STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[htert2020]

htert2020 please go on with the zero back-A explanation. You seem to be quite gifted in explaining things Maybe something new will come to the ground. Anyway if you go on with no BEMF explanations please stick to the oryginal ORBO concept -> magnets facing the face of the toroid. Nobody except me has tried that before on this topic (at least I don't recall any more tries) and I wonder if we think the same way about this.

Okay, this explanation is for the benefit of anyone reading this, especially for those unfamiliar with electrical physics.

I think we all know that a steady electric current creates a steady magnetic field. That is, a moving charged particle -- in this case, an electron -- causes a steady magnetic force that radiates outward in all directions, similar to how gravitational force radiates outward from the Earth toward the universe in all directions. Naturally, the force is strongest when you get closest to the moving electron... and it gets weaker as you get farther away from it, on the order of the square of the distance.

However, I believe it is less widely known that a changing magnetic field creates a steady electric current in a conductor such as a copper wire. This principle was discovered by Michael Faraday, supposedly in 1831, and is the basis of all modern-day generators, electric motors, and transformers. It is explained in the following Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction

So, to boil it down to just a couple of sentences:

(1) An electric current creates a steady magnetic field.

(2) A changing magnetic field creates an electric current.

Also, a strong electric current creates a strong magnetic field. That is, the magnetic field varies with the strength of the current.

And, a rapidly changing magnetic field, or even a slowly changing but strong magnetic field, creates a strong electric current.

These are very important principles in order to understand why the Orbo has no back-EMF.

In a conventional electric motor, when the rotor magnet moves past the conventional stator coil, this represents a changing magnetic field as experienced by the stator coil. And the above rule (2) states that this changing magnetic field must induce an electric current in the stator coil. Yes, the stator coil already has current flowing from the battery or power source. However, the rotor magnet's changing magnetic field induces a current in the stator coil wire that flows in the opposite direction to the current provided by the power source. Actually, it is more accurate to say that the changing magnetic field causes a FORCE that tries to move the electrons in a direction that opposes that which is provided by the power source. That force is called voltage. It is also called back-EMF, or BEMF. EMF is an acronym for "electromotive force". In the literature, you'll also see the acronym CEMF, which stands for "counter electromotive force".

Going back to my previous analogies, the back-EMF is similar to what happens when the bowling ball hits the giraffe's head, or my fist hits a brick wall. The electrons in the stator coil has hit a "brick wall" and loses kinetic energy, and that kinetic energy is transferred to the rotor magnet.

Now, how would the EMF in a Steorn Orbo work? Why is there no back-EMF in a Steorn Orbo? How do I know that there is no back-EMF in an Orbo, even though I've never attended the Steorn demonstration and haven't checked out the device myself to see if it's rigged? This is because the back-EMF created on all the segments of wire within a toroidal coil cancel out to zero, in the presence of the changing magnetic field of Orbo's rotor magnets. To understand why this is so, let me mention an additional fact about rule (2) above. According to Michael Faraday's original discovery, a changing magnetic field creates an electric current in a "loop of wire". This loop of wire can be of any shape, but in stator coils, the shape is circular. Think of a stator coil -- conventional or Orbo -- as a collection of circular loops of wire. So if a stator coil has 100 turns of wire, then it has 100 circular loops of wire.

A changing magnetic field, therefore, will try to force a current in a loop of wire that goes either clockwise or counter-clockwise. In a conventional stator coil, a clockwise direction of current flow along all the circular loops of wire means that all the electrons are flowing in the same direction along the one-dimensional wire. This is true because of how all the circular loops are stacked in relation to each other. Because the electrons move in the same direction along the wire (when viewed one-dimensionally), the net effect is a back-EMF that is nonzero in total along the length of the wire.

However, in an Orbo toroidal coil, the individual loops of wire are stacked in an unconventional manner. Imagine that Orbo's two rotor magnets (north and south) are positioned at top dead center, right in front of the toroidal coil. If you were the size of a small insect, and you flew onto the magnets, right in front of the toroidal coil, what would you see? You would see a beautiful symmetry in the toroidal coil.

