Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
On 01/14/2010 11:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 4:10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn motor. Granted, Sean's 300% OU would lead to this conclusion. However, his fundamental, most basic claim is that the motor has no back EMF, and consequently *all* input energy appears as heat in the coils. If that were true, then the motor would be OU if it did any mechanical work at all, no matter how small the amount. The OU thing here, however, is not mechanical_work/input_energy, but rather (mechanical_work + heat_in_coils)/input_energy To determine if this is actually OU it would be necessary to stuff the whole thing into a calorimeter, which is, I think, the test the firm in Germany is supposed to perform. If it could be shown that the motor was, indeed, OU by this test, it might still be the case that (mechanical_work/input_energy)1, which would make it impossible to either close the loop or even get any useful work out of it, *but* it would still be an incredible, amazing, remarkable, stunning achievement (or a measurement error, of course). The purpose of a _motor_ is to convert electromagnetic energy into useful motion. The purpose of the orbo is to turn electromagnetic energy and motion into heat. Therefore it is misleading to call it a motor. If the orbo can produce more output heat energy than it uses in input energy then it is similar to the purpose of a _reactor_. Yes, precisely! That's exactly what they seem to be claiming.
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
you could also call it an engine, could you not? On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 4:10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn motor. Granted, Sean's 300% OU would lead to this conclusion. However, his fundamental, most basic claim is that the motor has no back EMF, and consequently *all* input energy appears as heat in the coils. If that were true, then the motor would be OU if it did any mechanical work at all, no matter how small the amount. The OU thing here, however, is not mechanical_work/input_energy, but rather (mechanical_work + heat_in_coils)/input_energy To determine if this is actually OU it would be necessary to stuff the whole thing into a calorimeter, which is, I think, the test the firm in Germany is supposed to perform. If it could be shown that the motor was, indeed, OU by this test, it might still be the case that (mechanical_work/input_energy)1, which would make it impossible to either close the loop or even get any useful work out of it, *but* it would still be an incredible, amazing, remarkable, stunning achievement (or a measurement error, of course). The purpose of a _motor_ is to convert electromagnetic energy into useful motion. The purpose of the orbo is to turn electromagnetic energy and motion into heat. Therefore it is misleading to call it a motor. If the orbo can produce more output heat energy than it uses in input energy then it is similar to the purpose of a _reactor_. Harry __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
Alexander Hollins wrote: you could also call it an engine, could you not? I think an engine is something that produces mechanical force. But anyway, if the thing produces more heat plus movement than the input electricity, and if the output to input ratio can be improved, it could be converted into some sort of heat engine. If it is actually over-unity, no one will quibble with the details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
Yeah, sorry, I meant generator (smacks self) A motor produces movement to an object (not just electrical energy as stated earlier. A rocket using solid chemicals to fly is just as much as motor. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alexander Hollins wrote: you could also call it an engine, could you not? I think an engine is something that produces mechanical force. But anyway, if the thing produces more heat plus movement than the input electricity, and if the output to input ratio can be improved, it could be converted into some sort of heat engine. If it is actually over-unity, no one will quibble with the details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
It's a breath mint. It's a candy mint. No it's two mints in one. Silly me, bloody thing looks like a motor. I'll just call it a spinny thing. Well I see that in the thread Unity some nice old lady has explained, with the help of her son, how to do calorimetry on the spinny thing. ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
Its a condom, its a mint, is a condomint. does it go well on hot dogs? /sorry, channeling robin williams there for a minute. ) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It's a breath mint. It's a candy mint. No it's two mints in one. Silly me, bloody thing looks like a motor. I'll just call it a spinny thing. Well I see that in the thread Unity some nice old lady has explained, with the help of her son, how to do calorimetry on the spinny thing. ;-) T
