Steorn Effect Successfully Reversed Engineered!

[gravityblock]

Solution Found?

V = 12
I = 2A
R = 6ohms
L = 0.96153846153846153846153846153846 H

1 TC = 0.16025641025641025641025641025633 (L/R)
V / L = 12.48 (constant rate of change of current)

1 TC * V / L = 1.999999999A

Here's how it works. At switch on, the battery will deliver a maximum current of 2 amps. It will reach 1.26A (63% increase) in a time of 0.16 for 1 TC. Switch is closed after 1 TC. A constant change in current of 12.48 for a time of 0.16 = 1.9999A. How can we have nearly 2 amps of current after 1 TC, when we only delivered 1.26 amps during the 1 TC? What am I doing wrong?

As a side note: I * 0.632120559 = 1.264241118 <---- I used .67 by accident without the extra precision in decimal digits and got 1.34 instead of the correct value of 1.264241118. This means L is close, but not the exact value needed. Regardless, we have a gain if the math and logic is right. Still trying to trace my steps in how the inductance was calculated in order to have the exact value, lol. Maybe I need some rest.

GB

[Armagdn03]

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

Good reference!

I believe however that it agrees with what I had said. Notice on the first graph current vs time, the current is at zero. The voltage at this point is 100 percent. After one time constant, the current raises to 63% of its maximum potential. At the same time the voltage (second graph) drops to 37% of its maximum (which was 100 at the start) meaning it has lost 63%

After one time constant, current up to 63% of max, voltage down 63% from max. Inverses.

[Armagdn03]

V = 12
I = 2A
R = 6ohms
L = 0.96153846153846153846153846153846 H

1 TC = 0.16025641025641025641025641025633 (L/R)
V / L = 12.48 (constant rate of change of current)

1 TC * V / L = 1.999999999A

Here's how it works. At switch on, the battery will deliver a maximum current of 2 amps. It will reach 1.26A (63% increase) in a time of 0.16 for 1 TC. Switch is closed after 1 TC. A constant change in current of 12.48 for a time of 0.16 = 1.9999A. How can we have nearly 2 amps of current after 1 TC, when we only delivered 1.26 amps during the 1 TC? What am I doing wrong?

As a side note: I * 0.632120559 = 1.264241118 <---- I used .67 by accident without the extra precision in decimal digits and got 1.34 instead of the correct value of 1.264241118. This means L is close, but not the exact value needed. Regardless, we have a gain if the math and logic is right. Still trying to trace my steps in how the inductance was calculated, lol.

GB

let me rework the problem


V = 12
R = 6ohms
ohms law says max I will be = 2 amps
L = 0.96153846153846153846153846153846 H

1 TC = 0.16025641025641025641025641025633 (L/R)

So starting conditions

voltage = 12
Current = 0

Now 0.16 seconds pass, our current will rise by 63% and our voltage will drop to 37% of its initial value.

Voltage =12*.37= 4.44
Current =2*.63= 1.26
(Voltage will get closer to zero as current gets closer to as current gets closer to 2 amperes. In the first time constant current is most of the way to its max, while voltage is most of the way to zero.)
For the succeeding time constants you do the same thing.

[gravityblock]

let me rework the problem


V = 12
R = 6ohms
ohms law says max I will be = 2 amps
L = 0.96153846153846153846153846153846 H

1 TC = 0.16025641025641025641025641025633 (L/R)

So starting conditions

voltage = 12
Current = 0

Now 0.16 seconds pass, our current will rise by 63% and our voltage will drop to 37% of its initial value.

Voltage =12*.37= 4.44
Current =2*.63= 1.26
(Voltage will get closer to zero as current gets closer to as current gets closer to 2 amperes. In the first time constant current is most of the way to its max, while voltage is most of the way to zero.)
For the succeeding time constants you do the same thing.

I see my mistake. Thanks.

GB

[broli]

GB it's because you used a constant rate of current change combined with a time constant which is linked to resistance. In a theoretical zero resistive conductor the current will indeed rise indefinitely at the constant rate you have. But when you deal with resistance the current can only reach the maximum that your resistance allows, the current will do this in an exponential matter.

When you have zero resistance there's no TC concept since the current can rise linearly in time indefinitely.

[gravityblock]

let me rework the problem


V = 12
R = 6ohms
ohms law says max I will be = 2 amps
L = 0.96153846153846153846153846153846 H

1 TC = 0.16025641025641025641025641025633 (L/R)

So starting conditions

voltage = 12
Current = 0

Now 0.16 seconds pass, our current will rise by 63% and our voltage will drop to 37% of its initial value.

Voltage =12*.37= 4.44
Current =2*.63= 1.26
(Voltage will get closer to zero as current gets closer to as current gets closer to 2 amperes. In the first time constant current is most of the way to its max, while voltage is most of the way to zero.)
For the succeeding time constants you do the same thing.

Wait. Something isn't clear to me. The time constant of an inductance L and a resistance R is equal to L / R, and represents the time to change the current in the inductance from zero to E / R at a constant rate of change of current E / L (which produces an induced voltage E across the inductance).

E / R = 2 <------ We don't use the 4.44V here, so why should we use the
E / L = <------ 4.44V here to calculate the constant rate of change of the current?

