top

Latest Forum clues from Sean (2006-12-12 Updates)

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | General Steorn Discussion    Page 1 of 1

Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:24 am PostPost subject: Latest Forum clues from Sean (26th Nov 2006)
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Thanks to Omege_1 for colecting all this info from the vast bowels of the Steorn Forum. Very Happy

******************************

All clues posted on or before date given.

[Added myself, (Source - NewEnergyTimes interview with Sean)] - Power output is 0.5 Watts per cubic centimeter.

Sep 27th 2006

1.We do not believe that JREF are qualified to make this judgement [i.e. if it really works as claimed]

2. We expect that the cost of the technology will be in line with existing options (i.e. a similar price to the battery and charger that would currently go with a laptop).

3. Our test systems are all physical, we also use simulation software (FEA)

4. In many ways our technology is like going up and down a hill (a magnet moves into a magnetic field and out of that field and in doing so gains energy)

5. It could have worked 25 or 100 years ago.

6. The technology does not use a magnetic shield.

7. Question: Is the patent for magnet shield relevant to your invention? Answer: No

8. I suspect that they[jury] will have it built by third parties

9. We had to break open the wind generators and started playing around with them, looking at, (amongst other things), the positioning of the magnets and testing the outputs – one of these configurations produced some strange results…

10. Certain configurations gave calculated results greater than 100% around a closed loop.

11. The technology has been reviewed and tested not only by universities but also third party engineering companies.

12. Academics with a specialty in Thermodynamics and Magnetics [tested it and reports were positive]

13. Sean visited Africa to identify a test site last week, perhaps to roll out a demo for free. [Not a tech clue but may have some importance here]

14. Several UK Unis have tested the technology.

15. Yes we use Flux3D - no Flux3D does not produce the same results.

16. The technology is at a prototype stage.

Sep 29th 2006

17.The core technology is the ability to construct certain magnetic fields (using permanent magnets)
18. When other magnetic materials travel around a closed trajectory within these fields a non-zero energy sum is achieved

19. For a fixed trajectory travel around a closed loop in one direction will gain energy and travel around the loop in the other direction will results in an energy loss.

20. The trajectories themselves may not be a simple circular loop, they can involve complex paths through the field

21. There is no degradation of the magnetic domains

22. There is no change in environmental energy

Oct 3rd 2006

23. The device is shielded from all sides to prevent interference from other magnetic fields.

24. The thing shown in sky news video is not the actual device. Its for testing purpose. The way it runs has nothing to do with actual operation of the device.

Oct 8th 2006

25. No [energy] source has been found.

26. When we are testing we are only interested in the energy changes due to magnetic interaction. Hence we compensate for friction, mechanical baselines etc. This allows us (in a test enviroment) to see the true effect of magnetic interaction only.

27. A dynamometer is NOT sufficient to test any claim of OU. A dynamometer will not measure changes in magnetic domains, will not measure ambient air temperature - they also tend to suffer high error rates due to the complex (i.e. non-torque) forces that the interaction of magnetic fields cause. A basic rule in testing OU claims is to (accurately) measure all the energies involved.

28. [Power produced, in Watts] depends on the specific configuration [of the device].

29. Signal/noise + uncertainty in their measurement systems is 2000%. The actual result to error ratio is a function of the specific test.

30. Different configurations get different results[OU numbers of 130%, 285%, and 400%]

31. There is a fixed loss and a fixed gain for a specific closed loop. For a closed loop, one direction around the loop will see a gain in energy and the travel in the reverse direction will see a net loss.

32. We had never connected the technology to a generator, i.e. we have not set it up to produce electrical power, just mechanical. Some may find this strange but you need to understand that the energy involved is mechanical.

33. As stated the technology does self sustain, and hence output is connected to input.

34. The OU is greater than friction losses.

35.[co-founder Mike Daly] came in and said: "We have a problem. We appear to be getting out more than we're putting in."

