The much ballyhoo'd "Final Demo" is now history. Has Steorn made their case? Have they succeeded in "Proving overunity" according to the brassy claims that their "free energy" technology puts out more power than it consumes?
Today at 16:00 GMT, Sean McCarthy, fearless leader of the Irish company that roared, put on what they billed as the "Final demo" to "prove" that a genuine Orbo produces more energy than it consumes, making it a true overunity technology.
Those of us out here in internet land had been held off and tantalized by a couple of frustrations; one, the Steorn SKDB has been down for a day or two. Two, the official Steorn website has been scrolling the following across the bottom of the Steorn "live stream view" screens:
"The venue is closed while we prepare for our live experiment on Saturday. Thank you for your patience. We look forward to seeing you on Saturday at 4pm."
The cameras "went live" again right around 15:45 GMT, beginning intermittently and finally stabilizing and streaming both video and audio.
Many dozens of curious spectators gathered at the Waterways Ireland Visitor Center in Dublin, some expectant and hopeful, others prepared with tough questions to test the man at the helm of perhaps the most maligned and verbally abused technology company since Pons and Fleishman announced "cold fusion."
As best I could estimate from an occasional image of the audience, there were at least 100 or more curious visitors, the largest turnout yet, some no doubt waiting for a glimpse of "the holy grail" of free energy. The viewership on "live stream one" peaked at somewhere around 800 observers during Sean McCarthy's presentation. During his talk, McCarthy said that the Waterways center had enjoyed about 2500 visitors during Steorn's presence there so far, many of whom he believes to be among their target market of engineering developers.
McCarthy introduced this demonstration by showing some videos, then reiterated Steorn's basic claims with some new elucidation, went on to speak explicitly of the "in versus out" electrical energy of today's demonstration, and ended as usual by taking questions from the audience.
The most interesting new element of today's demonstration was an Orbo configuration with a scope output showing a claimed cumulative electrical energy output of 327% more than the cumulative energy input, not counting the previously touted thermal and other effects. There was the usual Orbo motor with a single output coil. The output coil was shorted out, "acting as a heater" with measurements being taken of input current, input voltage, and output current (as the integral of I2R.) The Orbo was running at 1300 RPM. McCarthy demonstrated that pushing the output coil closer to the spinning rotor increased the power output without affecting the motion of the rotor, and explained this as follows:
"How efficient do you really want it to be?... What this is really demonstrating is that there's no coupling between the electrical energy that's put into the system and rotational energy of the system of the rotor itself..."
"If you look at the efficiency of the rotor, in essence you could call it infinity since a direct energy transfer between the steady state element of the system and the active element of the system..."
"The net efficiency during this run, electrical to electrical, let me be clear about that, is 327% and that excludes any work done by the system against friction, which is limited because we're using magnetic bearings, and air resistance."
If those statements by Sean McCarthy are true and demonstrable, his words will no doubt go down in history and one day be hailed as genius that ushered in an age of practically limitless and readily available energy.
Several attendees seemed frustrated and disappointed that there was not more to the demonstration. This is not surprising, considering the splashy claim headlined as "Final demo: Proving overunity."
"We are not going to put out the optimum or the maximum into the public domain, we're putting in what we believe is sufficient to prove our point.... this is not, for, to be frank at this point, for the general public, our market for this [is developers]."
The Question and Answer session was intense although somewhat shorter than that after the last demo. Questions were generally good and the responses from Sean McCarthy clarified a couple of issues in my own thinking. "What limits maximum RPM?" was one of the best questions of the day. Steorn has emphasized that the power out increases with speed, and so this question is key. Sean's answer was that there are "thousands" of limiting variables, but generally speaking, the same limits as those of any rotating system.
Another interesting question was "What is the longest recorded run of an Orbo demonstrator with a single D-cell battery?" Sean answered "About seven days," and the questioner went on to state that he had calculated that an Orbo-like motor ought to be able to run for three weeks on a single D-cell. McCarthy responded that the questioner was incorrect because:
"We're drawin' about, just over an amp."
and therefore the 3 week calculation is incorrect. (If Sean's statement of one amp is literal and accurate, the Orbo should only be able to run for about 10 hours on a single 10,000 mAh battery.)
Steorn's demonstrations have all attempted to show and clarify what Mr. McCarthy has called "key principles" of Orbo operation. He reiterated those again today, with what seemed to be an expansion of the description of the third element:
Orbo suffers no Back EMF
Orbo produces an Inductance Energy Gain
Orbo performs work (thermodynamically speaking "for free") with no degradation in the system components
Mr. McCarthy once again provided a demonstration of these elements but in a slightly different fashion than before. He simply played pre-recorded demos from earlier in the day (a partial, at least, explanation of why the live feeds had been down for a while.) He explained the use of recordings as primarily a matter of the difficulty of getting complex oscilloscope setups configured quickly under the pressure of a live demonstration.
McCarthy said that beginning on Wednesday of next week, anyone will be welcome (by appointment) to bring their own kit of test equipment and make their own measurements of a running Orbo. Steorn has extended their engagement at the Waterways until February 26th. Sean said this will be Steorn's last public offering to validate the technology, but that a lot more independent validations will soon be published in the public domain.
Have Steorn Met Their Promises?
Did Sean McCarthy "hit one out of the park" today, like the Babe Ruth his baby face sometimes reminds me of? While I would have to answer that question with a "no," I think that Steorn has continued to incrementally make their case and to keep their promises.
Steorn previously spoke of plans to demonstrate magnetic domain durability in a week-long experiment streamed live. Today Sean McCarthy told his audience that this has in fact happened over the last week, and that the results have shown conclusively that Orbo magnets do not lose their energy during the operation of the Orbo. He stated that the difference between the domain energy of the magnets (i.e. the energy required to magnetize them, which he claimed was a mere 2.3 joules) is dwarfed by the amount of energy extracted during a one-week demo run, which he claimed to be 21 kilojoules.
"If you look at the amount of excess energy produced - and I stress excess, that is the differential between input and output during the week long test, we generated 21 kilojoules of excess energy, and we measured the components afterwards, and there was absolutely no degradation of the components of the system itself, and what this demonstrates in a very dramatic way the numbers from 2 to 21,000 are very large, is that the drawing of excess energy from an Orbo system is not in any way related to the component parts themselves."
Steorn had promised a cumulative energy display showing direct electrical energy in versus electrical energy out, and this they also showed in the form of an integrating oscilloscope display. The lower (blue) trace of that display shows the energy applied to the coils over time, and the upper (brown) trace shows the energy extracted from a fully-shorted output coil - both of course as measured by the equipment at hand.
Publication of previously promised calorimetric proof, full measurements, and test results are not yet evident on the Steorn website, but McCarthy today reiterated the promise that extensive data reporting of today's tests and the results of the other demonstrations will soon appear there. I don't recall any mention today of the previously promised supercooling tests.
Of course the "hands-on examination" was announced as being open for business beginning Wednesday.
And so, in my opinion, Steorn has substantially kept their public promises, assuming that they follow up accordingly with the website publication and hands-on access this coming week.
What are the prospects of Orbo technology on the market in the near future?
"It's not going to be in your mobile phone in two months. It needs lots and lots of engineering to get there."
McCarthy reiterated that Steorn themselves do not intend to further engineer the Orbo technology.
Did We See "The Holy Grail" Today?
I for one don't believe that any demonstration "over the internet" can possibly reveal "The Holy Grail" of free energy. While the demo device shown today was said by McCarthy to be producing 150 microjoules per revolution of excess electrical energy, there is no way to confirm this from a distance.
Conclusive proof that Orbo is a true overunity technology will still require extensive effort and universal availability to become widely accepted. We will want to see Orbo work in a Faraday cage and will need "hands-on" and "sufficient duration" in-person proof ourselves. Major paradigm changes take time. Sean did say that Steorn will be taking their show "on the road," that they will be in the US in coming days, that they will appear everywhere.
For those of you who may have missed the demo, Steorn has promised to publish videos tomorrow, Sunday January 31st, and you will probably be able to find "unofficial copies" even before then. [HERE]
Folks, as a member of "The Steorn 300," I think things are looking promising! If everything that Sean McCarthy presented today is completely forthright and above board, and if the promised data sets are as he has represented, we are all in for some fascinating times ahead!
Should you find my reporting interesting, I welcome your "thumbs up" as well as your thoughtful comments from any perspective! Thanks for tuning in!
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.