Now here's the key point. The changing magnetic field creates a back-EMF that tries to move electrons along the circular loops of wire, either clockwise or counter-clockwise when viewed from the insect's perspective.  (The insect, again, is located at the magnets)  But because of the geometry of the coil, if you move electrons clockwise along one loop of wire, then try to move electrons clockwise in another loop of wire that is positioned symmetrically opposite to the first loop of wire, the electrons actually move in opposite directions along the wire from a one-dimensional perspective. When I say "clockwise", I mean clockwise from the perspective of the insect, and only the insect -- for that is where the magnets are located. Because you're pulling the electrons in contradictory directions along the length of the wire -- that is, the electromotive forces on the segments of wire contradict each other -- the forces cancel each other out in a symmetrically beautiful way. So the total net force on all electrons along the length of the wire, due to back-EMF, is zero. Positive 5 plus negative 5 equals zero. And as all physics students learn in Physics 101, when the sum total of all forces acting on something is zero, then there is effectively zero force on the object.

This cancelling out of back-EMF forces is true whether the toroid's face is toward the magnets (as in the older Orbo configuration) or toward the ceiling (as in the newer Orbo configuration as shown in the Waterways demo). In the case of the toroid facing the magnets (the older Orbo configuration), the magnets are positioned in such a way that most of the loops of wire in the toroid are perpendicular to each magnet. This means that each magnet "sees" a circular wire that is so elongated -- so thin -- that it looks almost like a line rather than a circle. Michael Faraday's discovery states that the induced EMF along the loop of wire is a function of the change in magnetic flux through the area enclosed by the loop. If the rotor magnets are angled such that it "sees" that enclosed area as almost nonexistent, then the magnetic flux will be almost nonexistent, and therefore the change in magnetic flux will also be nonexistent... and this means that the induced back-EMF will also be nonexistent.

There's one important thing that needs to be mentioned. In an Orbo, there is a north and south rotor magnet. The magnetic field produced by a south magnetic pole is positive (I believe -- I may have it the other way around, but it won't matter, as you'll soon see). And the magnetic field produced by a north magnetic pole is negative. So if the field strength of the north magnet as experienced by any given point on the toroidal stator is, say, -5, then the field strength of the south magnet as experienced by the same point on the toroid will be +5, which will cancel out the -5 from the north magnet. Actually, the field strength from the south magnet at the given point on the toroid will be slightly different than +5 because geometrically, the point on the toroid will be either nearer or farther away from the south magnet as compared to the north magnet, unless the point is located at the exact equator of the toroid. But if you understand the symmetry of the toroid, you will always find another point on the toroid that experiences the symmetrically opposite total force from the two magnets.

So having a north and south magnet at the rotor is a clever way of minimizing back-EMF in the toroidal stator coil. In a conventional motor, you can only use a single magnet polarity on the rotor because the stator coil produces either a "north" or "south" magnetic field to either attract or repel the stator magnet. However, in the Orbo, the stator's ferromagnetic core attracts both north and south magnets. So in an Orbo, both the north and south magnets can be used at the rotor, and quite conveniently, this combination of north and south magnets work to provide only minimal back-EMF to the stator coil.

Based on the above knowledge, it is my strong belief that the Orbo should theoretically have no back-EMF. I base my reasoning on three things:

(1) The above theoretical knowledge of basic physics.

(2) The patent paper entitled, "SUBSTANTIAL NULLIFICATION OF EXTERNAL MAGNETIC FIELDS AND LORENTZ FORCES REGARDING TOROIDAL INDUCTORS". More information about this patent paper can be found at the very bottom of Orbo-replicator Naudin's web page at: http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/html/orboeffecten.htm

(3) Steorn's consistent claims and oscilloscope readings showing the total absence of back-EMF in the Orbo circuit.

As I mentioned before, the total absence of back-EMF in an Orbo definitively proves that Orbo is overunity. For, none of the input energy is spent on operating the Orbo. That saved input energy can be used for other purposes, such as powering a generator to feed energy back into the battery, thereby "closing the loop" of continuous energy flow.

And, there is one thing that I disagree with Sean McCarthy about. Sean McCarthy, in the Steorn demo, claimed that the energy efficiency of the Orbo shown in the demonstration was, electric output to electric input, about 327%. To me, that is a wild claim. The energy efficiency of the Orbo is not around 327%, but it should actually be closer to infinity!

Think about that. Infinite efficiency. Why do I say that? Because NONE of the input energy is ever spent. And when you divide the output energy by the input energy of zero -- or if you divide any number by zero -- you get infinity.

