>From Stephen: ...
> Sure, you can ruin magnets in a motor, but that's not at > all the same as *making* *use* of the magnetic field of the > magnets as it degrades -- i.e., loss of magnetization is always > just an artifact, never something vital to the motor's > operation. I'm a little confused here. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean when you use the term, magnetic "artifact", particularly why an "artifact" shouldn't be confused with PMs "making use" of the magnetic fields. For that matter, don't traditional electric motors "make use" of the PMs magnetic fields? As we all know, abusing PMs will eventually cause them to demagnetize. They can be abused by heating the alloy beyond the point where the internal structure is no longer able to maintain a cohesive magnetic alignment. PMs can also be demagnetized by repetitively forcing two like poles too close together. I would speculate that Steorn is probably going to claim something to the effect that they have overcome this particular magnetic "abuse" issue - in conjunction with also claiming to have allegedly ameliorated the counter electromotive forces. Obviously, maintaining magnet permanence within the PMs is very "vital" to the motor's health and well-being, as well as ultimately leading to their hotly contested claims of having achieved OU. > ... If the magnetic field of the permanent magnets is > being "used up", then replacing them with *better* magnets > which didn't degrade would destroy the motor's operation. I especially don't follow this logic, or where you're going with it as an explanation. I also don't understand what this conjecture allegedly proves. I thought the whole point of the controversial ORBO demonstration was to allegedly prove to a skeptical world that their PMs are not demagnetizing over repetitive use. So, what does the conjecture of "replacing" the PMs with better PMs that don't "degrade" have anything to do with ORBO's claims? > Certainly if a motor were demonstrated which genuinely converted > the field of the permanent magnets into kinetic energy, while > "draining" their magnetism, it would be nearly as remarkable as > a true OU motor. Why would this be such an extraordinary claim? Personal disclaimer: Just to be clear on my current position, even if STEORN proves that their ORBO PMs are not demagnetizing that does not (by itself) necessarily mean they have successfully proved OU. I suspect STEORN has much more proving to do before they can claim that prize. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