After waiting up 'til 3 AM here in Australia, I was¬† very disappointed in the demonstration of Orbo overunity.To the point where I remain sceptical. There was nothing particularly new or novel that could not have been displayed at the mid January demonstration.
The demonstration of proof came down to an interpretation of two fairly anonymous¬† traces on a digital 'scope screen. All good stuff for detailed lab experiments, but was not a dramatic demonstration of energy production from where I was watching. As one of the audience said, there was no "wow" factor involved. In general the audience did not appear greatly impressed with the show and the question time was short.
I appreciate the effort Steorn are putting into these demonstrations, but surely they could have devised an additional basic demonstration of power being generated. Some plain old wirewound resistors, and readings on AVO 8 multimeters would be great to see.¬† Light a few lamps, produce some heat, show the effect, who cares what the precise readings are, the 'scope display can show that. A few simple tests applying the basic voltage, current and power formulae in the presence of the assembled crowd would be enough to make me say wow.
Maybe¬† the invited volunteer testers will finally perform some simple experiments after next Wednesday and shock us into¬† belief in a way that Steorn has failed to do. I hope they can, as I have to mark Steorn as a fail on their latest demonstration.
Are you currently in Dublin? If so are you intending to¬† take up the offer extended by Steorn to validate the device with your own expriments.¬†If boh answers are positive can you elborate on what expriments you intend to carry out on the device to satify yourself that Orbo is in fact an OU device.¬† I doubt you will get the device in a Faraday Cage between now and the 26th of feb.
Hi Bob, as I'm sure you know, you're not alone in your disappointment... speculations as to the nature of Steorn continue to run rampant, although at this point I think more of the unbelievers, at least those personally present at the demonstration, are leaning towards the "delusional" interpretation rather than "fraud." Sean McCarthy himself continues to project an air of supreme confidence, and I personally hope to see him justified in it.
Jean, thanks for the kind words. I only wish I were in Dublin at the moment, both to accept Steorn's opportunity to book test time and to be present for some special attention promised to SKDB and 300 folk who are able to be present. The mood of "insiders" is hopeful that Steorn will now have some "energy" to focus on giving replicators within the group a leg up on "tuning" their Orbos.
Given personal possession of an Orbo device, I would proceed as I have described in the article "Steorn: What Constitutes Proof of Overunity?" (link above) and would proceed to:
Ensure it was durable enough to run "sufficiently long" to eliminate questions about batteries and magnets, probably using solid-state controls
"Close the loop" and harness it to some "excess output" such as generating measureable amounts of light or heat
Place it in a Faraday cage and let it run!
Ensure a chain of evidence, i.e. maintain constant observation to rule out tampering
If I were present in Dublin with an adequate kit, I would try to directly measure current flow in the two "major" legs of the circuit and observe that over time. Also, if possible, I would try to monitor the battery by removing it from the circuit at intervals and testing it for voltage and capacity with a resistive dummy load.
However, I think that the next really big excitement to anticipate will be an announcement from some major technology company that they have engineered a useful orbo device. Sean's remarks along those lines seem to suggest that there are some players getting involved right away.
(Sorry, this reply turned out to be longer than I thought)
I have been following Steorn with much interest since the first OU announcement in 2006. From the initial advertisement in the Economist, through the embarrassing failure of the Kinetica demonstration, and the lean information years leading up to this latest set of demos.
I try to never take a fixed stance on anything. I assess the information presented to me and my view can sway in any direction as the information accumulates. I regard myself as a positive person in outlook, so I guess that my views will always be a little unbalanced with the addition of a tad of hope.
My current view (belief if you like) is that this company have discovered a means to enable (not necessarily create) more energy to be returned from an interaction of physical elements. I also think they have demonstrated such in as much detail as they are willing to divulge to prove this in a public demonstration, whilst retaining much of their IP to enable them to reclaim (and profit on) their considerable investment.
They do not, for me, fit the profile of a scam and I sincerely hope that their unusual approach works out for them; they have certainly worked very hard to get to this point.
As for the technology itself - I have filtered out the heavy technical stuff (which is way beyond me) and focussed on these key points:
The faster the spin speed, the greater the output energy The greater the quantity of elements, the greater the output energy. The closer the static output elements to the rotating elements, the greater the output energy
The demo devices have been built to purely show the principle of operation, and also to prove that nothing is hidden in the demo itself. It is not surprising really that these simplistic demonstration models do not show OU in a way that ‚Äúwow‚Äôs‚ÄĚ people.
