Notices
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The Steorn Orbo motor replication

  1. #1 The Steorn Orbo motor replication 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    I was definitely on the skeptical side of the whole Steorn Orbo Over-Unity craze that has been floating around the net. That was until I can across this website, where someone was able to replicate their own Orbo motor:

    http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm

    We all know that Steorn isn't really talking or sharing their technology via the regular scientific avenues, but I definitely think it's interesting that someone else has grabbed the baton and decided to share how he did it. I would like for this website to seriously be examined. I may not be an engineer, but I'm sincerely learning. I may come off as a arguementative or a debator, but I learn that "the purpose of debate is not win, but to educate".

    Having said that.....fire away!!! :-D


    "I am not teaching you anything. I can just help you to explore yourself and realize the cause of your ignorance; an appropriate medicine for a particular ailment."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    This is the best explanation that I've been able to find regarding Steorn and their claims. It's a layman summary but considering that Steorn isn't giving up any information about what they propose they can do without you having to fork over $500 (which is kind of suspect in itself), it'll have to do. Check it out and share your thoughts:

    The principle of conservation of energy (CoE) implies that it requires the same amount of work (that is, a transfer of the same amount of energy) to do something as it takes to undo it. Take for example a bouncing ball. The energy you put into lifting a ball up off the ground is stored in the ball as potential energy. When the ball is dropped, gravity pulls it downward, converting that potential energy into velocity. The energy in the balls's velocity when it hits the ground is exactly as much energy as you put into it by lifting it up (minus a bit lost to friction) -- so when it bounces back up, it will reach the same height from which it was dropped (well, just a bit lower, due to the energy lost to friction). The point is, exactly as much energy is released as was first received by the ball.

    CoE also implies "temporal invariance" -- that is to say, it doesn't matter how long a time the work takes, it'll still be the same amount of work. It takes as much energy to lift a ball from the ground to a particular height regardless of whether it's lifted over the course of a second or a minute. Either way it's received the same amount of potential energy, and will bounce back to the same height when dropped.

    But what if that last implication wasn't always true? What if the amount of time it took you to lift a ball three feet from the ground determined how much potential energy that ball received? If you take 5 seconds to lift the ball 3 feet, then you drop it, the ball will bounce back up a bit less than 3 feet. But if you lift it in just one second instead, then drop it, it bounces back 4 feet! In this case the ball received more potential energy from being lifted quickly than you put into lifting it. It isn't difficult to imagine how a machine could be set up to store that extra bit of energy in a spring or a battery, and use it to lift the ball quickly again. Yet more extra energy would come out of this second lifting, which can be used to lift it again, and so on. The result is a perpetually bouncing ball, with energy to spare.

    Of course, gravity and balls don't work that way. But -- says Sean -- magnets do. There is a little studied effect, discovered in the eighteen hundreds, called magnetic viscosity. Normally the term viscosity is used in reference to liquids. It is a measure of a liquid's resistance to deforming when under stress -- a liquid's "thickness". If you've ever dived into water from a great enough height, you've discovered that viscosity is temporally variant - it takes more energy to move through a viscous liquid quickly than slowly. Dive off a boat into the ocean and you'll feel it when you hit the water. Fall from a plane and hit the ocean much faster, and you might as well be hitting concrete. That's the temporal variance of viscosity.

    According to Sean, when two magnets are brought together, magnetic viscosity results in a similar temporal variance. As the two magnets come together (poles aligned so they repel one another), there is a small lag as the force between the magnets increases. The lag is on the scale of milliseconds, but it's there. And that means that it takes less energy to bring two magnets together quickly, not giving the lag enough time to catch up, than it does to bring them together slowly. So, bring together two magnets quickly, then let them repel more slowly, and they've put out more energy than you had to put in to get them together. As was the case with the magic bouncing ball, this effect can be exploited -- a mechanism could be set up to store the extra energy after each cycle and put it into the next cycle, and the magnets will continue "bouncing" in and out indefinitely, with extra energy to spare. That extra energy, then, can be output to an electric generator or to any other use... it's "free".

    Sean made another interesting claim. In the last few years physicists have discovered two anomalies in the way the universe works. Galaxies are spinning much faster than they should be according to the Newtonian laws of motion, and the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. These problems have so stumped scientists that they've posited two new concepts -- "dark matter" and "dark energy" -- as the explanation. For the math to work out, 96% of the universe would need to be made up of dark matter and dark energy; everything we understand in the universe takes up only the other 4%. This is established science. What Sean brings to this is the idea that, if temporal variance is taken into account, the anomalous effects can be precisely explained -- there's no more need for dark matter or dark energy. This is a bold claim about the nature of the universe, saying that it's not just Orbo that violates the law of conservation of energy - the very expansion of the universe does the same thing.


    "I am not teaching you anything. I can just help you to explore yourself and realize the cause of your ignorance; an appropriate medicine for a particular ailment."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •