Toroidal Stator Pulse Motor by Steorn

[snowball]

Howdy Folks,

 

The following is a very weird video.

 

It is showing the impossible.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5nae_I_Mus

 

Some folks on the internet are replicating it.

 

Have any of you heard of a motor that uses toroids as stators?

[DJBruce]

Steorn has made claims of perpetual motion before, and they have all virtually been refuted by the scientific community. This topic has been discussed here a few times.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40133&highlight=Steorn

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47146&highlight=Steorn

 

Also an independent jury of scientists stated that ORBO is a fraud. For a little commentary about the company read the Wiki.

 

 

Thanks to Cap'n Refsmmat and Fuzzwood for pointing this out.

Edited December 30, 2009 by DJBruce
Add Wiki Link and Fixed Spelling

[snowball]

It's still interesting they are generating torque while apparently not experiencing CEMF. Their motor must be novel in some way, because the current and voltage trace are not changing regardless of the speed of their system. I did some experiments the other night and the voltage/current of a system does indeed change as it speeds up or slows down under load. I do not understand why the Steorn system is not doing this.

 

I

[insane_alien]

because they are lying. it really is quite simple. steorn do not have a reputation of being honest.

[John Cuthber]

It's still interesting they are generating torque while apparently not experiencing CEMF. Their motor must be novel in some way, because the current and voltage trace are not changing regardless of the speed of their system. I did some experiments the other night and the voltage/current of a system does indeed change as it speeds up or slows down under load. I do not understand why the Steorn system is not doing this.

 

I

 

Well, it could be straigtforward fraud but I think it's because they have made a motor that is so inefficient that practically all the voltage fed to it is being wasted as heat in the windings. By comparison the back emf (whic is never going to be big with such a slow motor) just doesn't show up.

 

If you make a bad enough motor you can repeat this experiment.

 

Incidentally their youtube video includes the observation that their "toroidal" windings give an external field- they shoudn't, so all they have done is prove that they cannot even wind a coil properly.

[nicke]

Hello John.

 

Actually their proof of concept is quite efficient. The working principles are far afield from most electric motors.

 

It is true that the windings, like all windings, experience Joule heating.

 

However, when building one you do take this into account.

 

I am interested in discussing the various energies involved: electrical input, RKE, Joule heating, electrical output, and inductance.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's still interesting they are generating torque while apparently not experiencing CEMF. Their motor must be novel in some way, because the current and voltage trace are not changing regardless of the speed of their system. I did some experiments the other night and the voltage/current of a system does indeed change as it speeds up or slows down under load. I do not understand why the Steorn system is not doing this.

 

I

 

It is because there are aspects of the design which are not apparent in the exploded view and in the videos.

 

These aspects are discussed in great detail in Steorn's private forum.

 

Your embodiment is lacking these aspects.

 

I know this because I am a member of the SKDB.

 

I can discuss issues related to energy auditing of the machines, if you are interested.

[npts2020]

nicke; I for one would be very interested in the aspects of design that are not apparent in the exploded view or video. I had always thought that the purpose of showing an exploded view was to make the entire mechanism visible.

[Sisyphus]

Actually their proof of concept is quite efficient.

 

If it's not >100% efficiency, then it's not a proof of concept. I would call it a failed attempt at a proof of concept, if I was being charitable.

[nicke]

nicke; I for one would be very interested in the aspects of design that are not apparent in the exploded view or video. I had always thought that the purpose of showing an exploded view was to make the entire mechanism visible.

 

The mechanism is entirely visible in the sense of exposure.

 

But the fine detail of the parts, their specifications, is not laid out.

 

They will show live testing which will clear up some things.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If it's not >100% efficiency, then it's not a proof of concept. I would call it a failed attempt at a proof of concept, if I was being charitable.

 

Your comments are premature.

 

An analysis of all the energies involved is necessary to give an informed opinion. This requires a level of detail not yet shared - masses, resistances, materials.

 

However. They will show more live testing soon.

[insane_alien]

their 'live testing' has never actually made anything clearer, only shown that they're so full of crap farmers keep trying to buy fertiliser off them.

 

seriously, they keep claiming to have built devices that contradict the laws of physics and then never put up any evidence.

 

if ANY of their 'inventions' done what they claimed they'd be trillionaire, have multiple nobel prizes, achieve world fame and adoration, save the planet from global warming etc etc.

 

but no, none of this has even remotely happened. and it would make no business sense to withold the information about it. you'd need to get patents, submit papers to journals, make lisencing deals, proposals to world leadership for its use in grid infrastructure etc.

 

they haven't done that.

 

they're talking out of a non-oral orifice.

[John Cuthber]

It would, if anyone cared, be perfectly simple to check on whether it produces a back emf. Don't connect it to a battery, just hook it up to a voltmeter (that osciloscope would do nicely) and then trun it by hand.

If you get anything on the 'scope then it's a back emf and the claims are false.

 

Anybody care to run a sweepstake on how long it takes Steorn to run this test?

Can I bid on "never"?

[Sisyphus]

 

Your comments are premature.

 

An analysis of all the energies involved is necessary to give an informed opinion. This requires a level of detail not yet shared - masses, resistances, materials.

 

However. They will show more live testing soon.

 

So they've demonstrated >100% efficiency? No? Then it isn't a proof of concept. How is that "premature?"

 

Incidentally, they claimed to have a working model years ago, remember? And everyone who examined it said it was a fraud. Yet they keep dragging their feet, hoping to scam a few more gullible investors, always insisting the "proof" is right around the corner.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Sisyphus

[Pantaz]

It's still interesting they are generating torque while apparently not experiencing CEMF. ...

 

Incorrect. Sean McCarthy (CEO of Steorn) has publicly stated that their latest demo did NOT show zero CEMF:

 

From Comments @ Orbette C31

SteornOfficial (9 hours ago)

@TinselKoala

 

OK - just watch 18 - again all that I can say is that you have CEMF. I accept that our first experiment did not prove no CEMF - but thats why we are redoing it (plus other tests). I have no problem with you (or anyone else) trying to replicate our tests to disprove - the point that I make is that this is not a replication. Anyway, as I said not a lot that can really be debated in this format.

 

Sean

 

Long-time Steorn skeptic Alsetalokin (as he is known on their forum) has been conducting independent experiments that very closely replicate Steorn's public demonstrations. He has a large number of videos on YouTube (under the name "TinselKoala") showing these experiments, beginning with:

 

Steorn Rebuttal 1

 

His latest work is a more detailed series of experiments (34 videos), beginning with:

Orbette 1: Layout, scope interpretation, RPM fluctuation

[snowball]

These folks from Steorn have posted an a video of an additional set of experiments.

 

Steorn's Orbo Electromagnetic Interaction COP is greater than 1. Part 1 of 5

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzcZDr1AcEU

 

They seem to show again that their system does not experience CEMF and their system is overunity.

[insane_alien]

they still have zero credibility though. and videos are easily faked and steorn has a history of faking it.

 

we're going to need more evidence than a video from them.

[snowball]

Steorn just provided more evidence of their claims.

 

They held their final demo and presented some very interesting experiments.

 

Steorn Orbo - Proving Overunity 1/2

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Q3Klq5dxM

 

Steorn Orbo - Proving Overunity 2/2

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7i7P63IByY

 

It's neat how they can move the pick up coil closer or further away without causing the current trace to change. Also, I think it's compelling that the neodymium magnets in their system only contained 2J of energy, but their system "created" many thousands of joules!

[Sisyphus]

Output>Input? No? Well that's all that matters. Disconnect the battery, and let it power the lights in the building.