Technical opinions of ORBO?

[BEP]

My opinion is he may have something. I don't see Lenz is a major factor. More he may be nulling the attraction of the magnets to the toroid core at the point where the magnets leave the core area. Unlike opinions of the toroidal core seen on OU, I think that core is probably transformer metal band as found in current transformers. This would allow for a very short hysteresis.

I could care less about his past claims and failures. The truth is, I think it should work but as all my past experience dictates, it will fail after an unknown time for unknown reasons as my past experiments have.

[poynt99]

Hi BEP.

I've not been following the buzz on this.

I watched the video at Steron.com., and I must say I am dumbfounded as to what the excitement is about. I may have missed something, but I think TK has pointed out well enough in his rebuttal videos that the scope traces don't prove a "no bemf" condition at all.

I am not an expert on motors, but it seems to me this is not the proper testing to prove his claim.

.99

[BEP]

I'm still trying to decide 'what claim'.

So far, all positive and negative ideas about the Orbo seem off base. I haven't seen TK's work on this. I must admit he is a master at building a replication to disprove something without actually replicating the main functions.

I still wonder if he ever figured the difference between copper and aluminum. It seemed he dropped off the map when he finally understood a falling magnet will orient itself with the Earth's magnetic field, even without sliding down aluminum or copper plate.

[poynt99]

I'm still trying to decide 'what claim'.

Exactly!

.99

[BEP]

BTW:

Even though I find faults in TK's work (not many on the technical side), I do like to hear his opinion.

Do you have any links to his work bashing the Orbo? I can imagine that childish giggle like when the magnet tried to lift during the fall being heard on a review of the Orbo 

[poynt99]

Sure BEP:

.99

[BEP]

Thanks for the link!

Did he say "all pulse motors of this type exhibit the same" non-changing current and voltage during a load?
Wow. Someone who has seen 'all' types of something.

My opinion is TK displayed a motor unrelated to the Orbo, except that it is also has perpendicular and loose coupling between rotor and stator.

Fine work, never the less.

[Allcanadian]

@BEP

Did he say "all pulse motors of this type exhibit the same" non-changing current and voltage during a load?
Wow. Someone who has seen 'all' types of something.

I think you summed that up pretty well, the Orbo device proves very little if nothing. If the device ran for a month it would only prove that it is very efficient at running itself and nothing more as there is no external load. I would also agree TK is very good at not replicating devices, I'm really not sure what he is trying to prove. All his video's show similar devices which are so far removed from the ones he is critiquing that they mean absolutely nothing.
Regards
AC

[MileHigh]

Well I just got up to speed on Steorn, and watched TK's videos.  I will comment later, too tired right now.  Suffice to say I don't see anything special.  TK's videos were good and applicable, but I don't think that he connected all the dots with respect to his conclusions and speculations.

Meanwhile I was reading all of the chatter on OU about this and could not really follow what they were talking about. It appeared to me like another thread "running wild" where they latch onto an idea and create an "environment" all their own.  The "technical talk" is incomprehensible to me sometimes, and is of a style that I have seen many times in the past.  Lots of creative flair, leave it at that.

MileHigh

[BEP]

MH,

I've been reading posts on OU related to the Orbo. I cannot disagree with your posts, so far 

While I agree the group tends to create their own fantastic environment, some ideas are worth review. Some are related to so-called minimization of attraction and/or Lenz.

Neither are magical and both are possible but I doubt most folks will understand the simplicity. I think we need to avoid the term 'cancellation'. For me, it is more related to minimizing the interaction between fields or masking magnetic domains from the effects of external fields. After all, this is a primary use of Helmholtz coils.

One thing puzzles me... Why does there need to be a ferromagnetic core in the drive toroids?

As for this leading to OU? I'm not there yet.

[MileHigh]

Well I got banned from OU.com:

Sorry MileHigh, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
Twisting facts in the Steorn topic
Your ban is not set to expire.

I had originally intended to cross-post here and on OU about this topic, but then I got involved in the debate on OU and it took on a life of its own.

