Taken from http://www.steorn.com/skdb/oedu/
Orbo Evaluation and Development System
For electronics and electrical engineers and specialists in magnetics and physics
System Comprises
* 12 month Developer License
* 12 month SKDB Membership
* 1 Orbo Evaluation and Development Unit (OEDU)
* 1 USB memory stick with test data
Orbo Evaluation and Development Unit will be shipped within 28 days of purchase
OEDU Features and Applications
* Evaluate the core principle of Orbo Technology, which is that a time-variant magnetic interaction leads to a non-conservative energy result
* Modify key parameters that adjust performance and efficiency
* Prototype and develop products driven by Orbo Technology
Orbo Technology Developer License and SKDB Membership
* Access the SKDB and its e-Learning modules to learn about Orbo and how to use it
* Learn how Orbo technology works and how to build devices
* Typically for electrical and electronic engineers, research and development teams, and specialists in magnetics and physics
* Collaborate online and establish multi-disciplined research teams
* Commercialisation requires separate license
* Annual License and Membership
Download the brochure http://www.steorn.com/images/orbo-evaluation-and-development-unit-brochure.pdf (http://www.steorn.com/images/orbo-evaluation-and-development-unit-brochure.pdf)
OEDU Support in the SKDB
* User manual
* Bill of materials
* Board layout
* Data analysis support
* Optimisation support
Required Equipment and Skills
* Proficiency in the use of a digital oscilloscope and associated data capture and analysis
* Access to a 4 channel digital oscilloscope with a minimum bandwidth of 200MHz, minimum record length of 100,000 data points per channel and the ability to export the raw data
* Two Passive Probes with a minimum bandwidth of 200MHz
* One Differential Probe with a minimum bandwidth of 200MHz
* One Current Probe with a minimum bandwidth of 200MHz
* Access to Microsoft Excel 2010
* Electrical measurement skills
* Experimental data analysis skills
Please note the requirements.
AZ
PS: On the homepage there are now three engineers who claim to have measured 300% overunity.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HKTYrVjEGY
So sick of the Steorn con.
Quote from: happyfunball on November 28, 2010, 08:29:39 PM
So sick of the Steorn con.
Easy enough to verify now I´d say.
Appearantly you get a solid-state setup to test for yourself.
AZ
Quote from: AquariuZ on November 28, 2010, 08:32:12 PM
Easy enough to verify now I´d say.
Appearantly you get a solid-state setup to test for yourself.
AZ
Easy perhaps? Perhaps not.
Check out the equipment requirements. The 200MHz diff. and current probes are most likely out of reach by the majority. It's now easy for Steorn to say something like: "We're sorry you were not able to achieve COP>1 as we have, but you were not using the required equipment to make the measurements."
And to a certain degree, they would be correct. However, the question that still remains, at least in my mind is, has Steorn etc. really made accurate measurements, and is their test setup conducive to such?
We'll only know the answer to that if and when the information is publicly revealed.
.99
Quote from: AquariuZ on November 28, 2010, 08:27:03 PM
PS: On the homepage there are now three engineers who claim to have measured 300% overunity.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HKTYrVjEGY
ROFLMAO :D :D :D :D
Oh yeh...soooooo much overunity they can't even run a red LED load and the device itself unless a battery remains attached. Still drains batteries but umm...OU??
Steorn is a pathetic little con.
E-Goose
Quote from: poynt99 on November 28, 2010, 08:50:48 PM
Easy perhaps? Perhaps not.
Check out the equipment requirements. The 200MHz diff. and current probes are most likely out of reach by the majority. It's now easy for Steorn to say something like: "We're sorry you were not able to achieve COP>1 as we have, but you were not using the required equipment to make the measurements."
And to a certain degree, they would be correct. However, the question that still remains, at least in my mind is, has Steorn etc. really made accurate measurements, and is their test setup conducive to such?
We'll only know the answer to that if and when the information is publicly revealed.
.99
I hear what you are saying and must agree. What I am really hoping is that someone in here is equipped and willing to risk some money on this and start a thread.
