In a stunning turn of events, famed French experimenter Jean-Louis Naudin has replicated portions of Steorn Orbo technology and has stated his support for some of Steorn's claims. by creator
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Naudin's results contravene much of the idle verbiage coming from others, as, generally speaking, scientists worldwide have been divided between outright mockery and vocal outrage over Steorn, claiming that Orbo is not merely nonsense, but is completely ruled out by the "laws of nature. Naudin is, however, a very independent thinker and widely followed experimentalist, and he has built and validated a significant portion of the Steorn device.
In a recent article about Steorn, "Steorn - Why the Controversy?," I responded to some rational commenters who have complained about Steorn's approach to releasing Orbo. Recent comments under that article have been quite cogent and worth reading. This column is called Truth Realm because I place a high value on truth in every area of life. Steorn's claims certainly require careful scrutiny and widespread experimental validation
In a sincere effort to explore the question of what, exactly constitutes sufficient evidence to justify belief in Orbo, I laid out my personal understanding of appropriate criteria in an article titled "Steorn; What Constitutes Proof of Over Unity?"
J. L. Naudin has taken the next step by deducing certain of the principles of operation of Orbo and building a device that, as best he presently understands those principles, emulates the Steorn Orbo that has been demonstrated in Dublin.
Naudin's Observations
Here is what J. L. Naudin has said, based on his personal direct observation of his own Orbo experiments:
"The rotor magnets are attracted by the ferromagnetic material of the torus, so the magnetic potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of rotation... When the magnetic potential energy is minimal and when the kinetic energy is maximum (the nearest point of the magnet closest to the torus), a depolarization pulse is sent through the toroidal coils changing the orientation of magnetic domains (Weiss domains) of the ferrite, which frees the magnets." - J. L. Naudin
Furthermore, Mr. Naudin seems to believe that the Steorn Orbo device might well fit into a category of devices that utilize a general technique described by Colonel Thomas Bearden. That technique is known as "regauging" and involves an abrupt change in conditions designed to allow a transfer of energy into a system from an external zero-point source.
"Thus, the magnetic force of attraction of the rotor becomes unbalanced (symmetry is broken), the magnetic potential energy during approach of the rotor magnet is less than the potential magnetic energy during the exit phase. This is therefore the purpose of "magnetic regauging" fully explained by Tom Bearden." - J. L. Naudin
As you can see, Mr. Naudin (a long-time student of so-called "over unity" devices") seems to believe that the Orbo potentially fits the criteria for such a device. Naudin has also verified Steorn's claim that Orbo eliminates back EMF:
"There is no counter electromotive force (Back EMF) induced in the stator coils when the rotor is turned manually."
If you find Naudin's experiments of interest, I suggest that you read J. L. Naudin's Orbo experiment page and follow the reference links he provides, especially descriptions of the concept of "regauging," which is also known as "breaking symmetry." You will also be well served if you compare and contrast Naudin's implementation with Steorn's own Orbo demonstration unit, insofar as Steorn themselves has already made it public.
Mr. Naudin has also published an excellent simple experiment to help anyone interested clarify in their own understanding how Steorn's apparatus works. Naudin's experiment can be performed with a minimum of equipment that should be reasonably available to those hoping to explore this matter further. Note especially well Mr. Naudin's statement in that experiment write-up:
"The current required for the magnetic field to get the temporary depolarization of the ferrite core is independent of the magnetic force between the magnet and the ferrite core."
Here are some very notable comparisons and contrasts between Steorn's demo and Naudin's version of the Orbo: Naudin uses a solid-state device to switch power to the coils (a superior implementation!) and he also uses SINGLE magnets in contrast to Steorn's own magnet pairs... at this point in time and public revelation, who is to say which magnet configuration is superior? It is certainly a point worth contemplating. However, according to a report by Pure Energy Systems, Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy has urged caution:
"...the design of the 'active' coils is very important so that the input uses minimum current to cause the effect in question... Unless this fact is considered in the design of the input, then while the system may be more than 100% efficient, the work done by the rotor will be less than the energy input into the system, and so a closed loop system will not be possible. Our next sequence of experiments will address these issues."
Have We Seen "The Holy Grail" Yet?
As I've previously stated, the "Holy Grail" of free energy will (for me) be a self-running system in a Faraday cage that produces some demonstrable amount of "surplus power" in addition to the energy used to run itself. Although J. L. Naudin's experiment is not yet a complete replication and validation, I think that now that Naudin seems to be persuaded of the validity of Orbo, he will not rest until he has expanded his experiment to that level.
