French replicator, Jean-Louis Naudin, says he has confirmed that there is no counter electromotive force (back EMF) in the toroidal coils -- a key to converting magnetic power into kinetic (motion) power.
 The Steorn electromagnetic motor replication by Jean-Louis Naudin, Dec. 26, 2009. JLN Labs - http://jnaudin.free.fr |
On Dec. 15, we reported that the Irish company, Steorn, had launched a public demonstration of their e-Orbo technology which purportedly is a self-looped system in which the same battery that turns the motor is then recharged by a generator that is powered by that motor -- apparently picking up extra energy somewhere in the process, in the tradition of Nikola Tesla and more recently of John Bedini and Tom Bearden.
The phenomenon is said to be due in large part to the motor running without back-EMF. In layman terms, that essentially means that the motor runs without any internal resistance other than from bearings. In some cases, the claim goes even further, stating that a configuration can be attained that actually results in converting static magnetic power into kinetic (motion) power. That is what Steorn is claiming.
Conventional physics says this is impossible (aka heretical).
Now a well-respected replicator, Jean-Louis Naudin of France, has reproduced this key portion of the e-Orbo technology. And he has posted a clear set of instructions of how he did it, along with his results.
Naudin states that the purpose of this experiment was "firstly to check the proper functioning of the Steorn engine and the facts presented in his video of December 15, 2009." He reports that he was able to confirm the three primary claims relating to the motor portion of the system:
- There is no counter electromotive force (Back EMF) induced in the stator coils when the rotor is turned manually.
- A reversal of the polarity of the coils does not change the direction of rotation.
- When the rotor is manually braked, the supply current in the toroidal coils remains constant.
When running, Naudin's replicated motor accelerates up to around 2600 rpm within around a minute.
In his synopsis, he wrote:
"The Steorn engine reproduced here confirms the observations and the measurements submitted on December 15, 2009 by Sean McCarthy in Dublin. This engine, an atypical configuration, is really very interesting and worth to be explored and developed because it presents a characteristic of non-reciprocity of the energy load on the power source through the breaking of the symmetry (regauging effect). Other experiments and tests will soon be conducted to better understand and improve this innovative principle. Using the potential energy of magnets to produce a clean and free energy is really worth exploring and developing very seriously for the future of our planet."
His next step will probably be to replicate the generator portion of the system so he can generate electricity from the rotating motor.
Here's one of the videos that Naudin posted showing his replica in operation.
# # #
Links
- http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm - Naudin's report
- http://www.youtube.com/user/bluelightning77 - Naudin's YouTube channel
Comments
- Feel free to view/post comments at our Examiner.com version of this story. The following are manually posted with slight editing.
Not a Valid Replication
|
On January 04, 2010 1:01 PM Mountain, Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn wrote:
Hi Sterling,
Our engineers went through the JLN 'replication' today - both the information on his website and the his youtube channel.
We have to advise that this is in no way a valid replication of Orbo. It is very clear to us that the arrangement that he has set up has a significant amount of [Counter]EMF in the system. While not quite a normal pulse motor, it certainly is not Orbo and is almost certainly not OU.
We will be conducting another live experiment this Friday - which we expect will be far more interesting than the one that we did before the Holidays.
* * * *
On Jan. 5, 2009; 9:15 AM Mountain, Sterling replied:
Despite the shortcomings of this replication, I think it's important that Naudin be thanked and encouraged in his attempt, and in his openness to share in detail what he did and how he did it. That kind of transparency is what can help propel these breakthrough technologies forward.
* * * *
Exhibits Back-EMF; Not a Faithful Replication
On December 30, 2009 10:13 AM Mountain, an OS SKDB member wrote:
Hi Sterling
Just watched Naudin's latest V2 video and he has BEMF on his scope shot. The 0V line should be flat to show no BEMF.
His motor is showing BEMF like a normal coil.
He is not being faithful to the Orbo design and hence not getting rid of BEMF.