So let‚Äôs now imagine the ‚Äúoptimum‚ÄĚ configuration with the above bullet points applied:
It is interesting that Sean used the hard-drive as an analogy in the previous demo, because (fast) hard drives spin at 15k rpm (first bullet point). Now let‚Äôs take out the disk platters (and heads etc.) and replace them with a machined replacement containing a large number of elements (bullet point two). And finally set the corresponding number of static elements in the hard-drive casing at extremely close proximity to the rotating part (bullet point 3) ensuring everything is positioned as per Steorn‚Äôs IP . This is something that is not difficult to imagine and should be relatively easy to produce within the current hard drive manufacturer R&D labs.What we should now have is a finely engineered fast-spinning device which, according to Steorn‚Äôs theory, should truly be generating a good deal of excess energy.
¬†Now, if this extra energy is enough to re-charge a laptop battery, a little basic re-wiring and we would possess the world's first constantly self-powered laptop - simples!
Kevin, no need to apologize, I like your analysis. More than like it, I can confirm most of it from public sources. More than that, I can say that I know and understand (from Steorn's SKDB training) the precise reason for your bullet point one, and it is unquestionably true, logical, and scientific, and not at all "magical" (although the result may seem very surprising!)
You have also clearly seen that Steorn is intentionally holding back on their public disclosure, keeping it to the level of a bare "proof of concept."
Good analysis, and thanks for sharing it with us! :)
Sometimes its what we don't see that is most interesting.¬† If I was Sean, I'd probably not publicly try to power lights with my working orbo.¬† As he communicated, he is not interested in selling his machine.¬† He is interested in licensing his idea so others can design & sell their machines.¬† Showing glowing lights running on their own would be too interesting to the public and he would be inundated with lots of worthless "attention".¬† Its best to keep it "technical" and "boring" and let the engineers out there do their work.¬†
Also, when someone builds and fine-tunes an orbo-type machine, they will likely keep it a secret until they can market it.¬† Any wise designer/manufacturer would keep r&d as secret as possible so as not to feed the competition.¬† It is likely that this effect has reduced the number of visible replications.
If orbo is legit (and I am becoming increasingly convinced) there are already multiple effective replications out there.¬† We just can't see them, yet. Time will tell.
What McCarthy has proven is that a pulse motor draws power and a stimulated inductance coil generates power ... something well known to any high school science student.
The measurements displayed on the scope in your photo show nothing whatsoever, because none of the settings on the scope are disclosed. Scopes can show anything you want, if you set the parameters correctly. In any case, it cannot be showing what McCarthy claims it shows: current in vs. current out, since those would be¬†parallel wave inputs and outputs, not an inclining (probably cumulative) wave over an unspecified duration and scale.
McCarthy makes at least¬†two¬†statements that are¬†patently false and one that may accidentally be true.
First, "there's no coupling between the electrical energy that's put into the system and rotational energy" ... which, if it were true, would mean that he could disconnect the batteries running the coils and it would continue to rotate. Obviously, that didn't happen and couldn't happen.
Second, "there is no direct energy transfer between the steady-state element of the system and the active element of the system," which might be a silly way to say that the energy transfer is indirect, by inductance, but if it were true, he could disconnect all the coils and the "steady-state" rotation would persist. He didn't do that and couldn't do that.
The one true statement may have been a Freudian slip: "You can work the ratios about 3 to 1, input to output," meaning for every three joules in, you get one out. That IS "over-unity", but in exactly the wrong direction.
You point out a simple mathematical lie in McCarthy's claim about how long the Orbo will rotate on one D battery. There's just a "minor technical discrepancy" between one week and ten hours, which will apparently be left to the licensed developers to figure out.
Another false statement was actually demonstrated weeks ago by Naudin. McCarthy says the rotational speed is entirely dependent on the number of coils driving the rotor. Naudin has clearly shown that it makes no difference whatever in the rotational velocity when two of the four coils are disconnected. The reason is simple: the amount of energy required to maintain rotary torque is¬†exactly the same with 2, 4, 16, or¬†524¬†inductance coils.