As for me; I don't yet have an Orbo "in hand;" however, Naudin's simple experiments have me thinking hard about clearing off the garage workbench and getting busy building. When I arrive at my own personal "point of certainty," you will hear about it. I'm one of "The Steorn 300" signing off for now, but I hope you'll stay tuned for more news later!
Note: Please follow the links below for previous articles in this series.
The views expressed
in this article are those of creator only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
creator is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Even if the energy output is many times greater than the input this does not mean it is an over unity machine. I cannot accept that over-unity is possible but the energy extra energy output is from an unacknowledged atomic process.
We have all pushed a metal toy along with a magnet without contact so the magnet is definitely doing work but with no detectable energy in or out. It seems to me, and I have no scientific education, that magnetization somehow changes the metal so that it release energy from the atoms and electrons, etc. Atomic energy is released in other ways as in atomic power stations, etc Perhaps magnetization is a similar process that has been ocurring under our noses all these years and we didn't now it!!Â
"Over Unity" is probably a rather unfortunate term that has been applied not only to Steorn but to many other devices that claim to produce energy with no evident source. I suspect that "Free Energy" may be a better description. Windmills and solar cells actually fall into the "over unity" category, but the source of energy in those cases is quite evident.
If the Orbo is actually putting out more energy than it consumes -- which has yet to be conclusively proven to anyone's ultimate satisfaction -- then that energy obviously must be coming from somewhere. Steorn themselves claim that the magnets are not depleted by device operation, and so would seem to disagree with your conclusion.
Nevertheless, if you are right about this being some form of unknown atomic process, then only time and very careful and extensive testing and measurement will be able to tell. Furthermore, if the process is as you speculate, it may still be a useful transformation that could be engineered into practical real-world devices.
Posted By: Christopher Vaughn
Date: 2009-12-29 12:58:52
a very interesting article, has peeked my interest in the development of the orbo and what this french dude has done with it, hopefully we will see more people like him who are willing to actually work with the device instead of complaining without actual experience.
Free energy and Over unity are not synonymous. Free energy is that which you do not pay for. Solar and wind are free energy as the source is available without cost only the expense of harnessing it but they are NOT OU. Free energy does not violate the laws of thermodynamics just perhaps the laws of economics.
Over Unity means getting more out than you put in. Steorn has clearly stated that Orbo is OU. Now free energy may be used in an Over Unity device like Steorn's purportedly does but that is yet to be proven.
I would say that Naudin has imitated the Steorn device and not replicated it. It would be like saying you replicated a plane but it doesn't fly. If it was in fact a true replication it would be OU and he would see that. He does not make such a claim that I am aware of about his device as he has not closed the loop and Sean McCarthy from Steorn made an admonishment that he will not be able to do it as he is not taking into account certain things that have not been revealed as of yet.Â
As far as anyone complaining about Orbo it is really the result of Steorn's actions. They have obfuscated their technology to the outside world and even to their own developer's clubs otherwise replications would be sprouting up all over the place. NDA's preclude anyone from discussing it in detail so it remains a mystery. That is the thing that irks the skeptics as it is impossible to embrace a tall tale without proof unless you suspend all rational thinking. The skeptics and the Steorn fans placed a great deal of faith in the jury verdict and it was to be the ultimate validation to settle the controversy once and for all. It did not so the controversy endures.
If you really want to aggravate people tell them you have a secret and keep reminding them at every opportunity without ever telling them. Try it on your wife or significant other sometime about a birthday present.
There is a lot of excitement here but I'm afraid that many people (including the author) have not carefully read Mr. Naudin's claims.
The portion of the Orbo which gathers energy and feeds it back into the battery is not present in Mr. Naudin's device. Â Rather, he has simply replicated the motor portion of the Orbo.
So, it is just a battery powered motor and not really controversial.
Quote from Patent #190,206 - "The object of my invention is to apply and fully utilize, in an electric motor, the power of permanent magnets, and to develop from them the greater part of the power, so that motors of great power may be actuated by means of small electromagnets, and a correspondingly small expenditure of battery power.
Note: Wesley W. Gary's Magnetic Motor - 2nd Patent!