The constant rate of change of current E / L represents the time to change the current in the inductance from zero to E / R or 2 amps in this case at a constant rate of change of current 12 / 0.961 = 12.48. 12.48 * 0.16 seconds = 1.99 or 2amps if allowed to round up, even though we only put 1.26amps during the 1 TC. It doesn't say the constant rate of change of current in the inductance from zero to 63% of E /R. It just says from zero to E/R.

Scroll down to "Inductance and Resistance" on this page for the above reference.

GB

[gravityblock]

GB it's because you used a constant rate of current change combined with a time constant which is linked to resistance. In a theoretical zero resistive conductor the current will indeed rise indefinitely at the constant rate you have. But when you deal with resistance the current can only reach the maximum that your resistance allows, the current will do this in an exponential matter.

When you have zero resistance there's no TC concept since the current can rise linearly in time indefinitely.

In my example, the current never exceeded the maximum that the resistance allows. It reached the maximum of 2 amps in 0.16 seconds that the resistance allowed. The current shouldn't have went above 1.26A in 0.16seconds, but it did. It went to the 2 amps that the resistance allowed. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly.

GB

[broli]

In my example, the current did reach the maximum that the resistance allowed. It reached the maximum of 2 amps in 0.16 seconds that the resistance would allow. The current shouldn't have went above 1.26A in 0.16seconds, but it did. It went to the 2 amps that the resistance allowed. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly.

GB

GB it's because you mixed two setups/equations. You used a time constant value with an linear equation which doesn't relate to it at all.



The time constant has no meaning when using it in the linear case where resistance is 0. As you see in the image, the same time gives different current values because they are different equations.

[gravityblock]

GB it's because you mixed two setups/equations. You used a time constant value with an linear equation which doesn't relate to it at all.

Since the time constant value is linked to the inductance, then how can the time constant value really be constant when its linked to a changing inductance, because the inductance is changing due to the passing rotor magnet? Does this mean the TC value is meaningless? If so, then what should we use?

GB

[Armagdn03]

How can the time constant value really be constant, when the inductance is changing due to the passing rotor magnet? Does this mean the TC value is meaningless? If so, then what should we use?

GB

Its not meaningless it just has to be used in the context from which it was derived, and that is induction as a non varying constant. It explains how inductors behave with a fixed inductance, If the inductance varies, you have thrown another element into the equation, and that is the parametric equation I gave you before.

I don't know what they(Orbo) have, but ill say this from what I know. If Naudin is right, then a person would want to charge at a low inductance (which charges quickly because of a low time constant) Then parametrically (parameter change) the inductance to a higher value to increase its energy state. This is the inverse of what I describe on my thread "Charge Conserving Capacitive Spring" where we charge a capacitor, decrease its capacitance, and increase its energy state.

However, is still more complicated than it needs to be. A person does not have to charge an inductor the magnetic field of an electromagnet....it could be from a permanent one, Jim Murray alluded to this, and his invention the "alternator having improved efficiency" could be altered to this scheme.

Actually this just gave me an insane idea....gotta run...

[gravityblock]

Anyways, the inductance of 0.96153846153846153846153846153846H was calculated just from the voltage, current, and resistance values. Do you think that is important? I haven't been able to re-trace my steps. I'll keep trying.

GB

[gravityblock]

Deleted.

GB

[sebosfato]

I'm trying to understand what you are saying man, however i think is not very related with steorn effect.

I strongly believe that their motor is base on those perpetual motion toys.

Witch are made of one coil and a core and magnet, when the magnet get close to the coil it is accelerated by the attraction than the coil is made to reverse its magnetism repeling the magnet using partially the energy gained by the acceleration and a bit of input energy, probably by shorting the coil at proper time.

I think that it should be shorted with the right resistance across it to accomplish the time of inhibiting the attraction just after the magnet has passed the coil.

The fact is that in contrary to the toys steorn than push the thing to high rpm where they can show some gain as the gain will come every cycle. And than they use a generator in sync using the same principle.

I never tried to do this however for me is very clear.

The reason for having no bemf to the control pulse relies in the fact that the core is already magnetized and the input pulse come in synch with the short of the coil kind of having the core already saturated and with some energy stored, you just reverse the pulse.

If you connect the positive of your pulsing circuit to the negative of a battery you would not have a rise time, would be like a fast short. Just like the wave they show.

I pretty sure of that.

On the toys normally they use a feedback coil (harder), steorn uses optic sensors easy and more precise...

[sebosfato]

You must mind the mechanism.

You have an input of energy, every time the magnet approach the coil. You just need to manage to use this energy plus a small electrical energy to than cancel the attraction and let the thing spin.

This agree with their claim.

i don't think you need a magic number. You need to equilibrate the magnet and the coil... probably the right coil for a giving core and a right distance of the magnet, and the right resistance to discharge the coil.

This resistance can be a load in my point of view. Said this the right load than.

Think about this.

To have the proper coil around the core to be able to reverse its magnetism using the gained energy for cancel the attraction.

I proposed this long time ago and i'm sure anyone understood or tried.

I think we should calculate the resistance for the discharge considering also the rpm so as the sizes of the wheel the, magnets the coil, distances... So as to cancel the magnetic attraction for the needed specific time.

So i'm saying the resistance would need to vary according to the rpm.

Steorn use a variable resistor. Guess why...

[sebosfato]

Oh maybe another coil would also help there together for an isolated control pulse.