Given these false and¬†incoherent statements, I doubt that anyone will bother to spend the time scheduling a private showing during the coming month. Based on this "demonstration", it would be a total waste of time. All that McCarthy has proven is that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Westmiller, while I appreciate that you have taken time to interact on this thread, I fear you've gone completely overboard this time.
Your summary statement about "false and incoherent statements" is really over the top. What I see here is that you've taken a number of Sean McCarthy's comments entirely out of context, paired them up with straw-man arguments, and you yourself have drawn false conclusions from the exercise.
I'll tackle only two of your comments as examples:
[First, "there's no coupling between the electrical energy that's put into the system and rotational energy" ... which, if it were true, would mean that he could disconnect the batteries running the coils and it would continue to rotate.]
Your conclusion here is false because you do not understand McCarthy's statement. Your argument is roughly logically equivalent to concluding that the claim that "a nuclear reactor can produce electrical energy" would, if true, mean that you could grind up uranium, put it in a soup can, and power your television. In truth you're coming to a ridiculous conclusion based on your own (understandable due to Steorn secrecy) lack of knowledge of how Orbo works. I will state here that (even though I am not yet 100% certifiably convinced that Orbo is an energy source) McCarthy's statement here, in and of itself, is unequivocally true. And no, I am bound by an NDA to not presently be able to explain to you just how and why I know that to be true.
Second and last, your comment about a "mathematical lie" relating to the difference between one week and 10 hours - you've clearly taken this completely out of context, or I've not been clear in my reporting, or both.
What Mr. McCarthy did was answer a simple question: How long has Steorn so far continuously run an Orbo demonstration model on a D cell? - His answer was "one week" with the further answer that current draw is one amp while Orbo is running.
It was my own calculation that a 10,000 mAh battery would only provide an ampere for 10 hours.
I see no lie or deception here, unless you're simply saying that McCarthy is lying about either the duration or the current draw that he claims they have achieved? All circumstantial evidence seems to me to indicate that he's telling the truth about those two "facts."
Thanks for interacting, but please try to be a little more careful before you jump to conclusions!
The reason there were only 800 views on the internet is that most people realize this is a scam for whatever reasons Steorn may have. I am the engineering manager of a electronic controls manufacturer and the whole orbo claim is based on their claim of no CEMF produced in the coils. The \"magic\" of no CEMF is produced simply by swamping out the inductance of the coils using the large variable power resistor you see beside the orbo motor. ( Similar to a stepper motor L/4R drive topology ) By making the R of the coils much larger the the L, the current waveform approximates that of a resitive load and so they get these nice square current waveforms. The simple fact is that the nice current square wave is produced by the large resistor in series with the coils, making them look mostly resistive ,which nullify the characteristic curves of inductive loads. Trust me, if there was any validity in what Steorn claims, there would have been 1000000+ people watching. The fact is that any competent engineer who understands Q of a coil and basic motor principles sees this as a laughable demostration. I don\'t know what their reasons are for doing this but I do have a few ideas about that. Further, consider the quality of the questions being asked by the so called observers. There have been more softballs thrown at the Steorn team than at the last olympics. Not one reasonable tech question was asked such as questioning the Q of the motor coils or the function of the 100+ watt variable resitor beside the motor. I\'d bet half the observers are related to someone at Steorn, or have no real technical background. I find this whole thing interesting in observing how gullible people are when it comes to stuff like this.
Thanks much for chiming in and raising the specific issues of the power resistor and coil Q. I wonder, though, about your conclusion because I'm not sure there are 1,000,000+ people who actually have any kind of handle on the issues you raise - or were you speaking purely hyperbolically? :)
As to the "soft" questions raised at the demo, I know certainly that there were many insiders there, but I don't know if that completely explains the "softball" questions. Perhaps the "competent engineers" have either long ago dismissed Steorn or simply don't live close enough to Dublin to show up and ask the tough questions?
In any case, Steorn seems to feel that they've attracted significant numbers of the kind of developers they want to reach. As for those engineers such as yourself who have strong reasons to question what they've shown, Steorn is taking appointments throughout February for you to show up with your own kit if you like. Or you can of course simply write them off on the basis of your own knowledge and experience and let them simply fade out on their own.
creator:¬†"... McCarthy's statement here, in and of itself, is unequivocally true."
