The Steorn Orbo motor: Proving Overunity

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantumdarkness19, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    I would like for someone to meaningfully explain what it is that I'm seeing, because everything I know tells me that this is impossible.....and yet there it is. I may not be an engineer, but I'm sincerely learning. I may come off as a arguementative or a debator, but I've learned that "the purpose of debate is not win, but to educate".


    Introduction
    Orbo is an over-unity technology developed by Steorn. eOrbo is an electromagnetic rotary implementation of Orbo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In an eOrbo system over-unity is achieved by removing the back EMF traditionally associated with electric motors and causing an inductive gain in the electrical drive circuit. The combination of these features and the non-degradation of the component parts that make up an eOrbo system leads to over-unity.

    No Back Electromotive Force due to Rotor Motion
    In order to demonstrate the absence of back EMF in an eOrbo system, two sets of permanent magnets were affixed to a rotor. The sets of magnets were separated by a 180° interval.
    Two toroidal electromagnetic coils with soft ferromagnetic cores were fixed to the system. The two permanent magnets were positioned on the rotor so that they were symmetrically arranged with respect to the system's coils. Again, these electromagnetic coils were separated by a 180° interval.
    During one rotation of the system's rotor, under test operation, the electromagnetic coils were fired a total of four times at defined angular positions; twice when the permanent magnets were at their closest possible proximity (the "EM Firing Pulse"), and twice when the permanent magnets were furthest away from the electromagnetic coil (the "Control Pulse"). The angular position for the "Control Pulse" was 90° away from the "EM Firing Point". All pulses were fired for an approximate 20° interval.
    The configuration outlined above had an associated electrical system, which was independently powered. During test conditions, the system was allowed to get up to a steady state speed and a series of measurements were recorded on an oscilloscope. Measurements of voltage and current were taken in real time during the Orbo electromagnetic operation and all data was recorded on a Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope.

    Results of the Back Electromotive Force Tests
    Figure 1 shows voltage across the battery and current for one full revolution of the system.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 1: Voltage across the Battery and Current​

    An analysis of one Orbo electromagnetic pulse is undertaken by looking at the difference between the current shape of the "EM Firing Pulse" and the "Control Pulse" as presented in Figure 2 below. It can be seen that there was a difference between the two current measurements (the secondary axis on the chart) during rise and fall time only. No difference was observed when the current was constant. This shows that the system suffered no BEMF during the Orbo electromagnetic interaction.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 2: BEMF Analysis​

    Finite Element Simulations
    Finite element simulations of the eOrbo implementation confirm the lack of back EMF and the increase in kinetic energy of the system's rotor. The simulations are run in Flux3D from Cedrat.
    In Figure 3 below, we can see that the voltage across the coil is a flat line. This demonstrates that no BEMF was suffered in the system during the eOrbo electromagnetic interaction.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 3: Voltage across the Coils and Current​

    The torque profile for one eOrbo-based electromagnetic interaction demonstrates that the torque profile was not conservative in that the "up" torque had a greater magnitude than that of the "down" torque.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 4: Torque Profile​

    The consequence of the additive torque is that rotor of the system suffered an increase in kinetic energy having completed the interaction, as shown Figure 5.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 5: Kinetic Energy Profile​

    Inductive Gain
    Key to the operation of eOrbo is an inductive gain in the electrical drive circuit. This combined with the absence of Back EMF means that the electrical circuit returns more energy than the electrical energy placed into it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    Static Inductance Tests
    For this test, a Hameg LCR Meter and a Hameg Kelvin Probe were used to measure the inductance value in Henrys (H) of a toroidal coil with a soft ferromagnetic core.
    An inductance measurement of the toroid's coil was taken with the Kelvin Probe in an open circuit where there was no external magnetic field acting on the toroid coil or its soft ferromagnetic core; this was called Test 1. This test in fact measured the inductance of the coil at the end of Magnetic State Two.
    A second inductance measurement of the toroid's coil was taken with the Kelvin Probe in an open circuit where the two permanent magnets on the rotor were facing the coil. This test was entitled Test 2 and it measured the inductance of the coil at the beginning of Magnetic State One.