I was badgered and harassed by a few posters there and decided to defend myself.  I was fully aware that that could set up a set of conditions where Stephan could take advantage of this and to my disappointment that's exactly what he did.  My only interest was getting to the truth about Steorn, which is something that a lot of people don't seem interested in.

I completely reject Stefan's characterization of what I said as "twisting the facts."  Such is life and some people as not really the "free thinkers" that they claim to be.

I was going to make a fresh and separate posting about making an estimate of the energy out vs. energy in for the Steorn Lucite pulse motor both here and on OU but now I will only make it here.

One thing puzzles me... Why does there need to be a ferromagnetic core in the drive toroids?

If you read my more recent postings you saw that the toroidal core is there to attract the magnets on the rotor, and then "disappear" when the core is saturated.  So it is a form of attraction motor.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

I am just going to make one copy/paste from OU and comment.  Perhaps I shouldn't be doing this and my comments will be gratuitous but maybe just this one time.

This is Omnibus' over/under unity analysis of Ossie's setup.  Note he asked Ossie to weigh his rotor:

Hi Ben,

This is what appears to come out from your data:

Input energy every second:
E = 10V
I = 0.4A
duty cycle = 0.5
Therefore, energy spent every secon is:
W = 0.5 x 10V x 0.4A = 2W or 2J every second

Output energy (only rotational kinetic energy):
Mass of rotor = 0.033kg
Radius of rotor = 0.034m
Rotations per second = 800/60 = 13.3rps
KE = 0.5 x 0.033kg x 0.034m x 0.034m x (2 x 3.14 x 13.3)^2 = 0.13J

Therefore, efficiency = 0.13/2 = 0.065 (heat losses unaccounted for) which is even farther from OU than Aussie's.

There's an almost an order of magnitude discrepancy between yours and Aussies' so maybe some of the data aren't correct. Could you please double check just to make sure. Thanks.

The above is so unbelievably awful, such nonsensical junk, that I don't know if I want to laugh or cry.

And Stefan accuses me of "twisting the facts."

MileHigh

[BEP]

twisting the facts = causing fewer web site hits 

Nulling the attraction of a ferrite core is a simple concept that I understood. (Even JLN is now showing his surprise? Maybe it isn't such a simple concept?)

My question of why a ferrous core is even required should have been a statement - a ferrous core is not required, neither is a rotating drum with magnets. Just the inverse of the attraction nulling idea.

Still not OU and doesn't relate to Orbo so I'll end it there.

MH,

You were swimming upstream in a torrent of sewer water at OU. I don't know why you stayed. You and I don't always agree but we do on the subject of your banning.

BEP

[eatenbyagrue]

I am just going to make one copy/paste from OU and comment.  Perhaps I shouldn't be doing this and my comments will be gratuitous but maybe just this one time.

This is Omnibus' over/under unity analysis of Ossie's setup.  Note he asked Ossie to weigh his rotor:

Hi, I come from the Steorn forums, where I followed on and off for a long time.  I found overunity.com recently and was following that thread there.  I made a post there trying to explain to Omnibus what you were saying, and I do not know if I got it right or wrong, but I am with you, I do not understand why the energy in the flywheel is important to the calculation of overunity.  With a one-time pulse force, it makes sense, as you can measure the one-time input and then measure the energy in the flywheel, and you can figure overunity that way.  But with continuous operation, kinetic energy in the flywheel remains constant, while electrical energy continues to be added.

Also, Omnibus is a little infamous on the Steorn forum.  He had a very long argument with people there, where he was trying to prove that a SMOT ramp violates the principle of COE.  So he has some unique views on things.

Anyway, sorry you were booted.  There do not seem to be too many people on there who have your level of understanding on things.

[eatenbyagrue]

OK, I found the entertaining Omnibus thread on Steorn.

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13991

He basically argues that the following is an overunity condition:

1.  Ferrous ball starts at base of SMOT ramp.
2.  Ball accelerates through ramp and drops off the end into a dish below.
3.  A human being takes the ball and places it back at the starting position.

According to Omnibus, this is a closed loop overunity device.   I guarantee that no one will never shake his confidence in this position.