I can only review what McCarthy says, not what he doesn't say. When he says something that is a logical contradiction¬†with¬†what he is obviously doing (or not doing), I have to call it a lie. If there is "no coupling" between the battery and rotor, then there is no coupling. But, there obviously is a coupling, since the coils drive the rotor. I suppose I could be exceedingly generous and say he doesn't know what he's actually doing, but that would be as profound an insult as saying he doesn't say what he's obviously doing.
"... I am bound by an NDA to not presently be able to explain to you ..."
No NDA can preclude you from stating any physical principle, nor to compare what you see with what you hear in public. If you could explain how the rotor moves in the absence of any coupling to the coils or battery, then you'd also need to explain why the coils and battery even exist.
" ... you've clearly taken this completely out of context ..."
Not at all. You took what he literally said and compared it to reality. What he said couldn't possibly be true, so he's either stated a falsehood or he doesn't know the facts about what actually occurred in his own experiment.
" ... please try to be a little more careful before you jump to conclusions!"
McCarthy has been stating conclusions for years, but has provided no facts to support them. Even when he describes what he claims to have done, he gets the facts wrong. Of course, people do make mistakes, but persistent deception and misrepresentation isn't an accident. Everything McCarthy has claimed could have been disclosed in five minutes a long time ago. Proving that what he claims could have been done in a few minutes or hours¬†by independent observers and testers. He hasn't allowed¬†that and probably never will.
I stand by my statement - Sean McCarthy is speaking the truth quite literally when he says "there's no coupling between the electrical energy that's put into the system and rotational energy of the system of the rotor itself."
You have repeatedly stated one or more assumptions that I know to be incorrect. It is obviously not your fault that you don't know or understand what those assumptions are, that's just the nature of the situation.
Personally, I think accusing McCarthy of deception and misrepresentation is more of an insult than accusing him of being ignorant, deluded, or just plain mistaken; certainly in the eyes of the law he will be headed for a lot more trouble if he's being intentionally and fradulently misleading.
Orbo is a particular configuration and combination of multiple physical principles, and so of course an NDA can preclude me from discussing them! What McCarthy and Steorn are or are not doing in the Orbo are evidently not at all obvious, because your conclusion that there is "obviously a coupling" is just plain wrong.
Hey, I guess that means that Orbo must meet the patentability test of being "non-obvious!" :)
Posted By: John Thornton
Date: 2010-02-01 20:33:27
Measurement by itself of input and outputs can never, ever prove overunity convincingly, as there may always be artefacts in the form of reactive current and voltage components that introduce errors into your power calculations, despite all the best intentions. There is no way around this problem and persisting in this approach, as Steorn is doing, is essentially a distraction from the obbligation to provide a real proof. After all, Steorn is selling licensed kits to developers, which cost REAL MONEY!
The only way to prove overunity convincingly is by measuring the total energy (or integrated power) over a longer period of time, at the same time demonstrating that the effect is capable of producing useful and significant net energy over and above the ability to run itself.
Steorn has been working on this effect for six years and Sean claims to have self-running devices, so there are really no excuses.
We have yet to see an isolated self-runner clearly and irrefutably outputting useful (and significant) excess energy to a specific load for a prolonged period, unencumbered by any input or measurement leads whatsoever. Until that happens we must remain skeptical and say that there is an interesting anomaly to be observed, but no effective and convincing ENGINEERING SOLUTION. Excuses that such a convincing proof would "let the cat out of the bag" and attract needless attention are simply ridiculous - after all, what is the point of all these demonstrations in Dublin?
Sir Dan: I think your article on Orbo was fair and objective based on the information available.¬† Just remember these events have had far more public exposure with still much skepticisim than¬†did the Wright brothers first attempted public exposure of their feat.¬† Nobody believed them either for a very long time!¬† I know first-hand the rejection that comes from challenging the accepted science knowledge base status quo.¬† I think we are witness to new history in the making, however it plays out.¬† I am hopeful.¬†
I have considered the Earth's rotation on its axis as a means of power generation. Use geostationary magnets to harness the energy and send tethers to Earth to avail mankind of endless electrical "free" power. Are you listening NASA? UFO's have been using planetary magnetic fields to move about the Universe for millenia.
I'm afraid for me the demo raised more questions than answers. It's very hard to see how the integral of the input power (lower blue trace) can have negative slope. That implies negative power. For that to happen the input current must be negative because the battery¬†voltage is constant.¬† Yet in previous demonstrations the input¬†current traces were allways positive. Something appears to be wrong or at least inconsistent with their previous demonstrations.
