On 01/12/2010 02:44 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: >>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?
OK, this really is confusing. (The problem is not in your set.) Steorn is throwing dust in the air here, and it's probably important to understand the nature of the dust. There have been alleged magmos in the past about which some people said or speculated that they were "using up" the magnetization in the permanent magnets, and that *that* was the source of the energy. There was a hoax that was mentioned a few months back about which this was claimed -- wish I could recall the details. (I can say with confidence it was a hoax because the perp, who earlier had claimed to be needing to re-magnetize the magnets every few hours during operation, admitted it was a hoax, or so I recall. Again, wish I could also recall names and dates and stuff.) Now, it seems that Steorn, on the screen in the aforementioned screen shot, said, > "However certain components (such as the magnets used) > store energy, to prove over unity we must prove that the > energy of these components does not degrade during the > interaction." They are, in effect, saying they *COULD* be "using up" the energy stored in the permanent magnets in order to drive their motor. And now, they will go ahead and show that this is not the case. The thing I'm trying to point out is that they are proposing an *impossible* mechanism, and then going about showing that it isn't the thing driving the motor. This demonstration is just a show; the magician has said "I will now show you that there are no holes in the sides of the box" in order to impress you with his honesty, when holes in the sides of the box wouldn't be sufficient to get his assistant out of the box in any case. The thing which I am trying to point out about this statement by Steorn is that it appears to be 100% misdirection. A demo which proves something which we all knew to begin with isn't doing anything to elucidate the operation of the motor, and all the while it's directing attention away from the main issue, which is that they have not made a really thorough search for the back EMF. So what are they setting up this straw man for? An obvious guess is they're doing it *exactly* to get everybody's minds off of that back EMF and the claims by skeptics that Sean really didn't look very hard before he declared it "totally missing"! [And by the way I'd still love to see a sketch of the field of the toroidal magnetic cores, if anyone happens to have a link to one (don't spend a lot of your time searching the Steorn site for a diagram, tho, please, just to save me the time to do that, wouldn't be fair).] > 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 >
