At 01:59 PM 4/1/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
New promotional video: http://www.steorn.com/ New data on the older
permanent magnet Orbo
Where. Not the video!
There is some data, though, linked from the orbo page,
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/eorbo/5-calorimetric-tests.aspx
Let's say that this is less than impressive. Sure, if the power input
were constant, but was it? They say it was, but what that turns out
to mean is that the "voltage and current were set up to be constant."
How? Not easy, you know. Orbo switches the power, and with no
rotation, in some positions there would be constant current, and in
some, there would be none. Which conditions was the "control"? Not
rotating, no switching, so ... what's the voltage and current?
I suspect this is a variation on the earlier claims that nobody
particularly believed.
What we have in the experimental run is a chart showing heat
generated relatively steadily over time. In the control, the rotor
held stationary (in what effing position? Or was this what they meant
at the first, that they used an independent power supply to supply
power to the control? Let me assume that. But how did they do it? In
the operating orbo, the square wave, at rise and fall, could be a
complex waveform, they would have difficulty matching the timing and
current. It's tricky, but it could be done, and they didn't talk at
all about how they did it. And this is the core of the run: was the
input *power* the same?
It is indeed, their claim: that rotation is free energy, and how fast
the rotoer is moving is independent of the power input.
But, remember, they use ultralow friction bearings, apparently
because the effect is small. How big is the effect they are seeing?
Well, the control raises the temperature of the box about 1 degree in
2000 minutes, that's at 3.8 watts, they claim.
The orbo raises the temperature an additional 0.3 degree in the same
time. Because the graphs are *roughly* linear, the heat is
accumulating reasonably well, not much being lost. So the power being
"generated" is about 1 watt. That's huge, in fact, they would not
need ultra low friction bearings, I believe. So what gives?
The most likely explanation here is that the operating orbo is
consuming more power, and that is precisely what they have not
demonstrated. They could do it by various means. They've elected not
to go there, simply to claim that they matched the power, but by
unspecified means.
What are they doing? It's obvious: they are selling access to the SKDB.
The "solid state orbo"? It's in an "early stage of development."
Haven't worked out the bugs yet, but, don't worry.... it is part of
the SKDB so you can see for yourself. For how many Euros?
Look, folks, if cold fusion were like this, I'd never have become
interested. They have not shown *anything* that is truly interesting,
so far. The calorimetric test is based on an assumption that they
input power is the same to the two orbos, the rotating and the
stationary one, but that is precisely the claim that they didn't
demonstrate in January.
Do they present any evidence showing that the input power is the
same? Nope. Just their unsupported statement.
Okay, I read the whole report more carefully. They say that the input
power to the control unit was maintained to be the same as the input
power to the operating orbo. They don't say how the input power to
the operating orbo was determined except
the full operation of an Orbo-based system where the energies were
measured at the input point to the calorimeter.
Then with a separate power supply, they establish "the same" energy
input. How? Calculated power? Is the operating power constant? That's
tricky to measure, and I've never seen any demonstration where they
were actually measuring it.
For the purpose of this experiment, both of the power sources
mentioned above were considered to be a complete measurement of the
power. The power into the calorimeter was calculated by measuring
the current and the voltage for both the Orbo-based system and the
optical sensor. The measurements were recorded with a Digital
Phosphor Oscilloscope, and as such, energy measurement was derived
and maintained at a constant 3.8W.
Calculated. Sample rate? Makes a difference!
Impressive unless you look inside the horse's mouth and notice the
missing teeth.
I'd be more impressed if a method of measuring true input power were
used. Using a power supply, using low-sample rate measurement of
voltage and current, and calculating power, doesn't cut it.