The 0V part of the pulse should be perfectly flat.
Sorry at this time I cannot release more info, but will do when allowed. I think January and what Steorn will be demonstrating should be very exciting!
* * * *
Free Energy Journalist replicates Simple JLN Steorn Orbo test
On December 31, 2009 1:49 PM Mountain; Charles Michael Couch wrote:
Over the last couple days I attempted to duplicate the Steorn Tests on the JLN website. Not having a proper toroid I used a doughnut shaped magnet to wind the coil instead. I had no success with this and chalked that up to the fact that it was a magnet.
Then I tested a metal drill bit with a coil wrapped around the end to see what it would do against a neodymium magnet. Eventually I ended up with a successful replication of the effects without a toroid at all.
Here are my findings and thoughts on it...
Succeeded in getting the Orbo JLN Test effect...
1. Drill bit with coil wrapped around one end 56 turns.
2. Neo magnets on top of a thin Clementine packaging wooden box with ~1/4" spacer between box and neo.
3. 6V-9V required 3V failed (did not try 4V or 5V).
4. Only one polarity works depending on polarity of magnet.
5. Release of drill bit from magnet is very quick, instant.
6. Odd observation...
When attaching the drill/coil to the magnet it would often turn into a preferred position, often it would not. This may have been effects of residual magnetism in the drill bit. I could duplicate this effect by turning the drill bit upside down and attaching it to the magnet then turning it back over and attaching. This is what leads me to believe it is a residual effect.
Apparently all that is happening is the reverse of EM Coil magnet pull motors. The big payoff is probably in the ease with which the coil breaks the magnets hold on the drill bit when pulsed with 6-9V DC in the proper direction. My guess is that the drills residual magnetic field from the pulse continues the push without the need of applied current. Which for one polarity of the magnet was one battery polarity and for the other reversed.
Basically we are reverse polarizing the drill bit which reverses the stator magnets pull turning it into a push, nothing new there except that it takes a very short burst to do that and then apparently the residual magnetization in the drill bit continues the motion.
When applied to motors this would be the scenario. Rotor Magnet attracts to stator iron toroid (probably not necessary to be a toroid) at TDC very brief 6-9V pulse magnetizes the iron toroid pushing the magnet away, push continues until iron toroid stator is out of range or demagnetizes.
I'm guessing the optimum would be to tailor the materials, dimensions and rpm to maximize the use of the residual magnetism of the stator such that none is wasted and none contributes to resistance to the next stator attraction event. It would be interesting to test both a toroid and an equal mass of the same material to see if any advantage was obtained by the toroid shape.
Reversing polarity of each magnet such that any residual magnetism was used for the next attraction event might add to efficiency. One possible toroid advantage might be the negation of residual magnetism effects resistance to the next magnet attraction if the magnets are the same polarity.
* * * *
Caution from Steorn
On December 28, 2009 1:39 AM Mountain, Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn wrote:
Thanks for that - however I must urge some caution here, what Jean-Louis will find is that all of his electrical input is being output as heat and that the work done by the rotor is free. However this does not mean that simply putting in a generator will enable him to close the loop.
The reason is that the design of the 'active' coils is very important so that the input uses minimum current to cause the effect in question - the production of heat is a current^2 relationship. Unless this fact is considered in the design of the input, then while the system may be more than 100% efficient, the work done by the rotor will be less than the energy input into the system, and so a closed loop system will not be possible.
Our next sequence of experiments will address these issues.
We are quite happy to discuss this in more detail with Jean if he has further interest in replication (two of our engineers are French, so they should be able to communicate well).
