Orbo operates via a simple mechanism, apparently.
The rotor has permanent magnets mounted on it, say it is four. There
are four toroidal coils with ferrite cores.
When there is no current in the coil, the core is attractive
magnetically to the permanent magnets on the rotor.
When the coil is energized, the cores become non-attractive.
An optical commutator switches the coil current. I think that the
current is switched on at TDC, i.e., when the magnet is aligned with
the core, so that the magnet is then free to move on. If not for the
switching, the rotor, while accelerating when the magnet approaches
the core, would deaccelerate symmetrically when it moves away from the core.
Thus with each rotation of the rotor from "cog" to cog, considering
this distance as 90 degrees, there are these two phases:
1. 0 degrees to 45 degrees (or more); Coil on. Rotor freewheels.
Allegedly the toroid itself exerts no force on the permanent magnets,
that would certainly be *substantially* true, apparently.
2. 45 degrees to 90 degrees; Coil off. Next permanent magnet on rotor
is attracted to toroid core and applies force to the rotor, doing
work on or through it.
In each cycles, in the second phase, the rotor will accumulate
rotational energy.
The claim is that the rotational energy accumulated is greater than
the energy it takes to turn on and turn off the toroid field.
No direct measurements of the energies involved have been shown.
Rather, indirect (and complex) arguments are made about "no back EMF"
and so forth.
An analysis that may be correct as an approximation may fail when
details are examined.
This much I can say from what little Steorn has released.
1. They require very low friction bearings, they are using magnetic bearings.
2. The demo units are powered by substantial batteries, and these
batteries run down fairly quickly. The energy consumed would be
enough to power an ordinary motor for the period of the demonstration.
3. If the rotor accumulates as much energy as is being expended by
the battery, it would not require extremely low friction bearings.
Therefore I conclude that the rotor energy is small compared to the
energy being supplied by the battery, and claims that the energy
accumulated by the rotor is 200% of the power consumed by the toroid
and switching circuits are not supported by the demonstration and the context.
4. It is possible that there is some anomaly involved, but it would
necessarily involve little "excess" energy, and it is thus quite
possible that the anomaly results from approximating assumptions and
inaccuracies in measurements. From what I have seen, Steorn is,
ironically, relying upon theory to make their case, i.e., theory
about the relevance of back EMF, for example. They claim that all the
energy in the coil circuit is ending up as heat, and therefore the
energy accumulating in the rotor is excess energy, but they have
produced no measurements that would indicate that the energy
accumulating in the rotor is greater than the uncertainty in the coil
circuit measurements and calculated energy.
Essentially, to disprove the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a very
general principle without known violations (no matter how complex the
mechanism asserted, which merely allows small uncertainties to mask
as findings), they are invoking secondary theory that may only be an
approximation. In particular, a claim that there is "no back-EMF"
practically must be an approximation, and then, applying this to the
operation of the motor, they need, as well, an additional theory,
that a motor with no back EMF but that accelerates anyway must be
benefiting from "free energy."
The demonstrations were not convincing to any but believers because
they did not directly show any energy gain at all. They did not
establish how much energy was being accumulated in the rotor, and
then they did not show that this amount of energy was large enough
that it could not be missing from the energy expended in the coil circuit.
The core question is how much energy it takes to establish and remove
a magnetic attraction. The Second Law is not about mechanism, it is
about result, and it will always be somewhat suspect on that account.
But the Second Law predicts that the energy of conversion will always
be greater than the work that can be done by magnetic attraction due
to the conversion.
In no way would I propose the Second Law as a proof that Orbo can't
be over unity. However, it does establish quite a barrier for proof
to overcome, particularly proof as utterly weak as Steorn has provided.
To come up with a hypothesis, perhaps there is some way that Orbo
extracts energy from space due to some not-understood process
involved in the conversion of the ferrite from attractive to
non-attractive. But in the absence of much better evidence, there is
no reason to even investigate the possibility, there remain far
simpler explanations involving interpretation error and, apparently,
blowing smoke.
*We don't have experimental results to examine and accept or refute.*
The basis for the Steorn claim of excess energy remains proprietary
and secret, if it exists at all.
Hypothesis, call it the Sincere Monetization hypothesis: Steorn did
discover what they believed was an anomaly, and their early work (and
major investment) was in attempting to set up convincing
demonstrations of the anomaly. They considered or recognized that
developing a marketable product itself was beyond their capacity to
raise capital, so they hit upon the idea of keeping the discovery
secret and selling access to it, and licenses to use it. That way
they do not have to solve what may be major engineering problems.
However, this hypothesis runs into some rocks. It does not allow the
hype that Sean has announced, such as 300% energy, for any device
that produces 300% energy would have an immediate application for
heating. I'd love an electric heater that consumed so much power and
generated three times as much as heat, and rotational energy can
always be easily converted to heat. It has to end up there anyway!
Steorn is also attempting to further monetize their position by
selling devices and products to be used investigating the Orbo effect.
I have seen nothing of what Orbo is doing, currently, that is
illegal. It's been said that magicians aren't committing fraud
because you don't expect magic to be real. However, magicians do not
necessarily, and are not required by law to, divulge that what they
are doing is illusion. They can cheefully claim that they are going
to saw a woman in half, with her none the worse for the experience.
Now, suppose you go to a show, you pay the admission ticket, because
you really want to see them saw a woman in half. You discover that
you were tricked. It was an illusion. Can you sue to get your price
of admission back?
You would be laughed out of court. Now, possibly in some future
litigious society, you could win a case like this. Unless when you
bought your ticket, you were accepting some agreement that protected
the magician from claims. "This ticket is sold for investigational
purposes only, and the seller of this ticket does not represent or
make any claims about the reality of what will be seen."
I'm quite sure -- and, in fact, I think I've seen it -- that the NDA
and Developer agreements explicitly disavow any claims of "fitness
for purpose" o the like. You are buying their secret, and, perhaps,
you will get what you pay for. How likely is it that the secret is
"free energy"?
From everything I've seen, not very. How much would I pay for a
Developer License? Not more than I'd pay to see a magician!
However, there are loopholes in their agreement, which I won't
mention publicly. At least I doubt that they have plugged these, it
would be almost impossible. I've seen software companies try to plug
pretty much the same loopholes, without success.