[MileHigh]

Hi Eatenbyagrue and all interested in the recent Steorn demo,

Thanks for your comments and I will be an OU Exile on Main Street and I can live with that.  Thanks for the info about Omnibus and this posting will be my simplified analysis of the actual power-in/power-out of the Lucite pulse motors that Steorn demonstrated.

Anyone can feel free to copy and paste the following into the OU thread at your own risk.  Perhaps posting a link would be less riskier.  Anybody can copy this to the Steorn forum if they want also.

For starters, I noticed that K4zep/Ben on the OU forum has basically already given the correct description of the energy dynamics of the motor when running at a steady-state speed and I heartily congratulate him for that.  I will be stating essentially the same thing but perhaps with a bit more detail.

So we know that the Steorn pulse motors are attraction motors, and when they are running at a steady-state speed the power in must be equal to the power out.  If you look at a finite time interval, then the energy in must equal the energy out.  This is a simple fact that is applicable to any type of motor.  When you first plug in a motor, the rotor speeds up and levels off at a speed where the power in equals the power out, it is as simple as that.

The power in consists of the electrical power in, and there are no other sources.

The power out consists of the friction in the bearings (heat), the air friction (also heat) and the energy that the generator coils send back to the battery (which becomes stored electrical energy and heat).

To keep things simple, we will lump the friction in the bearings and the air friction together, and call that "friction."

Therefore, (electrical power in) = (the mechanical friction power out) + (the mechanical generator coil power out).

Stating it like this may be a little clearer for some: (electrical power in) - (the mechanical friction power out) - (the mechanical generator coil power out) = 0.

This is what is going on when the Steorn pulse motor is running at a steady state speed.  Everything is in balance.

Steorn is claiming that the generator coils are returning three times the electrical power in and sending that back to the battery.  We are going to see if this claim is likely true or not true.

I am going to talk about the motor energy dynamics at an abstract level.  This means for this discussion I don't care about the specific measurements or the RPM or whatever, I just want to get a handle on what is going on first.  If I want to later I can make some measurements and punch in the numbers.

I am going to talk about "units of energy," when I analyze what the motor is doing.  It is more convenient to use "units of energy" instead of "units of power" but the analysis either way will be the same.  To repeat, these "units of energy" are an abstraction, and they can be considered a "currency" for purposes of the analysis because we know that energy goes from one place to another and changes form.  Even though the energy changes form, for the purposes of this discussion everything is expressed in terms of units of energy.

For starters, let's assume that when the rotor is spinning at its steady-state speed, that it stores a minimum of 100 units of energy.

Ben made a very astute observation when he stated that the rotor is always accelerating and decelerating when it turns.  The rotor accelerates when it gains energy from the magnetic attraction and decelerates when it looses energy due to friction and when it transfers energy into the pickup coils.  This important fact will be critical to the energy analysis.

The issue of how the Steorn motor is driven can be simplified also.  Simply forget for a while that it is a system where a magnet is attracted to a ferrite core and then the ferrite core is made to "disappear" when the toroidal coil is energized.  The only thing that you need to know is that you put a pulse of electrical energy into a coil, and the rotor speeds up, it is as simple as that.  It is no different than having a conventional pulse motor and either generating an attraction pulse before the rotor magnet reaches top-dead-center, or generating a repulsion pulse after the rotor magnet has passed top-dead-center.  My gut feeling is that the conventional attraction and repulsion pulses are more efficient than the Steorn "core disappearing" pulse but the true answer to that would require testing or simulation.

I am going to repeat this again because I know this simple fact will "upset" some of the readers here:  It DOES NOT MATTER if it is an attraction pulse, a repulsion pulse, or a "core disappearing" pulse, they all do fundamentally the same thing:  You expend electrical energy by pulsing a coil and the net result is that the rotor speeds up.  Let that sink into your brains because the statement is absolutely true.  You pulse electricity in and you end up with the rotor spinning a bit faster for ALL THREE FLAVOURS OF PULSE.  Some of the electrical pulse energy gets stored as rotational energy in the rotor, some of it is lost as heat.  Let this fact sink in.

