| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: Scientists flock to test 'free energy' discovery |
 |
|
Only very loosely connected with 9/11 I accept, but since there are allegations the 9/11 event was a trigger for war which was to get control of oil, it has a connection.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1854394,00.html
| Quote: | Scientists flock to test 'free energy' discovery
David Smith, Sunday August 20, 2006, The Observer
A man who claims to have developed a free energy technology which could power everything from mobile phones to cars has received more than 400 applications from scientists to test it.
Sean McCarthy says that no one was more sceptical than he when Steorn, his small hi-tech firm in Dublin, hit upon a way of generating clean, free and constant energy from the interaction of magnetic fields. 'It wasn't so much a Eureka moment as a get-back-in-there-and-check-your-instruments moment, although in far more colourful language,' said McCarthy. But when he attempted to share his findings, he says, scientists either put the phone down on him or refused to endorse him publicly in case they damaged their academic reputations. So last week he took out a full-page advert in the Economist magazine, challenging the scientific community to examine his technology.
McCarthy claims it provides five times the amount of energy a mobile phone battery generates for the same size, and does not have to be recharged. Within 36 hours of his advert appearing he had been contacted by 420 scientists in Europe, America and Australia, and a further 4,606 people had registered to receive the results. |
http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx Is the site of the company who are making the claim.There is a 5 minute video for download if you navigate around their site.
They make the following statement:-
| Quote: | The Energy Project
In 2003 Steorn undertook a project to develop more efficient micro generators. Early into this project the company developed certain generator configurations that appeared to be over 100% efficient. Further investigation and development has led to the company’s current technology, a technology that produces free energy. The technology is patent pending.
Our Technology and the Laws of Physics
Steorn’s technology produces free, clean and constant energy. This provides a significant range of benefits, from the convenience of never having to refuel your car or recharge your mobile phone, to a genuine solution to the need for zero emission energy production. It also provides a secure supply of energy, since the components of the technology are readily available.
The technology is in a constant state of development. The company has focused for the past three years on increasing power output and the development of test systems that allow detailed analysis to be performed.
Steorn’s technology appears to violate the ‘Principle of the Conservation of Energy’, considered by many to be the most fundamental principle in our current understanding of the universe. This principle is stated simply as ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form’.
Steorn is making three claims for its technology:
1 The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2 The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
3 There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).
The sum of these claims is that our technology creates free energy.
This represents a significant challenge to our current understanding of the universe and clearly such claims require independent validation from credible third parties. During 2005 Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record.
In early 2006 Steorn decided to seek validation from the scientific community in a more public forum, and as a result have published the challenge in The Economist. The company is seeking a jury of twelve qualified experimental physicists to define the tests required, the test centres to be used, monitor the analysis and then publish the results.
Steorn has decided to publish its challenge in The Economist because of the breadth of its readership. "We chose it over a purely scientific magazine simply because we want to make the general public aware that this process is about to commence and to generate public support, awareness, interest etc for what we are doing." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone who has even heard of Tesla will know that 'discoveries' have a little tendancy to be...well...disappeared. We'll see how far this gets. My guess is it will be 'debunked' and will disappear down the mem-shaft.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: Hmmmmmm |
|
|
I`m sure I saw a Panorama on something like this that called it dark energy or something.
As for magnetic fields generating power, well we`ve known that for a while now and everybodys car alternator uses magnetic fields to generate electricity. The only trouble is you need to MOVE them to get a result. Hence a requirement for input of energy to get some out.
The jury is out on this one but IMHO if it worked you`d have major companies offering to buy the rights tomorrow.
You see thats what they do, if you invent a new technology that causes a problem for the oil/gas status quo you will probably get a phone call from a chap at BP who offers to buy the rights to your device for a couple of million and says you`ll get 10% of sales revenue.
What happens then is the plans are locked in a safe and you will never hear about them again!
This happened to a guy in Germany this year, he invented a filtration system that mean Buses could use the same engne oil for about 200,000miles without changing it. A major manufaturer bought the rights and promptly shelved the whole thing!!
So we`ll see....
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This has hoax written all over it.
steorn and hoax in a google search soon uncovers what many are thinking.
When will people realise that free energy is useless without machines to use it and that those machines are manufactured using materials which are made using fossil fuels. This is not rocket science, just simple fact. Free energy, even if true, will not ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel depletion which this world now faces.
It's interesting on the website that they claim the following;
"The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%."
By definition, this means that the output must be greater than the input. Quite simply therefore, this is not free energy since energy must have to be put in for it to work.