Previous Coverage
|
Other Coverage
- Naudin Replicates Steorn Orbo - In a stunning turn of events, famed French experimenter Jean-Louis Naudin has replicated portions of Steorn Orbo technology and has stated his support for some of Steorn's claims.(Nolan Charts; Dec. 29, 2009)
- STEORN "Overunity" DEVICE - Verified (Jean-Louis Naudin) (ZPEnergy; Dec. 28, 2009)
See also
|
Comments
Hi Sterling. You left out Sean's (Steorn's) comment! For example take this gem: "while the system may be more than 100% efficient, the work done by the rotor will be less than the energy input into the system, and so a closed loop system will not be possible. "
It's not only a lame excuse for not showing overunity it's also pure meaningless gibberish. Nothing about this weird kludge Steorn is showing suggests anything overunity whatever. Nor does Naudin's device. Dream on.
Mary dear, purposely quoting out of context does not serve your opinion very honestly.
The full quote is thus:
"The reason is that the design of the 'active' coils is very important so that the input uses minimum current to cause the effect in question - the production of heat is a current^2 relationship. Unless this fact is considered in the design of the input, then while the system may be more than 100% efficient, the work done by the rotor will be less than the energy input into the system, and so a closed loop system will not be possible."
Which you see does not say that closed loop is impossible, only that input design is crititical to doing so. This has presumeably been done by Steorn for their demo but should be confirmed by independant party.
First of all, thanks for highlighting this important development. Please ignore any comments from MaryYugo and similar non-entities. She has no technical expertise to speak of and is straight off the Randi debunking forums.
Keep up the excellent work and ignore the people who don't want this to be true and will go all out to debunk it. Developments like this interfere with their indoctrinated belief systems.
Cheers,
FE Truth
Shouldn't take much to debunk this fraud.
Dream on.
The fact that this motor spins in the same direction regardless of polarity is unremarkable. In fact, practically all polyphase and reluctance motors (of which this is a variant) can exhibit this property; their rotation is dependent on the pulse sequencing and/or initial rotation (and not polarity as in commutated DC designs).
By itself, the absence of back-EMF in an EM motor does not indicate anything uncommon. Here, there is no back-EMF because operation is not of the type that would create it; this is no big deal. Not all motors exhibit back-EMF; several classes of motors use a similar principle. Switched reluctance motors, for example, will not generally exhibit back-EMF because the stator-rotor force involves a magnetic material (not a permanent magnet) which does not induce current in the unenergized stator coils (they work just fine).
In the motors shown, the coils do not act on the magnets; the toroid forms a closed magnetic circuit with its core; the magnets do not act in a direction by which to induce back-EMF. Operation has nothing to do with the coils acting on the rotor, and (like similar motors) the lack of back-EMF is expected. But, just like in an SR motor, magnetic forces are still present between stator and rotor, and input energy is used to alter those forces (as in any other EM motor).
Upon manual braking, one would not expect the current to change in these coils since they form a closed circuit and are simply being used to adjust the field in the cores; the are not interacting with the rotor magnets and the rotor has virtually no influence on the current in the coils. Again, this is similar to my last comment.
In essence, this motor comprises a "warped" version of a reluctance motor turned inside out, using magnets on the rotor (rather than magnetic material on the rotor) and “adjustable” magnetic material on the stator (rather than “adjustable” magnets on the stator). Rather than adjusting the stator electromagnets, the magnetic properties of the core material are adjusted to control the attractive force.
How does this suggest over-unity and/or free energy? Where's the absence of the required input energy to alter the magnetic forces between the rotor and stator? I'm not convinced (at least certainly not yet) that's there's anything unexpected; in fact, this motor appears quite prosaic in its operation.
Does this sound like Orbo?
Quote from Patent #190,206 - "The object of my invention is to apply and fully utilize, in an electric motor, the power of permanent magnets, and to develop from them the greater part of the power, so that motors of great power may be actuated by means of small electromagnets, and a correspondingly small expenditure of battery power.
Note: Wesley W. Gary's Magnetic Motor - 2nd Patent!
I applaud Mr. Allan and Mr. Naudin for years of incredible work but again JJ is correct. Steorn's stator approach is innovative but there is no free energy to be had. That is why "years" have been ran down on their research clock. They started off with an all magnet version, migrated to an electromagnetic one and now is talking about recharging batteries which is highly inefficient.