If you know a thing or two about electronics ask yourself why they need a differential voltage probe to measure the battery voltage? I suspect the answer is that they aren't measuring the battery voltage. That would explain a lot including the negative input¬†power issue. However as Steorn still haven't published details of what exactly they were measuring we'll all have to wait. No change there then.
I llive in Ireland and yes i have called in to see the Steorn exhibt at the Waterways Dublin. I am not an electrical engineer but I have carried out some research on Free Energy or Zero Point energy which was developed by Nikola Tesla approximately 100 years ago. Tesla invented a system by which an automobile was powered by a mast head using a Zero Point energy system.
Tesla free energy driven car was never put into production as JP Morgan would not be able to charge the cutomers for it. Testla was held in captivity and eventually murdered.
Moving along to Stan Meyers in the USA in the eighties / ninties developed a method of 'cracking' water. This caused the release of hydrogen. This allowed for the running of an internal¬† combustion engine with limitless supply of hydrogen. Meyer of course was poisoned in 1998. The US patent office has withheld 5000 patents for free energy devices. People should be aware that¬† Zero Point energy or overunity systems represent a real threat to the existing banking / big oil / big pharma. I cannot make any comment on Steorn as I am not qualified to do so except to say that free energy systems are real - they work. 70 % of the biggest companies in the world are in oil refining. They might not go quitely into the night. Also honest investigators into overunity energy systems should know that some of the negative commentators on these system are paid disinformatlons agents ¬†
1. Get rid of the battery. If excess energy is being generated , it should be possible to connect the output to the input (possibly with a capacitor and a bit of electronics to smooth things out) and get rid of the battery. If an input of energy is necessary to get the thing started, install a pull-string like the one that you use to start your lawn-mower engine.
2. Do some real physical work against gravity! It doen't have to be much, but it has to be indisputable. For example, use the Orbo to drive a¬†tiny pump that pumps water from a tank on the floor to a tank 1m off the floor. The higher tank could then gravity-feed the water back to the lower tank, to form an endless loop. That would be so much more convincing than a scope screen-shot and a bunch of words.
As this saga continues or unravels depending on how you look at it, the Earth shattering import of what Steorn is doing seems to be falling on deaf ears. No major media has picked up on this world shaking, revolutionary technology for whatever reason despite the recent report on Bloom. Obviously there is interest in alternative energy sources but not on Steorn it seems.
One of the SKDB members has recently said that no one in the Steorn developers clubs has made a successful replication despite the fact Steorn avers all the nevessary information has been provided.
The recent demo has been met with ambiguity and some consternation over exactly what was shown much less proved. The believers still believe and the skeptics are still skeptical. So much for settling this once and for all.
JL Naudin seems to be one of the more rigorous replicators and yet despite his meticulous builds and reports the fact that OU has not been shown seems to be the one conspicuously missing fact. Clanzer, the other diligent replicator I am aware of has fallen silent and even his website has not been functioning for several weeks.
As far as the invitation by Steorn for the public to do testing at Waterways it was reported that a couple of commercial firms with repute where turned away as were some of the SKDB members. As to who has actually done any testing if anyone, none of that has made the light of day. Just more strangeness surrounding this company. Supposedly a calorimetry test and results are to be published "soon." But if it is done without details on how it was done and by whom it will be just more obfiscation added to an already opaque situation if it is, in fact,¬† published at all.
After almost four years since the Economist ad to be at this point seems so anticlimatic and unrewarding no matter what your position may be. For a technology that was "always proven to work" it seems that proving it to work in any kind of reasonable manner is illusive to say the least.
Well, there have been rather a lot of developments lately, from the demos to the solid state orbo. Any more news Creator? I am tired of wading through the steorn forum and have come to respect your style of commentary.
So, Clanzer has given up on Steorn. After several years of close involvement and having spent a good deal of his own money on attempting to replicate the PMM Orbo, the E-Orbo and the SS Orbo he has moved on to other things.
I have to say that Clanzer showed real tenacity and diligence in his effort. He was respected by both believer and skeptic for being skillful in his builds and attentive to details.