It's also interesting to note that most new domestic condensing boilers often come with a similar claim, that the coefficient of performance is greater than 100%. Condensing boilers make use of the flue gases to add additional (otherwise lost) heat to the water in the radiators. The nett efficiency of these boilers is usually somewhere between 90-97%, but, if you include the latent energy available from the water vapour produced during the combustion of natural gas which is otherwise lost up the flue then the gross efficiency rises to 103% (i.e. >100%). However, no gas, no heat, no high efficiency, no nothing. I'm a heating engineer by the way.
As for Tesla, I'm not aware of any of his inventions disappearing and I've just read a very good book all about him. Only the details of his Death Ray are being held by the FBI but most other things have been marketed. The fact that we can use electricity in our homes is thanks to Tesla. He also invented fluorescent lamps. Amazing bloke but there's little substance to the conspiracies about him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Isn't a nuclear reaction an example of more energy out than in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hi Blackcat, in a nuclear reaction all the energy is already contained within the atoms and released when you split them. |
Indeed - just like coal contains all the energy which is released when it is burned. Why might there not be a form of energy which we do not yet understand but which is released when certain conditions are met? This device might tap in to magnetism or gravity or the vacuum in a way which we can not as yet explain. It does not necessarlty have to be contrary to any laws of physics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | | Hi James C, It appears you have got gross and net the wrong way round. However, there is often confusion about the presentation and use of gross and net efficiency data for heating equipment. As you meant to state, the gross efficiency includes the heat contained in the water vapour produced during combustion within the 100 percent value and is therefore always less than 100 percent. Net efficiency accounts for the heat in the water vapour over and above the 100 per cent value so the maximum is around 109 per cent. Condensing boilers recover some of the heat in the water vapour so it is possible to achieve efficiencies greater than 100 per cent net efficiency. The two approaches are simply different scales for measuring the same thing and do not indicate that you are getting more out than you put in. Ps. I am also a mechanical services consultant. |
Hi Bongo Brian,
Thanks for the correction. I was trying to make your point that the reporting of the data does not necessarily mean you are getting more energy out than is put in. Thanks for adding clarity to my waffle.
| blackcat wrote: | | Isn't a nuclear reaction an example of more energy out than in? |
I believe it is but it is not free. The energy needed to extract uranium out of the ground is obviously one input as is the massive energy consumption required to build and maintain nuclear reactors. Also, if every country turned to nuclear power then it is likely that the world supply of uranium would be exhausted within 2 to 3 decades. No uranium = no 'free' energy.
Don't all of these devices require electricty to work and isn't most electricity produced from burning or reacting (nuclear) stuff that comes out of the ground? 40% of UK electricity production is from natural gas, a resource we are fast running out of (North Sea).
These devices might give a greater output than input but they still require an input. Tesla blew the local genarators in Colarado and New York on many occasions while performing his more dangerous experiments with high voltage. When that happened, his experiments ceased to function. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Bongo,
I don't want to get bogged down with this but although I absolutely agree with your definition, that is not what I was saying.
In answer to Blackcats' question, the energy we gain from using uranium is greater than the energy we have to expend to use it. In that sense, it is free, but then again the same thing can be said about all fossil fuels since all sit in the ground. How free it is depends of course on the economics and politics of pricing fossil fuels on the open market. Still, one barrel of oil is equivalent to 25,000 man hours so in terms of cost it is virtually free.
The issue with free energy inventions is that they nearly always employ another fuel source to make them work. Although it may be true that these inventions have an output that exceeds the input, without the primary fuel source that drives them, they are redundant. Again, the same is true of nuclear energy or fossil fuels which all need to be mined and refined before use. If the price of energy used in the process of refining and mining increases dramatically then the energy gained from these fuels becomes less cheap (less free). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But why do these people who claim to have invented a new way of generating energy have to be described as having invented something that "gets more out than is put in"? A water wheel in Woodbridge, Suffolk was built centuries ago and powered by tidal energy. This drove a mill by the seemingly permanent and inexhaustible energy we know as gravity. What if there is a way of tapping into such a force ( or similar ) more directly? We do not know what gravity is but we can make use of it to power machinery and no-one says it cannot work because it is "free".
http://www.tidemill.org.uk/about.html#Link3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | | This is a bizarre conversation James, I am sure if we were both in the same room we would acknowledge our agreement very quickly (I guess that is just the thing about exchanging comments through a Net Forum medium) we are both agreeing that you cannot get more out than you put in |
I think we would and I agree, it is very hard to hold a converstaion in this way and make it sound sincere and not a criticism.
I see from your reply to blackcat that you work in the renewables sector. I am a self-employed heating engineer and have fitted many of the renewable technologies you mention in your post. I have always tried to promote the use of renewables and such systems are definitely becoming more fashionable. Like you, I think we will see a move towards nuclear but feel that coal will make something of a come back despite the climate change issue. Wood and coal will almost certainly become more favourable in the domestic market. I don't know how many enquiries I've had to install solid-fuel stoves this year what with gas prices rising but it's been a lot.