This is as public as it gets, they are sticking their necks out with this one.
Think of it this way: If a serious lab would take this offer on and not be able to reproduce it they would quickly stop selling these "kits" when that same lab would start crying "fraud". That would be the end of Steorn.
Just wanted to make the members aware of the fact that it now can be tested if so desired, pity I do not meet the requirements (at all) or else I would most definitly test it myself.
AZ
Quote from: ElectricGoose on November 28, 2010, 08:52:30 PM
ROFLMAO :D :D :D :D
Oh yeh...soooooo much overunity they can't even run a red LED load and the device itself unless a battery remains attached. Still drains batteries but umm...OU??
Steorn is a pathetic little con.
E-Goose
So why would three engineers with verifiable backgrounds lie on camera?
Did they measure wrong? Where they tricked by Steorn? Risking their reputations over a stunt like this?
Things to contemplate...
AZ
Quote from: AquariuZ on November 28, 2010, 09:11:58 PM
I hear what you are saying and must agree. What I am really hoping is that someone in here is equipped and willing to risk some money on this and start a thread.
This is as public as it gets, they are sticking their necks out with this one.
Think of it this way: If a serious lab would take this offer on and not be able to reproduce it they would quickly stop selling these "kits" when that same lab would start crying "fraud". That would be the end of Steorn.
Just wanted to make the members aware of the fact that it now can be tested if so desired, pity I do not meet the requirements (at all) or else I would most definitly test it myself.
AZ
I would buy the kit etc. if they would rip up my NDA should I be able to clearly and irrefutably demonstrate the device is COP<1.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 28, 2010, 09:19:48 PM
I would buy the kit etc. if they would rip up my NDA should I be able to clearly and irrefutably demonstrate the device is COP<1.
.99
I´m not sure a NDA is required?
Maybe for the online SDK membership, would make sense.
But image COP>1 ....on your own workbench...
Lol. Trying to wet appetite. 8)
Quote from: AquariuZ on November 28, 2010, 09:25:15 PM
I´m not sure a NDA is required?
Maybe for the online SDK membership, would make sense.
But image COP>1 ....on your own workbench...
Lol. Trying to wet appetite. 8)
I am fairly certain it is required. ;)
Perhaps some enterprising individual could propose this idea to Stefan:
Use some of the overunity prize money to buy one kit etc., and select one qualified individual from this forum to receive it and perform the testing? Of course they would also have to sign the NDA, so that disqualifies me.
.99
Stefan, what do you think of all this?
If you applied for a kit would they give you one?
You are probably well known to them by now... ;D
Quote from: AquariuZ on November 28, 2010, 09:18:21 PM
So why would three engineers with verifiable backgrounds lie on camera?
Did they measure wrong? Where they tricked by Steorn? Risking their reputations over a stunt like this?
Things to contemplate...
AZ
Listen very carefully because what I have to say will make your life simpler.
Actually those things what you stated for me are not worth contemplating...WHY? ...because people say things and I cannot read minds or intentions of folk....this is for God to deal with. What I deal with is COLD HARD FACT. Everything else is just blah blah blah and a whole lot ego stroking.
You asked "why these men risk reputation??" Look, I could tell you that MAYBE they have been bought out or that they are gullible or that they are just plain incompetent and didnt read the instruments correct BUT FACT #1 is that I dont know these 3 men so I can't say and FACT #2 is that it really doesnt matter. Think of this though....why do LEGITIMATE very reputable doctors and scientists go on the stand as expert witnesses (in law courts) and 'sell out' for either defense or prosecutor?? Both the defense and prosecution expert cannot be correct! It's all a matter of where your principles lie and where you will put your 'white and black lines' (truth and false). Sadly for many in this world it is all shades of grey. HOWEVER as I said...this is all subjective, I dont care what these 3 men said...I dont know them...so I look to the facts. So...we ask...what are the facts??