    Static Inductance Test LCR Meter Data
    Test 1 (w/o permanent magnet)
    LCR Reading (H): 307 mH

    Test 2 (with permanent magnet)
    LCR Reading (H): 173.2 mH

    As can be seen from the results, there was a net decrease in inductance when the two magnets on the rotor were facing the toroid. This is because the magnets saturated the toroid's core when they were in that position. This saturation resulted in a change in the core's magnetic permeability and, hence, a change in the inductance of the coil.
    The coil's inductance was lower at the beginning of Magnetic State Two than it was at the end of it. This resulted in an inductive gain throughout the interaction.

    Calorimetric Tests
    Calorimetric testing is perhaps the most conclusive test method available to determine the total energy of an interaction. Due to the use of pulsed power input and the physical size of an eOrbo system a bespoke calorimeter was commissioned and built to determine the overall energy picture of an eOrbo interaction. These calorimetric tests are detailed below.

    A "specific volume calorimetric" test was undertaken in a bespoke calorimeter. The test regime is considered to be "comparative based" as two specific test conditions were utilized, one being the full operation of an Orbo-based system where the energies were measured at the input point to the calorimeter. This test is called "Orbo Run". A comparative test was undertaken in which the same magnitude of energy was transferred into the calorimeter but the Orbo motor's rotor was prevented from rotating.

    The Apparatus
    The calorimeter is a specific volume calorimeter. For the purposes of measurement, a total of 32 k-type thermocouples were employed, 20 of which took internal measurements with the remaining taking external environmental measurements.
    The temperature variations of the thermocouples were recorded by a National Instruments Data Acquisition System for a defined period at a sample rate defined by the Operator. The thermocouple data was handled by a PC-based interface which was written in C in a Labview/CVI environment with National Instruments information.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    The Examined Electromagnetic System
    The system under examination was an Orbo-based electromagnetic system. The system had a total of four Orbo-based interactions per revolution under normal operation, i.e. four electromagnetic interactions where the rotor was rotating.
    The aforementioned electromagnetic system was independently powered by an externally located DC Laboratory Power Supply. The switching of the pulses, which was performed by means of an optical sensor, was also independently powered by a DC Laboratory Power Supply.
    For the purpose of this experiment, both of the power sources mentioned above were considered to be a complete measurement of the power. The power into the calorimeter was calculated by measuring the current and the voltage for both the Orbo-based system and the optical sensor. The measurements were recorded with a Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope, and as such, energy measurement was derived and maintained at a constant 3.8W.

    Cutaway Views and of the Specific Volume Space of the Calorimeter
    A cutaway schematic is presented in Figure 6 to illustrate an outline of the broad dimensions of the internal specific volume relative to the examined Orbo System.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 6: Cutaway Schematic of the Specific Volume Calorimeter​

    To correctly measure the heat evolved a series of thermocouples form part of the apparatus both externally and within the internal specific volume space, as per Figure 7 and Figure 8.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 7: Positions of the Twenty Internal Thermocouples

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 8: Positions of the Twelve External Thermocouples​
     
  8. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    Dimensions of the Calorimeter
    In this section the physical dimensions of the calorimeter are presented in millimeters.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 9: Front View Dimensions of the Calorimeter


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 10: Top View Dimensions of the Calorimeter​

    Operating Regime for the Comparative Calorimetric Experiments
    Two experiments were completed for the purpose of a comparative calorimetric experiment.
    In Test 1, called "Orbo Run", an operating Orbo motor was sealed within the calorimeter and the power was measured at the entry point to the calorimeter. The motor was allowed to operate for a given period with the thermocouple data recorded in real time.
    In Test 2, called "Control Run", the same operation was repeated with the only change being that the Orbo motor's rotor was prevented from rotating. The voltage and current were set up to be constant so that the energy inputted into the system was the same as it was in Test 1.
    Figure 11 shows a guideline to the test regime used for a comparative calorimetric experiment.