36. I genuinely believe that the energy is created.

37. I believe that CoE is flawed, but then I only believe what I can measure.

Oct 22nd 2006

38. The power output of one of the configurations is 550 BHP.

Nov 26th 2006

39. So again I need to restate that for a cycle there is a fixed loss (due to the interaction of the magnets) and a fixed gain(again due to the interaction of the magnets). There are other 'real world' losses, such as friction, storage of the excess energy (mechanical) and transfer of the stored energy to restart the cycle. So as such there is no amplification so your control theory equation does not apply.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=26253&Focus=661752#Comment_661752

40. note that this is not how the technology actually works but is good enough to deal with most questions.
If you where to consider that the technology was a simple rotating wheel, from 0 to 180 degrees the wheel loses 1J of energy and from 180 degrees to 360 degrees the wheel gains 3J of energy, and the wheel stops at 180 degrees. For this conceptual example we will need to consider that there is some energy reservoir that can be charged and discharged at 180 degrees.
So if you start at 180 degrees and move to 360 degrees you gain 3J, you stop and place the 3J gained in the energy reservoir.
You then need to deplete this reservoir by 1J to move from 0 to 180 degrees. So the net energy of the movement is +3, -1, i.e. a gain of 2J.
Each phase of the movement, will be a fixed time, so the device provides not just a fixed energy per cycle but also a fixed power output.
Remember that this is just a conceptual example.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=26222&Focus=658391#Comment_658391

41. No the point being that if you put 2J in you still only get 3J out, hence there is no possibility to cascade the technology as indicated by Dr. Mikes post.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=26222&Focus=658351#Comment_658351

42. If you take the 1J/3J example (and it is just an example). It is not the case that in this configuration that if you put 2J in you would get 6J out. Hence the technology is not an energy amplifier in that sence. The loss and gain are fixed absolute values for a specific configuration.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=26073&Focus=658292#Comment_658292

43. To save any confusion we are saying that our technology is in direct violation of the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. the technology can create or destroy energy.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=24191&Focus=652401#Comment_652401

44. a typical configuration will produce a net result of circa 300%, hence if 1J is ‘lost’ in a cycle then 3J would be gained. Friction is not significant
It is possible (but difficult) to build devices with motion in 1 plane, at the moment 2 planes are the simplest to build, but like all technologies this is under constant development.

45. Q: The intermittent move, stop and go, is that needed for degaussing any parts of the device?
A: No this is to allow transfer of energy from one plane to another.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22621&Focus=630632#Comment_630632

46. Most people would expect that an 'over unity machine' would continue to speed up constantly unless the load applied was equal to the excess energy per cycle. However this assumes that the operation does not involve a stop start type motion where in fact you will end up with a fixed cycle speed. So to put it as best I can right now, the cycle speed is a function of the configuration, size, etc, etc, but it is fixed when these variables are fixed.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=24723&Focus=579323#Comment_579323

47. The [off] switch at this time is a simple mechanical blocking device, under development of course
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22621&Focus=564891#Comment_564891

48. Over the years since finding OU we have obviously tried to find out the physical principle in operation, hence we looked at, built and tested pulse motors during this process.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22962&Focus=549571#Comment_549571

49. We do not use the Halback array in our technology.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22221&Focus=539552#Comment_539552

50. it[LEMA] is not part of the OU technology.

51. Q: Does the OU device that you have developed have limits in respect to its application, size and location?
A: No practical limits that we have yet identified.

52. A final note on LEMA. I do not think that you will get anywhere with LEMA for the reasons stated above. Our actual OU technology is all based around a physical principle that we have discovered, all tests over the years for OU or otherwise confirm the reality of this physical principle. There is nothing about LEMA that would harness this principle.

53. If you are interested in OU I would suggest building a test system and experimenting, i.e. start from the ground up.
No we are not taking the energy stored in the magnets.