Fact#1 - Steorn has claimed OU (now twice...one with E-Orbo which is mysteriously shelved and now solid state)
Fact#2 - Steorn has repeatedly promised public OU (with load) demonstrations, virtually ALL have been cancelled at the last minute for some lame excuse and the few public demos have only ever been accompanied by science type Power Point presentations with graphs of 'supposed proof' LOL. Graphs my dear....are NOT...I repeat NOT proof!!
Fact#3 - With the thousands of replicators Earthwide...NOBODY can run a load and even recharge a battery with this Steorn trash let alone take the battery off and have it run itself. IF IT WERE TRUE OU, you would have ample power to fill caps on the front end. I have seen true OU and when you do, there is no doubt, the circuit literally starts choking on the excess.
Those few facts alone are enough for me. I conducted my own tests and didnt have to get ripped 400 quid to see what a sham this guy is riding. It's not so much that he isn't on the right path, it's that he actually doesnt understand it at all and rather than taking the high road of continued hard work, he has decided to say "this is it folks!! and sell something that is only a very tiny part of the equation which is essentially useless by itself.
Anyway...you believe what you want. You have been warned.
E-Goose
Show me a single functioning 'Orbo' device powering anything. You can't, it doesn't exist. Four years later. The end.
Quote from: ElectricGoose on November 28, 2010, 10:02:52 PM
Listen very carefully because what I have to say will make your life simpler.
Actually those things what you stated for me are not worth contemplating...WHY? ...because people say things and I cannot read minds or intentions of folk....this is for God to deal with. What I deal with is COLD HARD FACT. Everything else is just blah blah blah and a whole lot ego stroking.
You asked "why these men risk reputation??" Look, I could tell you that MAYBE they have been bought out or that they are gullible or that they are just plain incompetent and didnt read the instruments correct BUT FACT #1 is that I dont know these 3 men so I can't say and FACT #2 is that it really doesnt matter. Think of this though....why do LEGITIMATE very reputable doctors and scientists go on the stand as expert witnesses (in law courts) and 'sell out' for either defense or prosecutor?? Both the defense and prosecution expert cannot be correct! It's all a matter of where your principles lie and where you will put your 'white and black lines' (truth and false). Sadly for many in this world it is all shades of grey. HOWEVER as I said...this is all subjective, I dont care what these 3 men said...I dont know them...so I look to the facts. So...we ask...what are the facts??
Fact#1 - Steorn has claimed OU (now twice...one with E-Orbo which is mysteriously shelved and now solid state)
Fact#2 - Steorn has repeatedly promised public OU (with load) demonstrations, virtually ALL have been cancelled at the last minute for some lame excuse and the few public demos have only ever been accompanied by science type Power Point presentations with graphs of 'supposed proof' LOL. Graphs my dear....are NOT...I repeat NOT proof!!
Fact#3 - With the thousands of replicators Earthwide...NOBODY can run a load and even recharge a battery with this Steorn trash let alone take the battery off and have it run itself. IF IT WERE TRUE OU, you would have ample power to fill caps on the front end. I have seen true OU and when you do, there is no doubt, the circuit literally starts choking on the excess.
Those few facts alone are enough for me. I conducted my own tests and didnt have to get ripped 400 quid to see what a sham this guy is riding. It's not so much that he isn't on the right path, it's that he actually doesnt understand it at all and rather than taking the high road of continued hard work, he has decided to say "this is it folks!! and sell something that is only a very tiny part of the equation which is essentially useless by itself.
Anyway...you believe what you want. You have been warned.
E-Goose
The above text shows you don't know what you're talking about so you shouldn't ask people to listen to you.
I'm very much in favor of Stefan or someone else giving money to provide @poynt99 with the proper equipment to test Steorn claim (I'd add to that also @Omega_0 who was the first to confirm independently Steorn's results), provided Steorn drop their NDA requirement. I'd like, however, to know if such testing is at all possible with even the highest end equipment available. Some of you probably remember the problems I encountered in the Summer when trying to find someone in most reputable universities to measure power input and output of, say, transformers. What I found with astonishment was that no one would touch such measurements with a ten foot pole and when it comes to teaching the students about power balances they do it only with theoretical models, never demonstrating it with proper labs. Many probably remember the intrinsic problems in data processing I encountered during these studies, problems unresolved to this day. These are inherent problems in the very integration procedures and so on because of the digital nature of the signal obtained. Furthermore, I found out that, experiments notwithstanding, there is an inherent possibility for overunity in the very standard theory of electricity -- due to natural asymmetries it turned out that excess energy can be produced thanks to the saving from the input.
Omnibus,
I already have most of the proper test equipment (1GHz 4CH scope, 500MHz probes etc.). My current and differential probes are 50MHz, but if 200MHz are required, then I can hopefully borrow those.
.99
@poynt99,
I would be most interested to see the results from your studies. Also, I'd encourage you strongly to communicate with @Omega_0 who did a superb job in replicating eOrbo although with much lesser equipment than needed. This area needs desperately more researchers such as @Omega_0 as well as yourself (I'll never forget your excellent modeling of Steorn's integration results; these need to be continued without delay).
@Omnibus
Long time no see.... Hope you are well... I am posting a small update on Abeling later.
@Stefan
Thoughts on ORBO-kit?
AZ
@poynt99,
Just wanted to let you know what I’ve concluded so far regarding OU in electrical systems in case you’ve missed that. Some of those reading here know that I did a lot of experimentation earlier this year. Unfortunately, it appears that even the most advanced equipment available at present won’t be enough to reach conclusive results (short of demonstrating a self-sustaining device). Proceeding from this conclusion I decided to analyze the situation purely theoretically, thus avoiding objections connected with experiments. Please take a look at the text, attached below, which summarizes these findings. As is seen, it appears that the possibility for the production of excess energy is inherent under certain circumstances in the very existing theory of electricity â€" the excess energy is produced as a result of saving from the input. Would be interested to know what’s your take on that.
I'll have a read Omnibus.
In the mean time, is it possible to test the theory with a circuit? Presume I have a 10GHz scope and probes of all types, do you believe it would be possible to measure?
Also, since the proof was arrived at from a mathematical perspective, would not a simulation also prove the theory? Provide a circuit and I will simulate it. With the simulation, I believe I can achieve as accurate a measurement as one would need.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on December 01, 2010, 08:45:34 AM
I'll have a read Omnibus.
In the mean time, is it possible to test the theory with a circuit? Presume I have a 10GHz scope and probes of all types, do you believe it would be possible to measure?
Also, since the proof was arrived at from a mathematical perspective, would not a simulation also prove the theory? Provide a circuit and I will simulate it. With the simulation, I believe I can achieve as accurate a measurement as one would need.
.99
It's not that the theory isn't correct. It simply appears that it contains the OU possibility but that hasn't been noticed so far.
As for the experimental verification there are a lot of intrinsic problems. First off, the partitioning. 8-bit, even 10 or 12 bit scope is just not enough in view of the precision sought. Then the very procedures of digital integration and/or processing of data appear quite problematic when such accuracy is desired as here in these studies. Then, the probes themselves. Probably you remember, I used a Hall effect current probe from Tektronix but then it became apparent that the passive probe I was using may pose a problem having in mind it has something of the order of 115pF internal impedance. The experimental effect observed is so sensitive to phase shift that any parasitic such (from the circuit of the probe which is not the studies circuit) may lead to subtle errors with substantial consequences. So, in terms of experimenting with circuits, coils, transformers etc, aiming at evaluating the power balance would be suspect on so many accounts that it isn't even worth spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars for equipment. I'm even contemplating to sell my Tektronix DPO 2024, the current probe and so on and use the money for something that's more likely to bring in a conclusive result.
As for modeling, I think what I've done is modeling per se and it brought about unsuspected math problems in addition which complicated the matters even more. I think we should look for something really definitive and not just play with these things just for fun. Having fun is OK but it would be very desirable to also reach some final conclusions along the way. So far what's being generates are more and more questions and practically no solutions. Wouldn't you agree?
I don't mean to mess up the thread, but as far as I understand this project, it contains signals at very high frequencies. How should the wiring be if not all energy are lost as electromagnetic radiation? All wires and components should be terminated correctly, and all wires should be screened (?) - if not the theory and the measurements will not make sense?
Regarding the resolution of the scope, 8, 10 or 12 bit; If 12 bit resolution isn't enough what "OU rate" are we talking about? I did "read" the PDF - it is too complicated for me to understand. Anyways, for an limited braincapacity in electronics as myself, I still wonder, if the measurements are this delicate, should there possibly be extremely small amount of OU (?).
Vidar
Omnibus,
If OU can be proved via a mathematical treatise, then I would suspect if can also be proved using a mathematical "engine" to achieve visual results of the same.
If it can be simulated with electrical components, provide the circuit and I'll do it. If not, then perhaps we'll wait for your new equipment to arrive.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on December 01, 2010, 11:22:48 AM
Omnibus,
If OU can be proved via a mathematical treatise, then I would suspect if can also be proved using a mathematical "engine" to achieve visual results of the same.
If it can be simulated with electrical components, provide the circuit and I'll do it. If not, then perhaps we'll wait for your new equipment to arrive.
.99
I wonder how this simulation with electrical components can be done. We're talking about comparisons of the input and the output power. Earlier in the discussion we were talking about constructing a cnverter which would transform the output waves into proper corresponding input waves (suppose if we have capacitors to acquire the output and then the convertor prepares the input waves from what's in the capacitors). Unfortunately, the losses will be horrendous and that will kill the OU effect. I'd be curious if you have any other suggestions.
Quote from: happyfunball on November 28, 2010, 11:33:37 PM
Show me a single functioning 'Orbo' device powering anything. You can't, it doesn't exist. Four years later. The end.
I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 01, 2010, 03:43:21 PM
I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c
Tisk tisk mr disingenuous
Quote from: happyfunball on December 01, 2010, 03:57:16 PM
Tisk tisk mr disingenuous
Nope, everything you see in the Orbette videos is absolutely real and anyone can do it. The Orbette 1, as shown above, works exactly like Steorn's Orbo: it is a core effect motor driven by the neutralization of the attraction between the magnets in the rotor and the core; it shows all the characteristics that Sean demonstrated at his various demos, including some that he only claimed but never demonstrated, like running on a battery that it charged itself, and, as shown in this video, generating power from a separate generator coil (the loopsticks) which produce light at the bank of LEDs. Since Orbette's rotor is turning for the exact same reason, using the same drive system and similar input power, if you believe that Steorn's rotor is turning "for free" then you must either believe the same about mine, or demonstrate why mine isn't but Steorn's is.
Therefore, as shown in the video, if Steorn's Orbo is performing as they claim, the power lighting the LEDs in my video is generated for free. It is FREE ENERGY from an Orbo device....if Steorn's claims are true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 01, 2010, 08:30:55 PM
Nope, everything you see in the Orbette videos is absolutely real and anyone can do it. The Orbette 1, as shown above, works exactly like Steorn's Orbo: it is a core effect motor driven by the neutralization of the attraction between the magnets in the rotor and the core; it shows all the characteristics that Sean demonstrated at his various demos, including some that he only claimed but never demonstrated, like running on a battery that it charged itself, and, as shown in this video, generating power from a separate generator coil (the loopsticks) which produce light at the bank of LEDs. Since Orbette's rotor is turning for the exact same reason, using the same drive system and similar input power, if you believe that Steorn's rotor is turning "for free" then you must either believe the same about mine, or demonstrate why mine isn't but Steorn's is.
Therefore, as shown in the video, if Steorn's Orbo is performing as they claim, the power lighting the LEDs in my video is generated for free. It is FREE ENERGY from an Orbo device....if Steorn's claims are true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk
Tisk tisk mr disingenuous. Enough with the word games, you don't claim OU with the 'Orbette 1.'