It works... but here not same
ttp://vapaaenergia.ning.com/video/poeytaevoimala-1?xg_source=activity
Why do you guys insist that the energy a magnet converts is not extractable / usable? Just because we haven't found a way of doing it that doesn't mean its not possible.
I'm really looking forward to the next and most important part of the experiment - Can the torque generated produce enough energy to the coils and have anything left over? Even if its 1mw it would be a miracle we need to explore!
My only concern is that if a system like this works and goes into mass production what would the impact be on the earth? Am I right in suggesting the forces involved are ultimately putting resistance on the spin of this planet?
Peter
Peter: That's not the point here. Regardless if one thinks they can get energy from magnets somehow, this particular device is operating based on commonly known principles of energy conversion and EM motors – there is nothing “free energy” or over-unity about it (see my earlier posts). If you want to demonstrate that one can extract energy from a magnet, do the experiment directly – measure the energy required to separate the magnets from some starting position to a ending position compared to how much they produce when allowed to return to that starting position. I can tell you that experiments have been done and it has (so far) been shown that it requires more energy to separate the magnets, although the efficiency can be quite high and approaches unity. BTW, where did you hear that this device is stealing momentum from the planet to acquire energy? Certainly, gaining energy by stealing it from the spin of the planet is possible, but that's not what's presented here.
JJ: As usual your reasoning is superb and it is a joy to follow your logic but I should warn you…true innovation sometimes require new and radical approaches. I do not think that Steorn is there yet but I disagree with you on employing conventional scientific methods in verifying the viability of harnessing power from permanent magnets. You were right Peter misunderstood where we were coming from, he did not understand that we are simply taking a cold hard look at the information presented and determining if the claim can be supported. The answer of course is no.
Peter wrote:
"Can the torque generated produce enough energy to the coils and have anything left over? Even if its 1mw it would be a miracle we need to explore!"
When he loads the rotor (to drive a generator) or the secondary of the toroidal coil (stator) via a bifilar winding, Lenz's law will still be waiting for him and this is not pessimism but practical thought.
RKNYUM: Thx! I agree that radically new approaches are often important to achieve breakthroughs - but, the root of the scientific method is hypothesis followed by experiment; it's exactly by this method that such approaches are discovered. For ex, any attempt to prove energy from magnets would use the scientific method by default: an experiment would demonstrate the phenomena, and experiment comprises the scientific method. The experiment I presented was just one of an infinite set, but whenever we “build and test,” the “conventional” scientific method is used by default. It's easy to confuse the 'conventional scientific method' with 'conventional scientific wisdom' - the latter comprises the dogma I noted earlier. The 'scientific method' created the airplane, not the 'scientific wisdom' of the time (which denounced its possibility). This is where modern science often breaks down, as many scientists wrongly substitute 'conventional wisdom' for hypothesis and experiment.
Fantastic - to think unlimited FREE ENERGY can be made by anyone with a few magnets, wood blocks, old stroller wheels, zip-ties and wire! Wait til the electric company hears about this!
PS - yes, I am an electrical engineer.
Steorn is continuing its public demo of their Orbo tech in Dublin with live streams through their site at steorn.com
Check out my blog for more related news:
crasexmachina.blogspot.com
In response to one of the comments Sterling posted above... No, this device is 'not' likely showing back EMF like the (quoted) “normal” coil, because the motor shouldn't exhibit any significant rotor induced back EMF based on its construction (see my earlier comments). But, this has nothing to do with “over-unity”; not all traditional motors exhibit back EMF (again see my earlier posts), but they also have those so-called “normal” coils. What may be showing on the scope though is self-induced counter-motive EMF based on the switching circuit; it's unlikely that the rotor is inducing any significant EMF in those closed coils. Like I mentioned earlier, that has nothing to do with free energy/over-unity and several classes of traditional motors do not induce back EMF.
How can I make this ?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!