It does sound like Orbo. If Steorn have found a way of turning magnet force into motive power then the fight for rights over it will be most interesting.Â
The issue is the turning of magnetic force into motive power. Where is magnetic force coming from? Conventionally, magnetic force is not considered an expenditure of energy because force one way is cancelled by force the other way, because no-one has found a way to do it it has been considered impossible. If Steorn can neutralise the cancelling force then they are in business.Â
@Bobotov: Granted, Naudin's is NOT yet a full replication. Journalism being what it is, my very short headline is a "hook;" the very next sentence clarifies that the replication is partial and Naudin has verified only some of Steorn's claims. I've also said in a previous comment that I consider "over unity" an unfortunate term BECAUSE (if Orbo works) I would personally place it in the same category as a windmill or solar cell.
I've also said in the article (and this is based purely on my observations of the man over many years!) that I expect that Mr. Naudin will continue to pursue work on his copy of Orbo until he either succeds in "closing the loop" or until he becomes convinced that Steorn has nothing, or not enough to pursue. In other words, I don't think we could have a much better experimenter following up on this, and I expect very resoundingly clear results to be forthcoming as J. L. Naudin continues his efforts.
Your further comments about why the world is disgruntled with Steorn are points well taken.
@Scott: please see previous comments about what I actually have said about Naudin's partial replication.
@Mike and R. Mason: Thanks for the reference to the Gary patent. As I have written often before, and the links are still there to be found in my previous energy articles, other inventors and experimenters have published means of cancelling back EMF or CEMF, and that there are other technologies that may embody elements of Orbo. I certainly agree that "it will be on" if Steorn begins to be successful with real-world implementations. The battles could be very interesting to watch!
@All Careful Readers: While I am bound by an NDA, I have been trying to point out in my articles any and everywhere that public domain sources and experimenters have been "catching on." Sean and Steorn have really revealed quite a bit in what they have shown, especially in their animated diagrams. There have been excellent high-resolution photos and videos published, with fascinating dialog in the videos. Naudin and others have figured out a lot. If you look carefully not only at similarities but at differences between the Steorn Orbo Demo machines and the replications that are beginning to appear, and if you carefully re-read my articles looking for clues, you should be able to draw some very useful conclusions... :)
Oh, and I wouldn't mind at all if you were to click on the "Thumbs Up" gadget and boost my ratings (if you like my writing, that is! :)
M. Naudin's experiment is NOT a validation of Orbo technology. Both the experimental set-up and the measurements shown are (sadly) quite wrong. Naudin has built a pulse motor, nothing more than that. He has CEMF traces 'all over' his scope screen shots.
I believe Steorn are planning to send out test machines to some of their contacts early next year. They are only a small company and this whole program is keeping them very busy indeed.
Good to see some people starting to wake up to these inconsistencies in electric motor/generator design. BEMF or CEMF CAN be eliminated by correct design of both devices (motor or generator) and has been proven before.
While I find the orbo interesting I would like to note that most of it isnt new at all. Alot of people seem to be amazed to the point of disbelief at some of the claims here. Fact is, these methods have been around for over 25 years, recieviing very little recognition from the general scientific community. Robert Adams had a similar design in the 80's along with John Bedini, who has worked closely with Tom Bearden for many years now. Infact, one can draw many similarities to Steorns motor and Bedinis, their operating principle is nearly identical, down to the out of phase generator (which is basic SSG). The only difference being the use of a toroidal core, no attempt to collect or utilize inductive discharge (as far as I am aware of) which more than likely results in the "heating" of the cores they are measuring.
Of course we cannot point at one particular person in this field that these designs belong to exclusively, but I feel it is important to recognize that this stuff has been around for a while now. For those who wish to run their mouth at my comments, or say that I dont know what I am talking about I am happy to offer some examples, from models I have built myself. John Bedinis methods show that a motor can be a generator at the same time it performs work, and that it does not have to follow lenz law if designed correctly.
With the Bedini circuit, load the shaft, ie: apply mechanical friction to the rotor, and your input power DECREASES. While still outputting power on the charging side.
Its only a matter of time and dedication to the art before these methods become undisputeable.
Thanks for your comments and for your mention of some of the pioneers in the field, Bearden, Bedini, and Adams. Interested readers should google them, along with the Gary motor and also Bill Muller, Konehead, and other "hands-on" experimenters.
Once again, deity, your claims are meaningless. No over-unity; no African water pumps; no power generated; no free electricity; etc., etc., etc.