So, let's look at what is happening in the motor using the abstract "energy units."  I can imagine some people out there objecting to this concept.  Just go with the flow and perhaps learn something new.

Here is a chronological breakdown of the events relative to the Steorn motor with respect to a single pulse.  This can then be applied to all of the pulses.  It is all about using your mind to visualize what is really going on, where we will "slow down time" and look at the sequence of events step by step.

1.  <before the pulse>..................................... rotor spinning with 100 units of energy
2.  <pulse event>........................................... 10 units of electrical energy pulsed into the toroidal coil
2.1 <heat slice of pulse> ................................ 5 units of electrical energy pulse lost as heat
2.2 <useful energy slice of pulse>..................... 5 units of electrical energy transferred into the rotor
3.   <rotor energy after pulse>.......................... rotor now spinning with 105 units of energy
4.   <friction losses>....................................... 1 unit of rotor energy lost due to friction
5.   <rotor energy after friction losses>.............. rotor now spinning with 104 units of energy
6.   <rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils>.. 4 units of rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils
7.   <rotor energy after pick-up coils>................. rotor now spinning with 100 units of energy
8.   <GO BACK TO STEP 1>


The above gives you an absolutely accurate energy breakdown of what is happening when the rotor is spinning at at steady state speed.  Even if your tachometer says 2000 RPM, if you have four magnets on your rotor then the above sequence of events happens four times per revolution, every 90 degrees.  The rotor is constantly accelerating and decelerating.

So where does that leave us with respect to energy (or power) in vs. energy (or power) out?

You can see that you pump 10 units of energy into the motor and you get only 4 units of energy back from the pick-up coils.  We will further divide the energy coming back from the pick-up coils into 1 unit lost as heat due to the diodes in the full-wave bridge rectifier and the charging efficiency of the battery.  That leaves us with 3 units of recharging energy going into the battery from the 10 units of electrical energy that we first put into the system, 30% efficiency.

I am giving you an estimate of 10 units in, and 3 units back for 30% efficiency.
Steorn is stating 10 units in and 30 units back for 300% efficiency, an over unity device.

Notice that this analysis has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the energy in the spinning rotor like Omnibus on OU believes.  He is absolutely wrong and should take a physics course.

Some of you may want to challenge the 5 units lost as heat when the electrical pulse of 10 units is delivered to the motor.  I don't know what the precise split is but with 100% certainty I can tell you that there IS a split.  The Steorn attraction motor method looks very inefficient to me.  When the magnet is 2/3 away from the saturated toroidal core the attraction forces that you are eliminating are very low, yet you are still energizing the toroid with the full pulse power.  Don't forget the toroid gets hot in Ben's clips, and heat is lost energy.

By the same token, where does Steorn get the 30 units of energy back like they claim?  WHERE?  Look at the sequence of events above again and tell me where the extra energy comes from.

If some of you think that the magic extra energy comes from the "core disappearing" pulse then I have got some news for you.  If this was true then it would have been discovered in the 19th century and we would all be living in a free energy Jetson's Age right now as we speak.  There is not a chance in hell that the "core disappearing" pulse is a source of over unity and miraculously speeds up the rotor to produce over unity.  Anybody that thinks this is true is going to have to prove this with experimentation and theory.  Good luck.

So, now that we have an understanding of the energy dynamics of the Steorn motor, all that you have to do is make the measurements and punch in the numbers so that the abstract energy description above becomes real-world measured values.

If you are following what I am saying and you agree with me, then here is the crux of the matter with respect to the Steron demo in Dublin for their Lucite motor setups:

1.  Connect the differential voltage probe across the 1.5 volt source battery.
2.  Connect the current probe to the output wire from the battery powering the motor.
3.  Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an output power reading.
4.  Connect the current probe to the power return wire coming from the generator coils section.
5.  Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an input power reading.
6.  Compare the power reading in step #5 with the power reading in step #3 to confirm or deny their claim of three times the power being returned to the battery as compared to what was being consumed by the pulse motor.