How does this all fit in with 9/11? Well I believe that 9/11 was essentially the starting pistol in the battle over resources and preserving dollar hegemony. Oil is essential to a country that consumes 25% of daily output and its trade in dollars is something the neo-cons are desperate to preserve in order to maintain the dollar as reserve currency. This fact is in no way an excuse for the attrocities of 9/11 since 9/11 was not carried out in the interest of the US citizens but for its elite, but it is important in understanding why the phony war on terror is directed towards the very people who occupy the land and resources the US needs. This, at a time when the world's oil supply is falling behiind demand and new discoveries of oil account for only 1 barrel in every 4 consumed.
It's nice talking to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I caught the SKY News item too.
Very excited about this.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bicnarok
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If there was free energy invention you can be sure it´ll "disapear" one way or another. The Producers of oil who runs this worlds politics arn´t going to let us get of thier drug are they.
We need oil for everything to work, like junkies. If we no longer need the Oil the produces, sellers pusher or whatever you want to call them, they will be no longer needed, they will become nothing.
Will they let this happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth is a vast magnet, and it is rotating. It therefore theoretically seems possible that in some way energy could be produced from this moving magnetic field. Tap off too much though, and you might slow down the spin of the Earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
item8
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 974
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documen ts_Validating_Orbo/
| Quote: | PureEnergySystems.com > News > September 14, 2011
Steorn Drops Four Bombshell Documents Validating Orbo
The Dublin based, Irish free energy company Steorn, has allowed PESN to view and report on four documents written by third party scientists and engineers that appear to validate the Orbo overunity technology.
by Hank Mills
for Pure Energy Systems News
PESN has been given the opportunity by Sean McCarthy, the CEO of Steorn, to review four documents that provide confirmation of their overunity magnetic technology, named Orbo. The first three documents cover tests performed on permanent magnet based systems, and the final document discusses a test of a solid state Orbo in a calorimeter. The significance of these documents is that they seem to validate Steorn's technology, and prove the Orbo technology works as Steorn has claimed.
Orbo's Back Story
Steorn is the Irish based company that in August of 2006 announced -- via a full page advertisement in The Economist -- they had developed a technology that offered free, clean, and constant energy. Around this same time, they opened a public forum (now closed) on their website, on which the CEO of the company, Sean McCarthy, frequently posted and contributed to discussions. This public forum evolved, and lead to the creation of a private forum for those willing to sign non-disclosure agreements. This private forum eventually became what is today called the "Steorn Knowledge Development Base" or SKDB.
Between 2006 and present day, Steorn has been rapidly developing their technology, which is all based on magnetism. Originally, in 2006, their technology utilized only permanent magnets interacting with other magnets in very specific ways. These original configurations utilized the concept of magnetic viscosity (the delay of a magnetic material to move on the BH curve or respond magnetically, when exposed to the field of another magnet) to produce gains or losses of energy. In a rotary system utilizing such a setup, if the rotor moved in one direction there would be a loss of energy, and if it moved in the other direction there would be a gain of energy. Over the course of time, Steorn enhanced their permanent-magnet-only configurations to include the use of "soft" (not having a permanent magnetic field of their own) magnetic materials -- such as ferrite -- and geometric relationships that allowed for greater amounts of OU. As their configurations evolved, so did their understanding of what was taking place to produce the gains/losses of energy. They came to the realization that the manipulation of the BH curve was at the heart of all their configurations.
At some point Steorn developed a design for an electric pulse motor -- named E-Orbo - that did not produce back EMF (also known as counter EMF), and hence produced overunity gains of energy. Back EMF is the enemy of free energy in electric motors, because it is the signature of energy transfer between the circuit that powers the electromagnets (input) that are pulsed, and the rotor (output). If you can avoid producing back EMF, you simply will not be transferring energy from the input to the output. The concept is that the torque gained by the rotor will be thermodynamically free. Hence, the efficiency of such a setup will be infinite, since none of the input is actually consumed.
During late 2009 and early 2010, Steorn held a series of demonstrations of the E-Orbo at the Waterways Center in Dublin, Ireland. These demonstrations were streamed live onto the internet, and were posted to YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial . With high end oscilloscopes, current probes, inductance meters, and other equipment, Steorn was able to clearly show the E-Orbo systems present were producing overunity, and not producing back EMF (within the measurement capability of the equipment present). In fact, in addition to producing a gain of energy in the form of torque on the rotor, the coils being pulsed experienced an "induction gain." Many individuals replicated the E-Orbo, and posted videos of their systems on the internet. In the recent past, the patent for E-Orbo has been published. It documents the system down to the smallest detail.