Here's an analogy to better understand this. Say I invest $10 in a company, and I make back $30. My return on investment would be 300%. This is similar to what Sean McCarthy is claiming about the Orbo. However, what if my original $10 investment was returned back to me? In other words, not only do I make back $30, but my original $10 was returned back to me. Then my original investment was actually $0. And $30 divided by $0 is infinity.

Another way to think of this is to consider how a single battery circuit can power an unlimited number of Orbos, not accounting for negligible resistence heat losses along the wire. That would be infinite energy efficiency. Not 300%. Not 327%. But infinity.

So I believe that Sean McCarthy vastly UNDERSTATED the energy efficiency of the Orbo and what it can do. But I don't blame him for that. Because if he goes around claiming that the Orbo produces infinite energy efficiency -- even though it's absolutely true -- he'd be labelled more of a lunatic that he already is.

[htert2020]

fortunately i do understand the technical mumbo jumbo.  the fact that there is very little or no back A makes this thing super efficient,  but not O/U.  i am in no way trying to discourage anyone,  and i may be wrong,  but i feel people should see this whole orbo revolution for what it is.  energy efficiency at best!  i like your analogy but the part that needs correcting is that the orbo will not continue on through the wall.  it will indeed stop.  until the next pulse of energy which it is getting from a power supply.  back A is not the only thing trying to stop a rotating A.

No, I strongly disagree. The absence of back-EMF does really mean that the device is overunity. In fact, it means that the device has theoretically infinite efficiency if everything is set up right to completely cancel all traces of back-EMF.

Why do you believe that zero back-EMF still means underunity? A better question is, in your view of things, how exactly does the input energy of the battery transfer to the output energy of the rotor? My claim is that there is no such transfer. There is zero transfer of any input energy from the battery to the output energy of the rotor. In a conventional electric motor, there is a transfer because of the back-EMF. The back-EMF decreases the current in the battery circuit -- that is, the bowling ball hits the giraffe's head, or the fist hits the brick wall -- thereby transferring energy from the battery circuit to the rotational energy of the rotor. That's how energy is transferred in a conventional electric motor. However, in an Orbo, since there's no back-EMF, there is no such energy transfer. Therefore, the energy that would otherwise have been transferred from the battery circuit to the rotor is conserved in the electrons of the current. That excess energy can then be used to power something else, or to power a generator that returns most of the energy back to the battery. Only a minimal amount of that excess energy would be lost as heat, if you use the generator approach. That additional heat is free energy that otherwise would not have been there in a conventional electric motor, so it's an energy gain. And, yes, I recognize that the battery will eventually be drained, but the output energy of the rotor is free energy, and some of that free energy can also be used to recharge the battery. So in effect, the battery never gets drained, and the rotor spins forever, at least until the bearings fail or something similar. What part of that is not overunity?

If the device had an energy efficiency of exactly 100%, then there would be a small amount of back-EMF that exactly and precisely corresponds to the rotational output energy of the rotor.

If the device had an energy efficiency of less than 100%, then the amount of EMF would be greater than the rotational output energy of the rotor.

If the device had an energy efficiency of slightly greater than 100%, then the amount of EMF would be less than the rotational output energy of the rotor.

If the device had an energy efficiency of infinity, then the amount of EMF would be exactly zero.

And zero EMF is what Orbo has, and that's what I've been discussing at length in an earlier post.

Do you not believe that the amount of EMF represents the precise transfer of energy from the input battery to the rotational output energy of the rotor?

I just fail to see your reasoning. I don't know how to exactly address your concern because I don't know exactly why you believe what you believe. If you could give your reasoning, then I'll be able to give you a more direct response.

[htert2020]

I have spent a lot of time testing and finding a good rotor/wheel that could be used.    I think I finally found an acceptable rotor/wheel that may be used for a good replication attempt.  If you are interested in a replication attempt you could obtain this wheel without much trouble.  Good Ceramic bearings are also easy to get for this wheel.   I seem to learn the hard way ..... failure, failure, and more failure...... until I get it right.   

http://www.warehouseskateboards.com/product.asp?item=1WAEL061FW09781&class=1W&brand=AEL

I call this find a GreenOrb or "G-Orb" for short because of the bright green color of the wheels.  I think G-Orbs would make great test rotors, 

The ABEC 11 Flywheel is 97mm diam and about 52mm wide.  It is the first wheel with the width needed that I have tested (after many tested and much cost) that did not have any wobble. (A requirement that Steorn mentioned.)
As they say "you get what you pay for".   The ABEC 11 Flywheel uses two standard 608 bearings so Bones ceramic speed bearings are a good choice.   I tested many sets of bearings for spin down tests... as well as studied the reviews,  the Bones Reds ceramics are the best so far.    There are more expensive 608 bearings ... I hope to test later.  My spin down tests with a hard turn by hand is just over 3 minutes with one bearing and around 2 minutes with two bearings with the wheel on a 8 mm shaft.    With both bearings in the wheel,  I consider it rock solid with no wobble.   I will send a photo later. 