54. Our technology is based upon a physical principle. I guess that the physical principle is so unexpected that no one has really looked. It would also require someone to have access to expensive test systems,

55. We use Flux3D from Cedrat (which will cost you circa 40k!). And no it does not predict what our technology does. However it is the differences between the simulated world and the real world experiments that allow you to explore and 'effect' in detail and hence begin to understand it.

http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22962

56. Our technology has been replicated in many different places.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22001&Focus=519023#Comment_519023

57. The 'device' is purely mechanical. It has a closed loop trajectory, part of the trajectory sees a gain of energy and part of the trajectory sees a loss in energy. The gain is greater than the loss (by varying amounts based upon the configuration
of the magnets and the trajectory). The trajectory is not a simple 360 degree rotation (for any particular magnetic configuration there are nearly an infinite number of closed trajectories that have this performance).
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22172&Focus=492081#Comment_492081

58. all the 'machines' operate at different levels of OU (based upon magnetic configuration). If you are looking for consistency with prototype technology across different sizes you will be disappointed.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=21663&Focus=472781#Comment_472781

59. We use the test systems to determine the optimum arrangement [of magnets] to go into devices. Hence once optimized via test they are the same.[the config in test system and actual device]
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=20821&Focus=444121#Comment_444121

60. The core teechnology does not use a shield. Encasing the technology in a shield is a different matter, this is to prevent the fields that the technology uses having any external impact.
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=18231&Focus=269632#Comment_269632
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:17 pm PostPost subject:
avid_engineer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Dorset, United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Good post, nice summary of info.

One thing which is still puzzling me about their rigs is how the arms work together. Sean keeps stating that arms transfer energy between one another. I assume this is so that each arm's 3J gain can overcome the 1J loss on its counterpart, hence producing the self sustaining machine whilst producing 2J excess per arm per full rotation.

But is this energy transfer mechanical, electrical or via magnetic interation. Looking at their test rigs i would completely rule out mechanical, say magnetic inetraction is unlikely due to separation distance, and land on electrical. However, this would mean using a small generator on each arm which collects charge into the 'energy reservoir' (battery) and powers a motor to overcome the 1J loss on the other arm. Makes sense, but Sean also keeps stating they have not attached the machine to a generator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:51 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

I was thinking their device has an axle running through it and that the first test arm is connected to one end of the axle and the second test arm is connected to the other end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:10 pm PostPost subject:
clovis ray20
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Location: oklahoma, usa

Reply with quote

a e
chould it be that after one arm moves 180 through the + cycle, the other arm is set at a point to push the 1st arm past the negative cycle to again move back through the +cycle again . or maybe a spring is used to get through the negative cycle . if both arms are on the same shaft. or both arms on separate shafts with spring on either one or both. but all this would come after the right magnet configuration was found for the arms .



_________________
if you want to feel rich, count up the things you own that money want buy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:21 pm PostPost subject:
avid_engineer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Dorset, United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Indeed, you may be right about using a spring as an energy reservoir. However, Sean seems to regularly make the point about energy transferrence from one test arm to the other. I just dont see how the system is doing that and i certainly can't see any mechanical linkage between the test arms on any of the pics so far.

Something else which occurred to me was about Sean's statement of getting energy unity on a single test arm. I would call 1J in and 3J out Over Unity, lol.

So you see i am still confuddled by this OU gizmo-ana-tron-ator-skidaddle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:30 pm PostPost subject:
avid_engineer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Dorset, United Kingdom

Reply with quote

I think i may have been confused by this comment from Sean, as posted above.

Quote:
If you where to consider that the technology was a simple rotating wheel, from 0 to 180 degrees the wheel loses 1J of energy and from 180 degrees to 360 degrees the wheel gains 3J of energy, and the wheel stops at 180 degrees. For this conceptual example we will need to consider that there is some energy reservoir that can be charged and discharged at 180 degrees.


This example uses a single arm (i gather), but is just that, an example. Is Sean saying that their whole test system reflects this example i.e. 1J in 3 J out?

The harder i try to understand this system the more questions i end up asking Confused

My point still stands, about the arm linkage though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:24 pm PostPost subject:
capeguy
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 54
Location: usa

Reply with quote

maybe the connecting arms have PM's placed on them to effecuate a turning in the other arm... this could be the loss cycle we hear about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:08 am PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

Here is another clue. From Sean McCarthy.

Folks,

To be clear about the technology. It can be considered as two seperate actions. Each action is perfectly viable within the known laws of physics. The sum of these two actions is the creation of energy. You could view it as a kind of logic trap for the current laws of physics. The bottom line is that it does what we say it does, the Jury will of course will confirm/deny this for everyone in time.