Steorn is first and foremost an intellectual property company that desires to accumulate a stock of patented, novel technologies they can license to developers. Their primary goal is not to develop products themselves, but to allow their licensees to do so. This drive to accumulate as much intellectual property as possible, is probably what drove them to pursue a solid state (no moving parts) version of their Orbo technology. The following description of their solid state technology was provided on a previous version of their website.
Solid State Orbo is the latest physical implementation of the Orbo technology platform. Solid State has numerous advantages over previous implementations. The fact that the Solid State version has no moving parts lowers the costs and reduces the time-frame for developers wishing to replicate the core effect. Testing is greatly simplified too. The only test equipment required is a simple digital oscilloscope.
Solid State Orbo gains energy via control of a material's inductance and domain rotation. As with all previous implementations of Orbo, these material permeability effects are fundamental to the production of an energy gain.
Although Solid State Orbo is in the early stages of development, rapid progress is being made with regards to optimisation. For this reason, it forms the basis of the Steorn Knowledge Development Base.
The development of the solid state Orbo technology seems to be their current focus. A solid state technology that can produce overunity gains of energy would be a huge achievement. Once hitting the marketplace, such a technology would have the potential to advance as rapidly as integrated circuit chips did in the 1990's.
Awesome Scoop for PESN
After hearing very little from Steorn for quite a while, an email was sent to Sean McCarthy requesting an update on the status of their company. He very promptly (hours later) replied to the email, and offered PESN a great opportunity to review four papers -- written by third party scientists and engineers -- about the Orbo technology. The condition that came with the offer was that the papers themselves could not be posted, and the authors names could not be revealed. Also, Steorn would have right to review the article before it was published, which is a common courtesy we offer to many of the inventors and companies we compose feature articles about. Very quickly, we took him up on the offer!
Shortly after reviewing the four papers, their significance became obvious. They are all written by third parties outside of Steorn, who indicate that Steorn's claims are valid. To be specific, three of the papers address permanent magnet configurations, and the final paper covers a solid state configuration tested in a calorimeter. It should be noted that Steorn has previously tested the E-Orbo in a calorimeter of their own design, and published the positive results on their website.
The remaining portion of this article will be divided into four parts, each part covering one of the four papers. In each part, we will share as much information as we can from the specific paper -- while carefully avoiding content that could be considered too proprietary.
Paper #1 - Overunity Only Gets Better With Age
This fairly short paper is the oldest of the four (written in 2006), but verifies that early on, Steorn had third parties replicating, and hence validating, their technology. The author is a highly credible engineer and scientist who holds multiple advanced degrees. With degrees in physics and engineering, R&D (research and development) experience, and expertise in magnetism, he would seem like an ideal individual to test and validate Steorn's claims about the Orbo technology.
The topic of the paper is a test of an early configuration that was performed at Steorn's offices. The setup seems to be composed of a "main" wheel with a magnet attached to it, and a secondary, smaller wheel that also holds a magnet. One of the magnets would be set at an angle to the opposite magnet, on the other wheel. During each test, either the main wheel or the small wheel would rotate (the other being in a fixed or stationary position), and the magnets attached to each wheel would interact with each other. The torque of the wheel in motion would be measured with a torque meter, and the data would be analyzed. From this analysis, any anomalous torque in the system would be apparent.
To prepare for the test, the torque meter for each wheel was properly calibrated, and the friction and the electronic offset of each torque meter were determined. This information was used to correct the raw data that would come from each torque meter.
Multiple tests were performed in which one wheel (either the main wheel or small wheel) was fixed and the other was allowed to rotate. Also, the angle of the magnets were changed and then tested. After the data was corrected and analyzed, the conclusion was a gain of energy of .99 mill-joules or 6.2% of the total energy could be obtained in the experiment.
The author of the report states,
"The background friction cannot explain such a large unbalance. The calibration of the torque meter also rules out any experimental error associated with the readings. It is not clear what the source of this net energy [is], and further investigation is required to find a physical explanation for this phenomenon."
This document clearly indicates that even Steorn's earliest permanent magnetic configurations could produce gains of energy (in this case torque on a wheel), that could be detected by professionals with high quality, testing equipment. The fact a scientist and engineer of the caliber that wrote this paper would report such an anomalous gain of energy is a boost for Steorn's credibility.
Document #2 - Real Men Love Torque Curves
(Editors Note: We have discovered this document is actually posted on Steorn's website. It is the only one of the four documents that appears to be publicly available.)
This long and very detailed document, composed in 2008, was written by a consulting engineer, John A.M. Rice, who went to Steorn's offices to perform a test of a permanent magnet configuration. In the document, the engineer specifically states his role, which was three fold.
- From an engineering and technical perspective, to formally observe a series of tests which aim to support the above-mentioned claim.
