduced to 1% or less of what it once was.

[gravityblock]

P.S.

I believe that at one time constant current will be at 63% of its value dictated by ohms law, but voltage will be at 37% of its initial value meaning it lost 63 percent, where originally I believe you said it would have dropped 37% which is opposite. They are inverse relationships.

At initial switch open, voltage will be at 100%, after 5 time constants it will be reduced to 1% or less of what it once was.

How can the voltage lose 63 percent, when it only falls 37% of it's initial value? If the voltage will fall from 100v to 63v, meaning the voltage is at 37% of it's initial value, then it only dropped 37%, instead of losing 63% as you stated. The original statement I made is correct. The statement came directly from this a e-book, titled "Electronic Circuits: Fundamentals and Applications".

GB

[gravityblock]

I found a solution, but I accidently used 0.67 instead of 0.63. I'm now trying to retrace how I did it, LOL.

GB