This is not the outcome I would expect from a solid Steorn supporter who has earnestly endeavored to fulfill the technology that Steorn has shared with their cadre of developers.¬† He also avered that there have been NO successful replications of a self sustaining technology in the development groups he was a member. This after four years has to be a good indicator of how vacuous the Steorn claim is regardless of how robust they say it is.
I havn't read all of the comments to know if this question has been answered or not, but if it really produces more energy than it consumes, why not set it in a loop to power itself?¬† Could you not get it started with a battery or something and then remove the battery and see if it continued to run?
I think Clanzer's departure was heralded a little too early... While I'm not sure exactly what happened, he is definitely presently still quite active on the Steorn KDB forums and is actively building and experimenting.
Please go back and read some of the earlier articles in this series. You are absolutely correct, a demonstration such as you have simply described would put the questions to rest once and for all.
However, the opposite is NOT true - simply because such a test has not yet succeded does NOT prove the absence of excess energy... at best, it proves insufficient excess to sustain looped operation in the face of inevitable efficiency losses.
"simply because such a test has not yet succeded does NOT prove the absence of excess energy... at best, it proves insufficient excess to sustain looped operation in the face of inevitable efficiency losses."
That is the definition of under unity. Otherwise it is like saying, she's a little pregnant but not enough to have a baby."
By your "definition" of "unity," all machines must be 100% efficient... and must have loss-less translation of energy from one form to another.
In the real world, there are efficiency losses from friction and from conversion. If I were, for example, to hook up a windmill to an electric generator driving a fan, I would not get "perpetual motion" because of the efficiency and conversion losses... however, with the introduction of "excess energy" to the system (i.e. wind from a source in addition to the fan) then the system might exhibit "perpetual motion."
However, until the wind from the external source is enough to overcome the friction and conversion losses, the system will not keep running... but the generator may still output more energy than it receives from the fan... or, in other words, be "over unity" - just not enough over to completely close the loop.
So if you have a fan (that is blowing on the windmill being driven by the generator) coupled with a good gale force wind you can get that windmill spinning at maximum speed to overcome the friction/conversion losses that still may or may not be enough to achieve PM but the generator is producing over unity but not enough to overcome the friction/conversion losses preventing the loop from being closed.
"No major media has picked up on this world shaking, revolutionary technology"
The mainstream press did report on this at the beginning, but lost interest when nothing was demonstrated and no information given. No papers published. One simple demo of overunity would blow ¬†our mind, but Steorn won't do it.
I'm afraid I don't understand all the science ¬†behind this technology, but perhaps that gives me a perspective: rather tan get embroiled in the complex I just ask a simple question: has anything of any worth been produced?
Phil Watson, who has appeared in a couple of official Steorn videos, has just concluded a several month test of the SSOrbo and concluded that his measurements of electrical integrals do not show evidence of over unity. I suspect the argument over what the correct measurements are will ensue. This despite the close relationship of Phil to Steorn and his previous testamonials favoring the claim.
This is the only independent analysis of any iteration of Orbo that I know of and coupled with the jury findings do not corroborate Steorn's claim.
This has been going on for seven years since Steorn found the so called anomoly and to date no favorable independent test¬† verification has been forthcoming.
Also, to my knowlege no evaluation boards (OUEDU's) have been provided to any independent testers aside from the prototypes used by Watson and possibly to another named Ashtweth from Panacea University, who has yet to publish any findings.
It would be in Steorn's best interest to provide several of their best designs to independent testing groups for a balanced appraisal. Otherwise the claim at face value will not sustain.
If Clanzer is still evaluating Orbo then he has not published anything publicly. In fact he has not talked about Steorn in over a year. It is hard to see where this is going if anywhere.
The SSOrbo was touted by Steorn and several others (i.e. Hugh Deasy) for one to be much simpler than the e-Orbo to achieve OU. If so, then why the failure? Phil is not a novice when it comes to electrical analysis and I would think that his testing was thorough.
If Orbo is to ever be realized then it is anyone's guess as to where this is all headed.
Once again I have been really busy lately simply surviving life, and have not had the time to follow what's happening on the forums.
Should that circumstance change, I'll write a summary article; but in the meanwhile, I have to agree that things are looking pretty dim for Steorn, based, if nothing else, on the lack of substantive news.
Thanks for the comment and reference. There is considerable controversy surrounding this also (of course) and I have not personally had the time to thoroughly investigate, but I certainly appreciate the reference for my readers' sake. :)