- To examine the test methods, equipment and procedures, with particular respect to their suitability, accuracy, and performance.
- To observe, verify, and report on specific tests carried out in support of the claim in the undersigned's presence.
In the paper, the engineer specifically details the setup, all the components used, the testing equipment used, and the experiment to be performed. He goes on to describe how the equipment was calibrated, and all possible variables (such as bend in the rotor shaft, friction in the system, ovality of the wheel, the linearity of the data from torque meters, and possible interference from the Earth's magnetic field) were measured and accounted for. All of this setup and preliminary work was vital to ensure the raw data could be appropriately corrected as necessary, so the results of the testing would be valid. The results of the testing in the form of many torque curves (graphs of the torque on the rotor over a 360 degree rotation) are included in the document.
The basic setup was a rotor (connected to a torque meter), with a stator. The rotor could be "stepped" (moved a tiny fraction of a degree at a time) repeatedly for "static" testing, or allowed to rotate continually for 360 degrees or more, never stopping during the range of degrees tested, for "dynamic" testing. Both the rotor and stationary stator could be fitted with magnets (neodymium in this case) and/or rods of soft ferrite. Multiple tests were performed (both static and dynamic) of various magnetic configurations. As an example, in one test the rotor held a rod of soft ferrite, with a neodymium magnet backing it in a configuration that "biased" the ferrite (as explained in a paper previously available on Steorn's public website). The permanent magnet and biased ferrite interacted with a permanent magnet attached to the stator.
Over a 360 degree rotation there was a gain of energy, which the author reported with the following statement...
"In the test context distance involves a 360 degree rotation of the rig rotor. By integrating, i.e. summation, of the torque profile through a full revolution of the rotor, the associated energy can be calculated. This facility was setup in the test IE equipment.
"A zero energy gain applied to 4.2.10.5 (b) i.e. ferrite removed, but neo magnet only in rotor. Conversely, a net energy GAIN (through a 360 degree rotation) is evident for 4.2.10.5 (b) i.e. ferrite included in rotor. This latter result is the key outcome of the tests."
This report also offered a very upbeat discussion of the test results.
DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS V. OBJECTIVE:
Recapping on this short program of tests, the fundamental questions were:
(i) Is the test equipment appropriate and suitable for the purpose -- YES.
(ii) Is the particular test rig, and its component parts, controls and IT systems utilized in a manner which delivers accurate, consistent and repeatable test results -- YES.
(iii) Are the applied methods and procedures, as observed during the tests, objective and pertinent -- YES.
(iv) Do the test results provide clear and explicit support of the claim? - YES.
So in short, when it comes to Steorn's permanent magnet based Orbo technology, this author's answer was, "Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!"
It sounds like a pretty good endorsement to me!
Document #3 - I'll Do It Better The Second Time Around
The author of this third paper -- from 2009 -- starts off by stating that he thinks Steorn may have "really stumbled across an experimental magnetic anomaly", because Steorn's test data (he references various test data provided by Steorn) seems to confirm a theoretical anomaly he has discovered, through his own calculations.
In the paper he elaborates on his theoretical anomaly that would be produced by a specific arrangement of a neodymium magnet on a rotor (or a soft ferrite biased by a neodymium magnet) interacting with a stator magnet, at a certain angle to the rotor. He states that the gain of energy in the setup would be, according to Steorn, due to specific conditions of "asymmetry and nonlinearity." However, he adds that according to his theoretical anomaly, it is due to a change in anisotropic asymmetry that can apparently produce a gain of energy.&^&
He makes it clear in the paper that his analysis of Steorn's data and his calculations do not prove that the theory of conservation of energy is being violated. However, he also states there is the chance that additional research may explain why it is not possible to produce energy from the magnetic effects, or it could indicate "unknown physics might reveal the impossible."
A few additional bits of information he offers are as follows.
- The variables in the system (airgap, amount of biasing, and stator angle) must all be optimized to produce an obviously detectable gain of energy. For example, a change in the strength of the biasing of the soft ferrite or the angle of the neodymium stator magnet requires the other parameter to be altered. This is why it can be so difficult to detect the effect.
"There exists an optimized bias value for a fixed stator angle and also an optimized angle for a fixed bias value for which the effect has maxima. This together with the general smallness explains why it is so difficult to demonstrate the experimental anomaly!"
- The test data the author was given was not obtained in such a way to maximize the gain of energy, but to show the "importance of conditions."
- The author details in a chart how both asymmetry and nonlinearity must be present for the Steorn effect to appear. For example, in a setup with an unbiased rotor magnet and a symmetric magnetic field produced by the stator magnet, there is no gain of energy. With a biased rotor magnet and an asymmetric magnetic field produced by the stator magnet, there is a gain of energy.