    Overview of the Two Test Regimes​
    Control Run
    Rotation of Rotor: No
    Power Maintained: 3.8W
    Period of Test (Seconds): 2000
    Sample Rate: 1 sample per second

    Orbo Run
    Rotation of Rotor: Yes
    Power Maintained: 3.8W
    Period of Test (Seconds): 2000
    Sample Rate: 1 sample per second


    Results of the Calorimetric Tests
    Figure 12 shows the internal temperature averages across all thermocouples for both the Control Run and the eOrbo Run.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 12: The Average Internal Temperatures​

    The power was input into the system at time zero. The Control Run and the eOrbo Run, were each carried out for slightly more than 30 minutes.
    As can be seen from Figure 12, it was clearly demonstrated that the eOrbo Run had a distinctly greater dissipation of heat than the Control Run even though the same amount of electrical power was inputted into both test runs.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2010
  9. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    This is the best explanation that I've been able to find out there about how their technology works. It does not explain how Orbo mechanically works, but it does explain the principle that Orbo exploits. Please feel free to leave a comment with corrections or just share your thoughts:

    The principle of conservation of energy (CoE) implies that it requires the same amount of work (that is, a transfer of the same amount of energy) to do something as it takes to undo it. Take for example a bouncing ball. The energy you put into lifting a ball up off the ground is stored in the ball as potential energy. When the ball is dropped, gravity pulls it downward, converting that potential energy into velocity. The energy in the balls's velocity when it hits the ground is exactly as much energy as you put into it by lifting it up (minus a bit lost to friction) -- so when it bounces back up, it will reach the same height from which it was dropped (well, just a bit lower, due to the energy lost to friction). The point is, exactly as much energy is released as was first received by the ball.

    CoE also implies "temporal invariance" -- that is to say, it doesn't matter how long a time the work takes, it'll still be the same amount of work. It takes as much energy to lift a ball from the ground to a particular height regardless of whether it's lifted over the course of a second or a minute. Either way it's received the same amount of potential energy, and will bounce back to the same height when dropped.

    But what if that last implication wasn't always true? What if the amount of time it took you to lift a ball three feet from the ground determined how much potential energy that ball received? If you take 5 seconds to lift the ball 3 feet, then you drop it, the ball will bounce back up a bit less than 3 feet. But if you lift it in just one second instead, then drop it, it bounces back 4 feet! In this case the ball received more potential energy from being lifted quickly than you put into lifting it. It isn't difficult to imagine how a machine could be set up to store that extra bit of energy in a spring or a battery, and use it to lift the ball quickly again. Yet more extra energy would come out of this second lifting, which can be used to lift it again, and so on. The result is a perpetually bouncing ball, with energy to spare.

    Of course, gravity and balls don't work that way. But -- says Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn -- magnets do. There is a little studied effect, discovered in the eighteen hundreds, called magnetic viscosity. Normally the term "viscosity" is used in reference to liquids. It is a measure of a liquid's resistance to deforming when under stress -- a liquid's "thickness". If you've ever dived into water from a great enough height, you've discovered that viscosity is temporally variant - it takes more energy to move through a viscous liquid quickly than slowly. Dive off a boat into the ocean and you'll feel it when you hit the water. Fall from a plane and hit the ocean much faster, and you might as well be hitting concrete. That's the temporal variance of viscosity.

    According to Sean, when two magnets are brought together, magnetic viscosity results in a similar temporal variance. As the two magnets come together (poles aligned so they repel one another), there is a small lag as the force between the magnets increases. The lag is on the scale of milliseconds, but it's there. And that means that it takes less energy to bring two magnets together quickly, not giving the lag enough time to catch up, than it does to bring them together slowly. So, bring together two magnets quickly, then let them repel more slowly, and they've put out more energy than you had to put in to get them together. As was the case with the magic bouncing ball, this effect can be exploited -- a mechanism could be set up to store the extra energy after each cycle and put it into the next cycle, and the magnets will continue "bouncing" in and out indefinitely, with extra energy to spare. That extra energy, then, can be output to an electric generator or to any other use... it's "free".

    Sean made another interesting claim. In the last few years physicists have discovered two anomalies in the way the universe works. Galaxies are spinning much faster than they should be according to the Newtonian laws of motion, and the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. These problems have so stumped scientists that they've posited two new concepts -- "dark matter" and "dark energy" -- as the explanation. For the math to work out, 96% of the universe would need to be made up of dark matter and dark energy; everything we understand in the universe takes up only the other 4%. This is established science. What Sean brings to this is the idea that, if temporal variance is taken into account, the anomalous effects can be precisely explained -- there's no more need for dark matter or dark energy. This is a bold claim about the nature of the universe, saying that it's not just Orbo that violates the law of conservation of energy - the very expansion of the universe does the same thing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  10. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
  11. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    Actually, I'm quite aware of their demonstration failure a FEW YEARS BACK. Unfortunately, you pointing this out doesn't at all address the SCIENCE behind why their technology does or doesn't work. What you're doing now is the academic equivalent of talking trash about how Michael Jordan was cut from the Varsity basketball team as a sophomore A FEW YEARS BEFORE he was named a McDonald's All-American and set the scoring record. I appreciate the comments...I really do, but please stick to the science. I've done my best to put out as much SCIENCE on what they claim as possible, but if they are to be disproven then let's do it THE RIGHT WAY.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2010
  12. Pinwheel Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,424
    This looks like quackery.
     