But, wait! Didn't they make all those claims earlier? By 2010 we were promised energy would be free!
Funny, the Kinetica fiasco Orbo doesn't look anything like what you're claiming now. Why the changes? Because it was a scam from the beginning as the "jury" determined?
I'll stop back in a few months to remind you of your utter foolishness. Unless, of course, we're all enjoying free energy just as you have been so sure would happen. What's it like to be wrong 100% of the time? What's it like to be a part of this scam? And, as a member of the "less than 300", why haven't you made millions from the supplied "new-world physics lessons"? Don't you also now know all the "secrets"?
Don't bother replying. Actually, I already know the answers.
All of us know that a permanent magnet can do more work than is used to create the magnet in the first place. The problem has been in getting an arrangement of permanent magnets to generate rotational work. This is what Orbo, Naudin's replication and others have been able to do. The Orbo does not create power but uses the intrinsic power of magnets in the same way that the intrinsic power of wood is used burning it in an engine. It is my belief that magnetization somehow causes the material to express intrinsic power that until now has been untapped. Â
I have no doubt that we will see a lot of replications in January 2010 and when a dozen or more are done, especially if someone puts an Orbo into a vehicle for all to see the flood gates will open. If that happens, and I think that on balance it will, then, we will see a change in the human condition on a mind boggling scale and it will happen in just five years before spreading and consolidating for the foreseeable future.Â
Here is something for you (and others) to consider. John Bedini, one of the masters of magnetics said something like this before, to provoke thought, no doubt. As smart as we think we are, we still dont understand the primal substance of magnetism.
Funny thing is, the magnetic field that surrounds a magnet is not part of the magnet at all. Some people cant seem to get their head around where the magnet "draws" its power from. Their thinking leads to the thought that the magnet is the fuel itself, and will eventually die or be consumed. Unfortunately, we as humans struggle to concieve a device that produces an output without consuming something. Ridiculous as it seems, we have been conditioned into this thinking, that the power source, or fuel, will eventually go flat or run out, leading to the mindset that the "fuel" is totally consumed.
Now this may be the case with combustion devices, (and lets face it, they want that to be the case, so you return to buy more fuel) but its a different story with electricity. Electrical energy is NEVER consumed, it is transformed. Now if you are an amp hungry pig, you would pour your energy into your circuit, forcing the work to happen, and transform most of your energy into heat, which is dissapated into the enviroment.
If there was a way to capture that heat and make it do more work then your same piece of energy would be doing twice the work for you. So people are starting to realise its not just about the initial input of energy into the system, but the collection or utilization of energy, conventional or unconventional, that can be gathered and re-used. Most people would laugh at the idea of being able to draw in energy from the enviroment, yet this is exactly what some of these "impossible" devices do.
Dr Stifflers SEC exciter is an excellent example of cohered energy being collected and utilized, from outside the primary oscillating circuit. It WILL boggle the mind, I promise you that. How can you charge a battery off a Diode plug, through some LEDs when the start of the diode plug is only connected to some aluminum tape on the side of another battery? Where does the energy come from in that arrangement?
Challenge your misconceptions of WHAT electrical energy is, and a whole new world of devices become real.
Steorn is continuing its public demo of their Orbo tech in Dublin with live streams through their site at steorn.com Check out my blog for more related news: [link edited for length]
Thanks to Don Starr, SKDBMember, shanan, R Mason, and other recent commenters that have supplied constructive feedback, links, and references.
Please be sure to watch for a soon-to-appear follow up article discussing Steorn's response to replication attempts and about their next experiment on Friday 8th January.
Steorn's claims "Over Unity" must pass one simplistic test - insert a current meter in series with the battery, an old analogue current meter, and show me that the device produces some current which CHARGES the battery.
All the rest is just empty bla-bla-bla talk, it is not convincing. I think that Steorn people know that their gadget is not up to such a test - and in turn it means a hoax and failure.
Posted By: shanan: "Some people can't seem to get their head around where the magnet 'draws' its power from. Their thinking leads to the thought that the magnet is the fuel itself, and will eventually die or be consumed."
A magnet's field isn't "part" of the magnet, the magnet just "pumps" particles because of an unnatural alignment of the ferrite structure. It takes energy to create a permanent (or temporary) magnet, by aligning the atoms. That is about half of the Steorn power source. A permanent magnet will retain it's "pumping" capability for a long time ... in the absence of a load. As soon as a load is applied, the magnet will quickly lose it's atomic alignment and the magnetic pump will "burn out". The energy required to make the magnet will be dissipated, either as motion or heat. You can't get any more out than you put in.