This report was not an absolute confirmation of the Steorn technology (the author makes this clear), but shows that highly credible scientists and engineers can see how the Orbo technology may work to produce gains of energy.
Document #4 - "It's getting hot in here, turn off that Orbo!"
The fourth report that we were allowed to examine is unique from the others in that it is about a solid state version of Steorn's technology. It is also the most recent of the documents, being written in March, 2011.
A solid state Orbo offers the potential of having no moving parts, having no need for bearings (as in permanent manget (PM) or E-Orbo configurations), being simpler to build, and potentially being simpler to test. Other advantages of solid state Orbo include fewer parts to wear out, and perhaps more potential to evolve quickly -- in a similar manner to the way computers evolved during the past twenty years.
In this paper the author describes a very simple configuration that involves a coil wrapped around a nickel core (that is both magnetic and conductive) acting as an inductor. The coil and core is placed in a calorimeter composed of a vacuum chamber. Two thermocouples measure the temperature of the coil itself, and the temperature of the air in the room. A metered power supply provides the input power to the coil, and an oscilloscope monitors the current, voltage, and can also calculate total input power by using a math function of the scope.
The purpose of the test is to determine if the coil fed with a quantity of AC power, can produce more heat than the same coil fed with the same quantity of DC power. In the paper, the formula needed to calculate the total AC power is presented. The AC input and DC input is configured to be as identical as possible. Actually, the power input during the AC run was .9 (point nine) watts, and in the DC run it was 1 (one) watt. The fact that the input power during the AC run was slightly less than in the DC run actually biases the test against the AC run. This makes the results of the test even more significant.
In the first test, 1 watt of DC power is fed into the coil wound around the nickel core. The temperature of the coil increases until it reaches an equilibrium point of 36.1 degrees. This is the point at which the power lost by the coil via heat dissipation matches the electrical input power. Even if the input power stayed on for hours longer, the temperature of the coil would not increase above this temperature.
In the second test, .9 watts is fed into the same coil wound around the same exact nickel core. Obviously, this test took place a period of time after the first one, after the temperature of the coil has dropped back to its original value. The result of AC being fed into the coil is that it rises to an equilibrium temperature of 41.1 degrees. This means that in the AC test, the temperature of the coil reached a temperature five degrees higher than in the DC test.
The higher equilibrium temperature obtained when the coil was powered with AC, indicates an anomalous gain of energy. The gain of energy is unexplainable, because the input power in both tests were almost identical -- actually slightly less when AC was utilized. As the paper continues, the author indicates that resistive heating cannot be the case for the increased temperature in the AC test run.
Here is the conclusion found at the end of the paper.
"The extra heating effect under the application of an AC signal is not explained simply by the transfer of input power to the coil. Consideration of the energy input to the system does not account for the energy output -- as evidenced by the steady state temperature; there is an extra effect which needs to be isolated and identified.
"This investigation has not been able to suggest a reason for the energy output from the AC case. While it has been demonstrated and verified, and the DC case shows resistive heating as expected, there is no such simple explanation for the behavior of the coil under AC heating."
The conclusion must be that this is an energy output which is higher than would be expected from the power input, and caused by the response of the coil to the alternating signal."
It seems likely that this "extra effect" is part of Steorn's magnetic overunity effect that allows for the production of free energy. After many months of hearing little about Steorn's progress developing the Orbo technology, it is refreshing to read a report that demonstrates a clear, simple, and obvious gain of energy -- in this case, in the form of heat.
A Breakthrough for the Free Energy Community
Although the amount of free energy produced in the fourth paper mentioned above is not huge, it seems to be well documented by a professional. The point of the experiment was not to produce large amounts of energy, but to document and prove an overunity magnetic effect. The test seems to have satisfied that goal. Scaled up and fully developed, this configuration might be capable of producing much greater amounts of excess energy.
One interesting thing to note is the experiment seems so simple it makes me think it could be fairly easily replicated. Of course Steorn may not be ready to share the additional information that would be useful for a replication, but if Steorn decided to even partially open source this technology (for individuals outside of Steorn to replicate) PESN would be eager to assist such an effort.
The first three papers documenting gains of energy from permanent magnet systems are also impressive. They clearly show that multiple third parties have tested the Orbo technology, and have demonstrated that it works as claimed.
In my opinion, these documents add even more evidence -- in addition to the successful demonstrations of the E-Orbo at the Waterways Center -- to the case that Steorn has developed multiple breakthrough technologies.
When the world catches up to what Steorn has accomplished, a rapid scientific and technological revolution may take place. The fact that free energy can be harnessed from magnetism (in a variety of configurations) will shake the scientific establishment to the core. This small company which has been attacked by skeptics and belittled by naysayers may just end up being able to tell the world...