  13. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    Hmmmmm...an interesting and unique perspective that I haven't heard before. Explain. What do you mean by "quackery"? Why is it so?
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2010
  14. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    You possibly didn't read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn in which a panel (jury) of scientists selected by Steorn themselves determined the device did not work.

    I, and several others here, could walk you through all the steps involved in the physical principles this machine violates. I doubt it would be worth the effort, though, since you should already know them and have chosen to disregard them. Besides, it's not anyone's job to disprove their claim - it's up to *them* to prove it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Instead, why not ask yourself just one simple question: If this thing really works, why aren't they selling millions of them???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    I read that too and the source from where that entry comes from is out of an Irish Times article where it states:

    "Steorn organised a panel of 22 independent scientists and engineers from Europe and North America chaired by Ian MacDonald, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of Alberta. “The situation was we had engaged them in February 2007 and went through a process with them,” Mr McCarthy said. Two years have passed however and the jury clearly decided that enough was enough. It posted an announcement on its website http://stjury.ning.com that it was disbanding. “The unanimous verdict of the jury is that Steorn’s attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy,” it stated. “The jury is therefore ceasing work.”

    You point this out as if this is a secret and Steorn is trying to hide this from people, but if you took some time to look a little further into it....

    http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1151

    "Steorn today confirmed that the internet ‘blog’ stjury.ning.com had been posted on behalf of members of the Jury of scientists that Steorn had engaged to conduct an independent review of its Orbo Technology.

    In a statement, Steorn CEO, Sean McCarthy said that “he was grateful to the Jury members for the time and effort that they had devoted to the process.”

    McCarthy continued on to state that he “fully understood the frustration of the Jury members with respect to the time that the process was taking. Implementing Orbo in a reliable and consistent manner had remained a challenge for the organization, one that we had made no secret of. Due to these difficulties we had focused on providing the Jury with test data relating to the underlying magnetic effect behind Orbo(like the data in the beginning of this post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). This work concluded at the end of 2008.”

    McCarthy concluded by stating that “during 2009 the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year, at which time academic and engineering validation would be released concurrent with public demonstrations”."


    I could be wrong, but it appears that you haven't follow-up on what they have been doing since they made claims to have rectified their mechanical problems. But you can check out what the views of a few engineers about the Orbo technology since then by clicking the links below:

    Engineers' view of Steorn's Orbo technology
    Engineers talk about the Orbo Technology

    I would welcome for you or anyone to walk me through all of the steps involved in the physical principles that the machine violates. But I don't think that Steorn has been wrestling with. They are well aware of the laws of physics that their proposed technology is violating. From what my research has told me, they have attempted to label and identity where this anomalous "gain" is coming from....and they haven't been able to find it. McCarthy has said himself, and I quote, "If I'd be looking at this technology from the outside I'd be going, "Hocum! This is complete and utter rubbish! This is the most incontrovertible law of physics and if this was untrue then the universe wouldn't work." So I understand the skepticism, I would be very much and like everybody else." But to coin an old Sherlock Holmes adage, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". It's not really a question of whether or not it works......it works. But if you can explain to me where this "gain" is coming from, please be my guest. Oh....here's another video of a demonstration that they've had AFTER they fixed their mechanical problem. I hope it helps.....