Thanks,

Sean
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:21 am PostPost subject:
drichardson
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 221

Reply with quote

Let's not forget:
Quote:

Yes magnet interactions can cause heat effects (google the magneto calarific effect). Now one LAST tech comment before my IP lawyers hang me. Imagine if you could walk a perm magnet around certain parts of it BH curve....

Sean
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:48 am PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

drichardson,

Yes, that is a very, very important clue.

I think we will have a lot more information to add to this list tomorrow.

These are exciting times!

If we do obtain enough information to build a Steorn device I hope Fizzx becomes the number one place (except for the Steorn forum of course) where such replications flourish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:52 am PostPost subject:
drichardson
Site Admin


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 221

Reply with quote

Quote:
Folks, lol - I have never seen such total misunderstanding of a simple (2 year old) device. We showed this short video clip for a reason, its simplicity. But like most things in life, show 10 people something and get ten different opions. Will post tomorrow, all give it a rest! Sean


Looks like we've got a 50% chance of something new to look at tomorrow.

@babcat

As for being the #1 place -- it would be nice for everyone except the poor guy paying for the bandwidth Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:56 am PostPost subject:
resonatrix
Newbie


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 9
Location: istanbul

Reply with quote

By mentioning walking a permanent magnet around certain parts of it's B-H curve, does Sean mean pushing a magnets field to it's limits by approaching another but strong magnet? We know that permanent magnets retain their field strength as long as they stay in the borders of the curve. Maybe by "squezzing" the field this way mechanical energy is extracted out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
 
Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:57 pm PostPost subject:
capeguy
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 54
Location: usa

Reply with quote

The basis of magnet design is the B-H curve, or hysteresis loop, which characterizes each magnet material. This curve describes the cycling of a magnet in a closed circuit as it is brought to saturation, demagnetized, saturated in the opposite direction, and then demagnetized again under the influence of an external magnetic field.

http://www.magnetsales.com/Design/DesignG_frames/frame_dgbod2.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:19 pm PostPost subject: Hi all
JayBird
Newbie


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 4

Reply with quote

JayBird here from the Steorn forum...I had forgotten ab out this forum...thanks to all that host/upkeep.

Looking forward to discussion. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:41 pm PostPost subject:
pinestone
Newbie


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Location: Pennsylvania USA

Reply with quote

capeguy wrote:
maybe the connecting arms have PM's placed on them to effecuate a turning in the other arm... this could be the loss cycle we hear about.


This was my interpretation, too.

I prefer to think of it as 'magnetic coupling'.


I wonder if there is a ferric metal that is somehow inserted between two magnets of un-equal strength.
The metal would act as some sort of 'buffer' and it's magnetic field would change according to which magnet was nearest to it at any given time.

A powdered ferric core would gain and lose it's field like Sean was talking about. Particle density affects the hysteresis of the ferrite.

There would be a certain amount of heat generated, too. (Sean discussed that, also)- I don't mean a higher temperature...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
 
Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:00 am PostPost subject:
spilafis
Newbie


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 5

Reply with quote

Looks like you may be getting somewhere..
_________________
spilafis
http://spilafis.com.ar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:12 pm PostPost subject:
spilafis
Newbie


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 5

Reply with quote

I had an idea..

Do you think this could work?

http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=34921&page=1#Comment_1088791

http://spilafis.com.ar/images/magnet_riel3.jpg

http://spilafis.com.ar/MagnetRiel.aspx

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72727909@N00/331993151/

Smile
_________________
spilafis
http://spilafis.com.ar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:28 pm PostPost subject:
buletov
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 15

Reply with quote

Here is a Q1 update video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3aaRrEIp-0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:32 pm PostPost subject:
Thicket
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 118

Reply with quote

Quite underwhelming. There are 22 Jury members instead of 12. Sean's hair is growing back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:20 pm PostPost subject:
buletov
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 15

Reply with quote

LOL, he looks like Rodney from the StarGate Atlantis...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | General Steorn Discussion
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum