Of course Sean may be "right." In a sense. But wrong if we take "No
back EMF" as an absolute, and wrong in the implications.
I don't think I've seen how the Orbo motor allegedly works stated clearly.
The drive current doesn't accelerate the rotor directly, or, more
accurately perhaps, it doesn't do that with most of the current.
Rather it turns on and off the attraction of the toroid core for the
permanent magnets in the rotor.
If we are talking about "substantial" rather than making absolute
statements, there is no back-EMF. That's the design!
But what's really suspicious and an astounding claim is that Sean is
claiming that twice as much work is done on the rotor as is
dissipated in the toroid. And we have not seen one shred of evidence
regarding that, we haven't seen figures for the rotational
energy/rotational velocity of the rotor (easy to calculate from
theory, and to measure, in fact), nor have we seen information on the
power drawn from the battery, nor have we seen correlated data:
acceleration of the rotor and power dissipation from the battery.
We only have Sean's claim, with no data at all: twice as much energy
going into the rotor as is going into heat.
We have seen oscilloscope plots of voltage vs. current, showing no
back EMF, at a gross level. But none at all? How much would it take
to have an effect on the rotor?
This is what I've seen: the rotor is on a magnetic bearing, extremely
low friction, so the rotor can accumulate energy that is provided in
tiny bursts. There are transients in the oscilloscope plots that Sean
waves away. All it takes is a little leakage.
If, in fact, there were twice as much energy appearing in the rotor,
that rotor would accelerate with extreme rapidity, and low-friction
bearings would be completely unnecessary.
Hence, my conclusion: Sean is lying about the twice the energy thing.
He doesn't know that at all.
Calorimetry? Hopeless! The acceleration is apparently coming from a
very small energy transfer, a tiny fraction of what is being
dissipated from the battery. However, of course, if there is 300%
power, i.e., some brake is put on the rotor that causes any rotor
energy to be dissipated as heat, and there are appropriate controls,
etc., etc., calorimetry should be quite effective. We will see, of
course, what the calorimetry company comes up with. Or will we see
some excuse. Remember, the calorimetry apparently hasn't been done
yet. Sean is, as before, making predictions.
Gosh, something happened and the calorimetry company had to withdraw.
Sorry, folks.
And, remember, Sean justifies the battery because he needs to handle
very high transient currents? Wait a minute? Why high transient
currents? What would happen without these high transient currents,
what if the current were limited to some value, still enough to
accomplish the transition in a time short compared to magnet proximity?
Remember, again, Steorn has never disclosed what effect they
discovered. That's what they are selling, in fact. So don't hold your
breath. But, my prediction: when the smoke clears, he was lying. Not
merely making a mistake.
I'm saying that if he's claimed 300% (100% plus 200%), without having
decent evidence for that, but merely some prediction based on
conditions or measurements not made yet, or extrapolated from
measurements so small within the context of possible noise, like a
few milliwatts of anomaly measured in the presence of a hundred watts
of power dissipation, he's lying. He is attempting to create an
impression of knowledge that doesn't exist.
If he'd said, "We predict from what we know...." not a lie. But
that's not what he's written.