The other half of the Steorn energy comes from a battery, like any other pulse motor. The energy discharge in the coil neutralizes the core magetization caused by the passing permanent magnet. That requires energy. Without a battery, the Orb won't rotate.
It is possible to create a motor entirely from permanent magnets, but it will slowly run to a halt after the energy used to create the magnets is spent. The more load on the motor, the faster the energy will be dissipated.
Note that Naudin has duplicated the Steorn technology, but he has not in any way demonstrated any "Over Unity" claims made by McCarthy. If anything, he has shown that there is nothing at all novel about the Steorn motor.
Also note that there is a third energy source in the Orbo: magnetic bearings. These reduce friction by consuming electrical power, but they are required for the Orbo to rotate at the velocity indicated. Steorn won't want to count that energy, even though it is the primary source of heat output (as shown by the infrared photos) in his device.
Steorn will probably throw in another complicating factor: super-cooled magnets. It requires a lot of energy to create that environment. He won't want to count that either.
So, it's a amusing ride for gadget geeks, but Steorn will never show any genuine "Over Unity" power output.
Over 100 years ago, Mr Wesley figured out what Steorn is working on now. Talk about a patent violation!
Wesley W. GARY
Magnetic Motor
Harper's New Monthly Magazine (March 1879, pp. 601-605)
With an ordinary horseshoe magnet, a bit of soft iron, and a common shingle-nail, a practical inventor, who for years has been pondering over the power lying dormant in the magnet, now demonstrates as his discovery a fact of the utmost importance in magnetic science, which has hitherto escaped the observation of both scientists and practical electricians, namely, the existence of a neutral line in the magnetic field --- a line where the polarity of an induced magnet ceases, and beyond which it changes.
@BKazak, in case you haven't heard by now, Steorn will be allowing anyone to bring their own meters and perform such tests, reportedly starting sometime during the week of January 17th.
@Westmiller, you've got me thinking again... :) I hate it when that happens, distracts me from my work! :) Seriously, I was hunting around looking for information about how much energy it actually takes to create a NIB magnet. It seems a bit hard to find and quantify, as the articles I've read so far indicate that the magnets are magnetized by cooling them in a very strong field...
@Mike, thanks for the bit of Gary history... without knowing the details of both designs, it is kind of hard to say whether there is any violation... of course, the time lapse alone is enough to eliminate that possibility from a purely legal standpoint!
Westmiller, I forgot to mention: Steorn's magnetic bearing design is (as I best understand it now) a permanent magnet design that consumes no electricity, answering that objection of yours.
Also, changing atomic (and thus electron) alignment is in no way a "burning out" of the magnet. In fact, as magnet materials have improved, their coercivity has improved greatly. Assuming a materials science adequate to prevent realignment of the atoms, there is no "burn out," and as you know Steorn has promised to demonstrate this in their next experiment. If they do, this objection will also be overcome.
Here's a question for you: Where does electron spin come from, and what keeps an electron spinning? If you reduce a magnet to it's smallest form, a single spinning electron, is that a "permanent magnet?" Does it "burn out?"
" ... how much energy it actually takes to create a NIB magnet."
You can search Wiki for "Coercivity" to find a table of the energy required to demagnetize a magnet, which is the inverse of the energy required to create a magnet. All magnets have saturation points (the limit of magnetic force) and no magnet has a coercivity of infinity.
" ... Steorn's magnetic bearing design is (as I best understand it now) a permanent magnet design that consumes no electricity ..."
Not true. Even passive magnetic bearings require electromagnets for balancing and most require cryogenic "supercooling" to maintain balance. In any case, no bearing is friction-free, which means energy heat losses. Â Even Steorn grants that the PMBs they're selling have less friction and less heat, not none:
http://www.steorn.com/zerof/
If you watch the latest Steorn video with infrared imaging, you'll see a huge "hot spot" at the bottom, where the bearings operate.
" ... changing atomic (and thus electron) alignment is in no way a "burning out" of the magnet."
I used an analogy for simplicity. Technically, it's the loss of coercivity (see above).
"... Assuming a materials science adequate to prevent realignment of the atoms, there is no "burn out" .."
All metals have a coercivity index. None of them have infinite coercivity values.
"... this objection will also be overcome."
