Good on you, MH.

Let me just give you some revised figures to munch on, and review the basic logic of the power dissipation determination for those who might be interested.

Orbette 2.0's rotor's rotational moment of inertia (MoI) has been calculated based on its geometry and mass distribution. It is likely to be of the same order as the rotors of Orbos used in the demos, the ones with the genny section removed, since it is roughly the same size and uses (presumably) about the same magnets.

The Kinetic Energy of Orbette's rotor in Joules, then, can be easily related to the rotor's angular velocity in radians per second (or RPM if you prefer; for the purposes of these discussions I will use RPM to indicate rotor speed).

The relation, IIRC (I don't have the notes in front of me right now) is KE in Joules = (RPM^2)(1.46 x 10^-6).

My rundown data only goes up to about 575 RPM, but the curve is smooth and can be generalized reasonably to higher speeds. (I can get data for higher speeds as well but the resolution of the system decreases somewhat...the CR paper is only a foot wide, after all, and I can't do anything about that.)

The power dissipation, which is the amount of power that must be supplied from somewhere in order for the rotor to turn at a certain speed, is found by running the rotor up to a speed, then removing drive power and looking at the decrease in speed (hence KE) over a short time. The rate at which the KE is decreasing is of course the average POWER dissipated during the short interval chosen. This then is the amount of power that would need to be continuously supplied in order to keep the rotor from losing speed. So the slope of the energy vs. time curve, at any time, gives the instantaneous power dissipation at that time (or RPM).

The CR/optical encoder combo gives its output in RPM vs. time, so to get the right values for the slope the RPM must be converted to Joules by the relation given above, then the slope calculated; the answer is then in Watts.

For Orbette turning at 575 RPM the power requirement is actually well under 10 mW.

Steorn have finally published actual input power data for a functioning Orbo, here:


One revolution in about 95 milliseconds is a little over 600 RPM. 12 volts times 2.6 amps times 28 percent duty cycle is about 8.7 Watts continuous average power input.

Yet their rotor is turning on bearings that are much much better than my Orbette's toy helicopter bearings, and is going only slightly faster than mine is. Therefore I conclude that their rotor's continuous power dissipation, AKA the power required to keep the rotor turning at a given speed, is likely to be much less than Orbette's....say a factor of 10 less, for argument's sake.

(BTW, CLaNZeR has the ability with his equipment to make this determination accurately -- remember his 20 minute rundown times...compared to Orbette's 3 or 4 minutes....why hasn't he done so, I wonder....NDA?)

So it's pretty clear: my findings show that Orbette's rotor is only receiving something like 1/80 or 1/100 of the total input power to the system; Steorn's Orbo rotor must be receiving much less, maybe as little as 1/1000 or less of the total input power.

No electrical measurements that have been shown, by anyone, have been sensitive or precise enough to separate out this tiny electrical power requirement of Steorn's rotor from the overwhelming wasted power of the total input.

If anyone wants to claim that the "final proof" input energy integral did so, I say, PROVE IT by showing the details of the measurement.

angus
calorimeters of considerably higher accuracy and larger volume/capacity than that do indeed exist
what is extremely unlikely is that steorn could actually afford to use one

Posted By: AngusI'd be interested to know if anybody seriously thinks you could resolve a heat discrepancy of 0.1% using a calorimeter that would contain this machine. It seems unlikely to me.

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf

Another important aspect of performance is specimen versatility. MOAC excels in this area by producing
precisely the same reading on a wide variety of heat sources. The size, shape, temperature, and location within
the chamber have very little effect on the measurement.
In Table 1 above, note how closely the various heat sources (R1, R2, and E - electrolysis power) fit the
calibration line. This is a clear demonstration of MOAC’s excellent specimen versatility. We also conducted a
location study in which a calibration heater was operated at 15 watts at several different locations within the
CC. For all the reasonable locations, the difference between electrical input power and heat output power was
12 mW or less (i.e. within 0.1% relative). When the calibration heater was placed in one of the extreme corners
of the chamber, the heat output power read 25 mW lower than the electrical input power (i.e. a 0.2% error).
5.1. Errors
MOAC exhibits both random and systematic errors. The random errors appear to be a combination of electrical
noise and digital granularity in the temperature measurements. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
fixed precision resistors located within the environmental enclosure report about the same jitter as the
thermistors. Even with 100-reading averages comprising each observation, these errors produce a jitter in the
temperature signals of about +/- 0.0005 °C. Given MOAC’s 10 W/°C sensitivity and the fact that inlet and
outlet water temperatures are measured independently, this jitter corresponds to almost +/- 10 mW in the heat
output power signal. Fortunately, MOAC’s thermal time constant is about one hour so it is permissible to apply
additional averaging to the signals to reduce this jitter to negligible levels.
The systematic errors are more complex. When MOAC was first commissioned in the summer of 2004, it
readily achieved 1% relative accuracy. However, numerous systematic errors prevented it from approaching the
design goal of 0.1% accuracy. It took nearly 2 years of intensive testing and evaluation to find and eliminate
these errors.

The use of this calorimeter has been offered to Steorn several times, if I understand the situation accurately.

It is indeed interesting, is it not, to compare this description of MOAC with Steorn's description of their "bespoke calorimeter".

If you need calorimetry, "who you gonna call ?? "

Posted By: alsetalokinIt is indeed interesting, is it not, to compare this description of MOAC with Steorn's description of their "bespoke calorimeter".

If you need calorimetry, "who you gonna call ?? "

Home Depot, the local surly concrete guy, and a thesaurus

@MH: Thanks for laying it out clearly like that. I've been calling for those who have actual Orbos to do this kind of test for some time. And I've already made some determinations along these lines. It won't take very long to gather and analyze the data for the comparisons you suggest.
But there is always the "excuse" that Orbette is not an Orbo, it just doesn't have the magic. So my results will be discounted. However, the challenge will remain: somebody will have to test Orbo the same way, eventually, in order to show that Orbo is not an Orbette...ha ha.

But those clever lads: by the time anyone on the outside has gotten any real results from an eOrbo, it's been binned (although far more OU than they first thought) and they've gone on to the "easier to replicate" SSOrbo.

What I want to know is this: if the SSOrbo is a solid-state, no moving parts system that does the same thing to create energy as the pmOrbo and the eOrbo, can it too be run backwards to destroy energy? It would make a handy refrigeration module if it did. Can you imagine the calorimetry? Just run one of these things backwards, and it will DESTROY 600 microJoules per revolution (or cycle in SSOrbo) and the box will get colder. No, wait...it just won't get as warm as it would if energy isn't being destroyed...or something.

Creative Accounting 101: you need to subtract the losses from the input, and add them to the output. That's how you get 3:1 OU.

800 km lightning bolt!