"I told you so!"
The next step for Steorn may be when a client licenses one of their technologies and produces a working product.
PESN would like to thank Sean McCarthy for providing us with the four documents to review, and allow us to report on them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
item8
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 974
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
These people just will not go away!!! 
http://pesn.com/2011/11/08/9601951_Steorn_Announces_HephaHeat_Oveurnit y_Technology/
| Quote: | Steorn Announces HephaHeat Overunity Technology
Steorn, the Dublin, Ireland based free energy company, has announced their latest overunity technology that they have named "HephaHeat." The technology produces excess energy in the form of heat, by utilizing a low frequency induction heating effect.
by Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News
Everyone that has been following the world of exotic energy should know about the Irish free energy company named Steorn. Over the past several years, they have announced multiple methods of producing overunity gains of energy. For example, they have developed rotary systems that utilize hard and soft magnetic materials, electromagnetic motors that do not produce back EMF, and solid state electrical systems without any moving parts -- all taking advantage of certain aspects of magnetism.
Now, Steorn has announced an overunity technology that produces massive gains of energy in the form of heat. The name that has been given to the technology is, "Hepha Heat."
In a previous featured article, we mentioned how Steorn was developing an overunity heating technology. For the most part, all we had to go on was a couple videos that Sean McCarthy posted on Facebook. They showed a table top sized system producing a large quantity of steam, with only one kilowatt of input. According to the numbers (temperatures, flow rates, etc) Sean McCarthy provided to PESN, it seems the device may have produced forty times as much output in heat, than was put into the device in the form of electricity. You can check out the videos posted, and the numbers Sean McCarthy provided, here.
For archive purposes, here is what Steorn's website has to say about the technology, as of today. Feel free to click on the links to view this information on their site.
http://www.steorn.com/heating/
The brand name for Steorn's heating technology is Hepha Heat
Steorn heating systems for water and oil are based on our patent pending low frequency induction heating technology. Our system utilise the power line frequency of 50 / 60Hz to bring the benefits of induction heating without the need for high frequency power supplies.
HephaHeat technology offers the following key advantages:
User selected flow rate up to 15 l/min
User selected water temperature from 38 — 100°C
Delivery volume up to 17:1 — hot water to device size (see graphs)
Fast recovery time — start to draw off water within 20% of recharge time
Ultra small device size (see table)
No limescale build-up due to operational temperature
Install at point of use — units can be installed directly where needed
HephaHeat units connect directly to a standard mains 13 Amp spur
Robust materials ensure Hephaheat technology enjoys long life cycles
Ease of manufacture for low cost volume production
http://www.steorn.com/heating/about/
What is HephaHeat Low Frequency Induction Heating?
HephaHeat low frequency induction heating is a patent pending method of using induction systems without the need for additional expensive power supplies.
Our systems are uniquely designed to plug directly into mains supplied AC and by utilising the 50 / 60Hz line frequency we replace the large and expensive power supplies normally required for induction heaters.
Principle of operation
The system works by charging a metallic thermal store to a high temperature (500 to 900°C). By using a material such as steel, which has approximately the same volumetric heat capacity as water, substantially more thermal energy may be retained than in a similar tanked volume of water.
When hot water is required, the cold water input is split into two separate branches. One is allowed to flow into the thermal store with the flow rate controlled by a standard valve. When this branch flows through the thermal store it is instantaneously converted to steam which is then mixed (via a steam injector) into the second branch of cold water.
This mix of steam to cold water allows the output water temperature to be controlled.
http://www.steorn.com/heating/why-hephaheat/
Why HephaHeat?
HephaHeat brings real benefits to water heating systems because of its method of operation, the tables below show performance for delivery volume and a comparison between device size and the high ratio of water produced.
Graph
Delivery Volume
The graphs above show the delivery volume for water temperature varying between 38 – 100°C.
HephaHeat units have delivery volumes up to 17 times greater than the device volume for water at 38°C and 4 times greater for a unit delivering water at 100°C.
With one of the highest performance ratios in the industry, the benefits of our technology are clear for product applications including domestic hot water tanks, instant water heaters for under or over sink units and on-demand 100°C taps.
In order to further highlight the benefits of delivered volume of water compared to device volume the following tables display the device volume for typical temperatures and corresponding water volumes produced. HephaHeat units can be sized for any requirement.
Tables
Charge and recharge time
While the primary driver behind the charge and recharge time of a HephaHeat unit is determined by unit size and the type of insulation used, the reduced volume and surface area of a HephaHeat unit allows for the use of more advanced insulation materials and techniques than would normally be commercially viable in equivalent tanked systems. Steorn recommends the use of ceramic or vacuum flask insulation to achieve fast charge and recharge times.