Stop and think for a second.  They had all of the measurement equipment in place and it would have taken a maximum of 10 minutes to make the measurements above but they did not do it.  Look into your hearts and souls and try to find the answer to that question.

Why didn't Steorn make the above measurements to prove their claim of over unity when the Lucite pulse motors were all there and running off the batteries, and the high-end Tektronix DSO with the differential voltage probe and the fancy current probe were all there and available on site?   Why didn't they do it?

The answer is because their Lucite pulse motors were conventional under unity devices and they dared not do it.

MileHigh

[eatenbyagrue]

Thanks, that is a very clear explanation.

[poynt99]

A couple of general clues emerge about the SSOrbo:

1)

The Solid State Orbo is comprised of several solenoids and a toroid.

2)

It relies on a rotating magnetic field in the same way that a 3-phase induction motor does. The method by which the field is rotated is quite clever but unfortunately at this time I can't go into the details of it in the public domain.

.99

[BEP]

Uh Oh.....

Strike one: It relies on a rotating magnetic field like a three-phase motor?

Strike two: "The method by which the field is rotated is quite clever"

I can't wait to see how they rotate a magnetic field. The only way to do it is similar to changing a light bulb. Stand on the ladder and grab the old bulb - Have everyone else rotate the building around you (while not moving the floor your ladder rests upon). Then reverse the rotation of the building after inserting the new light bulb.

[MileHigh]

It's actually very easy to create a rotating magnetic field.  You can do it using two coils that are at right angles to each other.  Then drive one coil with a sine wave and the other coil with a cosine wave.  That will create a rotating magnetic field where the fields from the two coils intersect each other.

The problem is that there is no chance that any tricks can be done to create any excess energy.  Steorn is on a death spiral.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

I suspect what they might be doing is sequentially pulsing 3 solenoid coils spaced at 120 degrees around the toroid coil. A very crude mono-polar RMF. This may somewhat emulate the passing rotor magnets (but in 3 different spots on the toroid core), and in this case the toroid might be pulsed in time with each sequential solenoid pulse. This is when the so-called "magic inductance gain" is supposed to occur leading to their OU results.

I bet I'm not too far off

.99

[Grumpy]

"Orbo started its life as a measurement anomaly during the course of the development of a permanent magnetic micro-wind turbine. The anomaly in question related to a simple rotary interaction between permanent magnetic components. Rotation in one direction lead to a loss of the system's kinetic energy; rotation in the opposite direction lead to a gain the system's kinetic energy."

I got this from Steorn's site.  This is a known effect, but is very weak.  Not sure if this is the same as what is called the Aspden Effect.

[BEP]

It's actually very easy to create a rotating magnetic field.  You can do it using two coils that are at right angles to each other.  Then drive one coil with a sine wave and the other coil with a cosine wave.  That will create a rotating magnetic field where the fields from the two coils intersect each other.

MileHigh

You are completely correct. I know. My first homebrew HAM antenna was a cross-fed set of Yagis for 2 meter moon-bounce. That was when I was 14(I think). Quite a few decades ago.

However, this can rotate a brass egg or motor shaft but it doesn't rotate the magnetic field around the polar axis. I know, old argument.

[MileHigh]

Grumpy:

There is no known effect relating to an energy gain by going through a loop in a magnetic field.  It's part of Steorn's claim but you won't find it in any textbook or laboratory.

There is a known fact that when you travel through a closed loop through any non-changing magnetic field the net energy gain or loss will be zero.  You can prove this on a blackboard.  It's a proof that's derived from Maxwell's equations.

Wavewatcher:

I am not exactly sure what you mean in the sense that any axis can be considered as the polar axis.  You just have to orient your coils properly.

Poynt:

What you said sounds quite plausible, to play with the interactions and the changing inductance argument.

For completeness and to reiterate the main argument about the inductance change; changing the inductance with respect to time will produce an equivalent changing current witd respect to time.  Seorn argued that the current would remain the same and that is not true.  Increasing inductance will give you decreasing current and vice-versa.

MileHigh