Hey thanks, Bill. If I do put together a replication, I'll be sure to look into that rotor wheel. A spin test lasting 3 minutes sounds like very low friction indeed.

May I ask, what is the purpose of your replication? To confirm that Orbo works, or to show it to others to "spread the word" about Orbo? If you could build one that can spin forever based on a loopback generator, then that would be the most effective way to spread the word about Orbo. Most people, when they hear about Orbo, are very skeptical.

As a side note: It seems to me that the very fact that a magnet can hang and completely support its weight on an iron ceiling violates the law of conservation of energy. It is the fact that it takes energy to counteract the force of gravity. And, for that matter, any object sitting on a desk seemingly violates the law of conservation of energy. For, the molecular bonds of the desk are counteracting the force of gravity, thereby providing infinite energy. Of course, people will argue that since the object does not move, no work is being done. But remember Einstein's relativity: all movement is relative. So when people say that the object does not move, I would ask, "From what frame of reference are you observing that the object does not move?" Could it be that energy itself is only relative?

And could it be that energy is much more widely available in the universe than we currently realize?

I'm just theorizing, so don't hold me to these thoughts just yet. Maybe you or someone else has an opinion on this subject, and I would be interested in hearing what they have to say.

[gravityblock]

Magnetic bearings for an eOrbo replication is essential.  I agree with htert, elimination of BEMF has OU potential.  Since the magnetic interactions are decoupled, the eOrbo has just enough mechanical energy for the magnets to reach the next attraction point with magnetic bearings.  Without magnetic bearings it may not reach the next attraction point and if it does, then it won't reach a high enough RPM to push it above COP > 1.  Air resistance can also lower the RPM and reduce the COP.

Clanzer's wind down test with magnetic bearings from 300 RPM was 23min. 20sec. without a lot of tweaking, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cL5ZsUS9zU

My suggestion is don't even waste your time in replication of an eOrbo unless you have magnetic bearings.  In a solid state solution, magnetic bearings, air resistance, torque, RPM, moving parts, high precession and tight tolerances are not an issue and can achieve a much higher COP.

No BEMF has a COP potential of Infinity and is only limited by the design and components in the system.

GB

[htert2020]

A bearings for an eOrbo replication is essential.  ...  Since the magnetic interactions are decoupled, the eOrbo has just enough mechanical energy for the magnets to reach the next attraction point with magnetic bearings.  Without magnetic bearings it may not reach the next attraction point and if it does, then it won't reach a high enough RPM to push it above COP > 1.  Air resistance can also lower the RPM and reduce the COP.

Isn't frictional loss just another load on the output torque?

I still don't believe that you really need magnetic bearings. Conventional bearings will cause some frictional loss, yes. However, that frictional loss pales in comparison to the load that you will want to place on the output -- whether that load is a generator, a lawnmower, or a vacuum cleaner.

The Orbo can output any strength of output energy that you wish, depending largely on the strength of the magnets. The only forces acting on the rotor magnets are accelerating forces. If the Orbo is designed correctly, there should be almost zero decelerating forces on the rotor magnets.

If you drive your car and only step on the gas pedal -- and you never step on the brake pedal -- and factoring out such things as air resistance, then your car would accelerate forever.

In an Orbo, where are the decelerating forces? If what you say is true -- that the magnets will not reach their next attraction point (by which I suppose you mean, the next toroidal coil), then there must be decelerating forces acting on the the rotor that counteract the accelerating force of the magnets being attracted to the toroidal core. But what are those decelerating forces? You can't claim that bearing friction would be a problem, because standard bearing friction is almost nothing compared to the accelerating force of the magnets being attracted to the toroidal core. In the event that the bearing friction is too high, such that it would stop the rotor, then either get a better bearing, or get stronger magnets, or spray WD40 on the existing bearing.

No BEMF has a COP potential of Infinity and is only limited by the design and components in the system.

I would say that that is an understatement. For an understanding, see my recent posts.