In addition to the benefit of a fast charge and recharge time, HephaHeat units do no need to be fully charged in order to deliver water at the required temperature. Typically this can start to be drawn at 20% of the nominal charge time of a given device.
http://www.steorn.com/heating/induction/
What is induction heating?
Induction heating relies on the principle of electromagnetic induction. This principle states that when a conductive material is placed in a rapidly changing magnetic field a current will flow in the conductive material.
Typically when using an induction heater the material to be heated is placed in a copper coil which has a rapidly changing magnetic field. As this acts like the primary of a transformer, the material then effectively acts as the short circuit secondary winding of the transformer. The current flow thereby created combined with the resistance properties of the material generate a loss which is expressed as heat.
To date induction coils have been used as a method of precisely and accurately heating conductive materials. Induction heating is found in a variety of applications in the automotive, aerospace and engineering sectors.
The graph below illustrates the typical frequency needed for induction heating applications and the frequency range that HephaHeat operates within.
Hepha Heat: Ranges of power ratings and frequencies
How Does HephaHeat Work?
In a nutshell, it seems that Steorn has been able to produce a solid state, overunity heating technology. It seems that in addition to the huge OU gains of energy (which are not specifically mentioned on their website), the technology can use the frequency of AC power that comes strait out of a wall socket (50 or 60hz). Most "induction heating" systems have to use much higher frequencies, and require complex power supplies. Steorn's technology is claimed not to need such a power supply, because it can use ordinary grid frequency power.
For an idea of how this technology may work on a more fundamental level, please take a look at a previous feature article we wrote about Steorn's technology. In the article, we reviewed four bombshell documents that provided clear evidence that supports the validity of their claimed technologies (rotary magnet motor, electromagnetic pulse motor, solid state, etc). Here is the segment of the article that may be relevant to this OU heating technology.
In this paper, the author describes a very simple configuration that involves a coil wrapped around a nickel core (that is both magnetic and conductive) acting as an inductor. The coil and core is placed in a calorimeter composed of a vacuum chamber. Two thermocouples measure the temperature of the coil itself, and the temperature of the air in the room. A metered power supply provides the input power to the coil, and an oscilloscope monitors the current, voltage, and can also calculate total input power by using a math function of the scope.
The purpose of the test is to determine if the coil fed with a quantity of AC power, can produce more heat than the same coil fed with the same quantity of DC power. In the paper, the formula needed to calculate the total AC power is presented. The AC input and DC input is configured to be as identical as possible. Actually, the power input during the AC run was .9 (point nine) watts, and in the DC run it was 1 (one) watt. The fact that the input power during the AC run was slightly less than in the DC run actually biases the test against the AC run. This makes the results of the test even more significant.
In the first test, 1 watt of DC power is fed into the coil wound around the nickel core. The temperature of the coil increases until it reaches an equilibrium point of 36.1 degrees. This is the point at which the power lost by the coil via heat dissipation matches the electrical input power. Even if the input power stayed on for hours longer, the temperature of the coil would not increase above this temperature.
In the second test, .9 watts is fed into the same coil wound around the same exact nickel core. Obviously, this test took place a period of time after the first one, after the temperature of the coil has dropped back to its original value. The result of AC being fed into the coil is that it rises to an equilibrium temperature of 41.1 degrees. This means that in the AC test, the temperature of the coil reached a temperature five degrees higher than in the DC test.
The higher equilibrium temperature obtained when the coil was powered with AC, indicates an anomalous gain of energy. The gain of energy is unexplainable, because the input power in both tests were almost identical -- actually slightly less when AC was utilized. As the paper continues, the author indicates that resistive heating cannot be the case for the increased temperature in the AC test run.
The fundamental concept behind Steorn's heating technology seems simple. Apparently, if you run AC power through a coil wrapped around a simple material (that is both ferromagnetic and conductive), a greater amount of heat will be produced than if you ran the same quantity of DC power through the coil. Such a setup can apparently produce overunity gains of energy, in the form of heat. Of course it's probably a bit more complicated than this to produce practical amounts of output, but Steorn seems to have done so. According to the numbers they shared with us, a COP of 40 or more is possible.
It seems they are pushing this technology towards the water heating market. This is a good target market, because the world uses a vast amount of heat. However, I think it is likely with such a high level of OU, that the technology could be engineered to produce higher temperature steam -- capable of powering electrical generators. Even if the heat to electricity efficiency was only 25% (which is common for electrical generating systems), the system could be closed looped and be self sustaining. Or perhaps the funds from commercializing this technology could be used to further advanced their other technologies, and electricity could be generated more directly.
Hopefully we will learn more about Steorn's plans for this technology as time goes by. When this technology enters into the market place, it could be a very significant event. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
