On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:27 AM, <jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> wrote: > On 11/13/2011 2:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> I have a print-out of Steorn's report dated Oct. 31, 2008. At the moment >> I can't locate the pdf file, but I downloaded it from their website two or >> three years ago, and the name Mr. Rice does not appear in this report. The >> title is _Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic Systems_. It includes ten >> diagrams and five graphs and describes four experimental configurations: >> 1) symmetric and linear MH >> 2) asymmetric and linear MH >> 3) symmetric and non-linear MH >> 4) asymmetric and non-lnear MH >> Only the last configuration showed an anomaly. Dr. Quack Pot's analsysis >> seems to discount the symmetric/asymmetric parameters since they aren't >> mentioned in your summary. >> > This is not the report that QuackPot discussed. I gave the link to that > one in my original email. It is still there. You could have simply > clicked on it and downloaded it. Here are the links in full rather than > hidden as an underlined word: > http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/**9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_** > Bombshell_Documents_**Validating_Orbo/<http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/> > And the paper in question is to be found at: > http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/jm-rice-report-28april-**2008.pdf<http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf> > > If you look at this second link and chop the file name from it: > http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/ <http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/> > then you will find a short list of papers that Steorn have released. The > one you are talking about I believe is this one: > http://www.steorn.com/orbo/**papers/asymmetry-and-energy-** > in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.**pdf<http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.pdf> > > In this paper the anonymous writer has been very careful not to specify > whether the "net energy result" that was obtained in your fourth case > (asymmetric and non-lnear MH) was a net energy gain or a net energy loss. > Isn't that remarkable? The very thing that any reader would want to know, > indeed the only question of significant (billion dollar) interest, and they > are very careful with their wording not to give the game away! Moreover > they do not include enough information in the paper for an intelligent > reader to be able to work it out (Unlike Rice's report for which is easy to > determine that it is an energy loss). There is no mention (that I can find > with a superficial reading) in this paper of any difference in rotating the > armature in one direction compared to the other. There is also a very > careful and complete replication of this configuration - with no suggestion > of any energy gain ever to be had - by CLaNZeR at: > http://www.overunity.org.uk/**showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-** > Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-**setup<http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-setup> > Actually it is obvious from the "net energy result" obtained of 0.564 mJ > per revolution that if it was an energy gain then CLaNZeR's little armature > with its low bearing losses should have self run and spun its head off > without any effort. > > Quackpot (as did I) pointed out that it is most likely the sudden field > reversal in close proximity of a conducting surface that produces the > energy loss, and this only happens in certain situations. In Steorn's case > they noticed that this situation was brought about by means of an > "asymmetric and non-linear MH" arrangement. > > Sorry I have tried to read the Rice paper by opening it my browser but it only displays the first few pages. When I dowload it and try to open it all I get is an error message.
I was eagerly following clanzer's replication of Steorn's PM orbo but he got distracted by other work and never posted any decisive results as you can see on the last page of the discussion @ the link you provided. It is true that the PM orbo was not affected by the direction of rotation. I recalled incorrecly that the direction of rotation claim applied only to the eOrbo. Harry