As you say, IF THEY DO show a metal with infinity coercivity, THEN we can all get excited.
" ... Where does electron spin come from, and what keeps an electron spinning?"
LOL. You want a physics course in two sentences? Magnetization has no relation to electron spin, only to the alignment of atoms so that the electron orbital vectors form consistent pathways for magnetic lines of force (which aren't electrons). That's why I called it a "pump", though that's also a poor analogy. It's actually an inductive channel in the material.
"... If you reduce a magnet to it's smallest form, a single spinning electron, is that a "permanent magnet?" Does it "burn out?"
An electron isn't a magnet, even though it has a charge. Trying to explain electron spin would be an awesome task, which hasn't even been accomplished in quantum theory. I have my own theory, which I'll offer in due time.
Westmiller, thanks for taking the time for dialog... :)
Straighten me out if I'm wrong here, but I don't think we really need "infinite coercivity" for this to work, just sufficient coercivity to not result in demagnetization under whatever the applied stresses of the system may be. NIBs work constantly and consistently, for example, in many universally accepted commercial everyday applications (e.g. HDDs.)
Regarding ZeroF Bearings... well, I must admit I ain't seen one yet, and the Steorn website doesn't present them in very much detail at all... and so, until we actually SEE them, I guess my comments were based on the Steorn website's very strong (to me) implications in their descriptive language that these are NOT powered nor cooled... (words like "passive" and contrasting with "alternative power hungry, complicated active" bearing systems.... I'll grant you on general principles that there is bound to be SOME loss in the bearings...
Of course, the Steorn claim is that Orbo more than overcomes all losses, and (when further developed) will PRODUCE plenty of excess power... so once again, we're left to wait and see as the demonstration / experiments / adventure continues... :)
"Magnetization has no relation to electron spin... An electron isn't a magnet, even though it has a charge."
Oh, really? I suspect there are quite a few who might disagree with you... and as far as "pathways for magnetic lines of force," where do you think the force originates?
I'd love to read your theory of electron spin. I have some friends who would probably also enjoy it. I suspect Nolan Chart might not be the best general audience for it though? :)
creator:" ... I don't think we really need "infinite coercivity" for this to work, just sufficient coercivity to not result in demagnetization ..."
Coercivity IS the measure of demagnitization. If it doesn't demagnetize, it has infinite coercivity. So, extracting energy from a magnet, by placing a load on it in any manner, must result in demagnetization. Depending on the load, it might take anywhere from a minute to a decade to lose all of its stored energy.
> .. NIBs work constantly and consistently, for example, in many universally accepted commercial everyday applications (e.g. HDDs.) <
NIBs in hard disk drives are only used to align the read-write heads on the disk. The load is kept as small as possible (composite head frames), but it is driven by an electric coil working against the magnets. The ferrite on the disk itself is constantly magnetized and de-magnetized (stored bits). The service life of a modern hard disk is 5 years or 20,000 hours, at least partially because the NIBs deteriorate and produce imprecise "lost sectors" on the disk.
"Regarding ZeroF Bearings... I'll grant you on general principles that there is bound to be SOME loss in the bearings ..."
The product name itself is a fable, whether you interpret it to mean zero Force or zero Friction. Force is required to create even a passive magnet (which has to have coercivity) and even if the magnets don't touch, there is flux-line friction when loads are suspended by the magnets. The descriptive text is true, but it doesn't say zero anything.
" ... the Steorn claim is that Orbo more than overcomes all losses ..."
To get something beyond heat energy out, he has to apply a load. He can do that, at the expense of draining the magnetism. When the magnets are "dead", he can apply all the energy in the world and he'll get nothing but hot air. But, he already has plenty of that. ;o)
"I suspect there are quite a few who might disagree with you ..."
Electrons in motion do create a magnetic field because of their static charge, which will induce magnetism in another substance by forcing an alignment of the other material's atoms. That's an electromagnet. But, electrons themselves are not technically magnets, which entails an alignment of atoms. Obviously, there are no atoms in electrons.
In any case, I'll probably be watching the next Steorn circus and reading your commentary. To maintain the political theme of Nolan Chart, I'll just suggest that Steorn might consider tapping into some of Obama's personal "magnetism" to drive Orbo5. That's not facetious: Obama wants to fund "Green" research and McCarthy may be positioning himself for that kind of speculative research grant. Then, every taxpayer will have a financial stake in making the Orbo spin.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