    Steorn Orbo - Proving Overunity

    According to McCarthy, and I quote again:

    "My own background just to explain to you is providing technology into the UK Royal and gas industries. So I know the energy industry pretty well....We have no doubts that what we have can play a very significant role. However, there is one thing sitting in Dublin here with a claim on a technology that nobody believes. From the simple point, we're all believers up to the notch of pretty well qualified engineers. You know, we have very classical university training and we've worked months of our lives in a classical engineering and technology environment....So I understand it and an awful lot of what we're about is to try and at least erode people's disbelief. Because we can't make this a viable commercial technology without obviously people accepting that it's real....We do not see any one event that will convince everyone, however you also need to remember that customers for Orbo are product developers, and the emphasis for our launch efforts will be on getting as many product developers as possible engaged in the process of engineering Orbo into products that will then be made available to the general public....Typically if you believe this kind of stuff is possible you expect people to run off to the biggest company in the world and to do big fat licensing deal and retire off to the Maldives. We believe that there is a far more effective way to get it into market which is to release it to everybody in exactly the same way. Whether you are the biggest or the smallest company in the world you get access to it, and if you can go off and you can develop products to market fast, then you'll win, we'll win."
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  16. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Mods why has this thread not been moved to Pseudoscience where it belongs..
     
  17. quantumdarkness19 Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    Ah ha! A skeptic!!! Just the man I'm looking for. Now, at the risk of coming of as a pseudoskeptic, I'm sure that you're going to respond to this thread with some meaningful information to counter what I've posted.

    Let me just say for the record, I've been through every post on this subject on the site. I especially love the responses that were given on those past threads by Read-Only, Klippymitch & andbna a.k.a. Andrew.....their posts ROCK!!! But to honest, looking at the arguments the people for Steorn, free energy and the likes were making....they were totally weak. Now, I'm not proposing that my efforts will yield a different result at all. I'm just trying to represent my "client" to the best of my ability. Every idea deserves proper representation, whether it's fraudulent or not.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. spidergoat Speak of the Devil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,222
    Claims for perpetual motion are always inherently wrong, no further analysis is necessary.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,009
    If Steorn's engine worked, it would violate the first law of thermodynamics. No more needs to be said.

    Thread moved to pseudoscience.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    So he's claiming he's just putting together a few things from already known physics? Then his claims of free energy are false. He'd have to present entirely new models of those phenomena, not use ones already known because already known ones don't do as he claims. The small time variations mentioned don't continue indefinitely, the energy is taken from elsewhere in the system and is transmitted via the electromagnetic fields involved. Repeatedly moving magnets past one another can strengthen them (which takes energy) or weaken them (which gives energy), the energy isn't 'free', the system runs down eventually.

    Dark energy and dark matter are entirely different phenomena, with entirely different effects, entirely different evidence and entirely different properties. People who know nothing about them make the mistake of thinking that they are intimately linked because they are both 'dark' and make up a lot of the universe, but that's a layperson mistake. The claim of Sean thus reveals he's just throwing out buzzwords and 'in things' in physics to try to seem like he's onto something.

    Why do frauds heap lies upon lies? Surely minimising lies is the way you maximising the change of not being caught?! Hell, at least read the bloody Wiki pages on something before making press releases on them!
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    There's another tiny thing (the devil is *always in the small details) that's worth noting besides all the bad science and twisted jargon. And even common, relatively poorly educated folks should catch on to it.

    Just about everyone is familiar with battery-operated clocks that will easily run for months on a single AA battery cell.

    The Orbo motor is also a pretty small lightweight device, not considerably larger than those clock mechanisms. And it includes a D cell which is holds considerably more energy than that little AA cell. And that D cell alone is probably quite able to keep Orbo running for weeks before it's discharged.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. pedrosura Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Just a bunch of failed arm chair theorists

    It's very telling to see someone make a scientific argument to be countered by rubbish. Pseudoscience's argument is that because of Noether's theorem, energy is not conserved in the Orbo circuit because of the time invariance relative to it's magnetic configuration.
    The argument about a clock running for a few months on a AA battery is worthless and laughable. Was it running a 1300 rpm? How much heat did it generate. Was is the i^2r plot of the circuit .
    This reminds me of the "fake lunar landing experts that make assertions like "the flag would not be flapping in space"

    Address the physics he described otherwise "this violates the 2nd law of thermo" really? Of energy is not conserved te 2nd law is violated. Energy is not conserved in time invariant systems.

    So the argument you experts have to make is that the magnetic system is not time invariant. Looking forward to your proof. I guess that would require actual work and it's clear you armchairtheorists prefer to stay in your chair. Never mind. Well go ahead and respond with more unscientific arguments.
    Looking forward to it...
     
  23. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Oh no it doesn't. That's why there's so many infomercials everywhere I look on TV. They claim their products are going to do things that they really can't very well if at all, then after a short while they break down and the company has long since gone bankrupt so you can't get your money back.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page