Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorMileHigh
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010
    Well I thought that it would be worth it to make a new thread for tech talk about the Orbos of any flavour. Other tech threads have been overwhelmed by idle chatter so I am requesting this be a tech thread only. Otherwise the beatings resume at 5:00 AM.

    Just to comment on Al showing 10 milliwatts of dissipation on Orbette 2.0, I think it was at 600 RPM? Al please correct me if I am wrong. That's 10 milliwatts of power to overcome bearing and air friction.

    By the way Al I love your strip chart recorder. It's refreshingly non digital.

    Then Al speculated perhaps only a single milliwatt for the Steorn version because of the better bearings. To me it sounds a bit low but I have no real experience playing with this stuff. As a reminder, this is power poured down the drain in the form of heat and does nothing useful.

    You can easily conclude that the Steorn Orbo is incredibly inefficient because it consumes about five (?) watts of electrical energy based on the post Steorn demo analysis done by the folks around here.

    It's worth it to take a low-valued resistor and a variable power supply and do a simple experiment. Put the resistor between your thumb and forefinger and hold it tightly. Then dial-up 1/4 watt, 1/2 watt, and one watt of power dissipation in the resistor and feel it to get a sense of how much heat power it represents. Each time you have to hold the resistor tightly for say 30 seconds for the thumb/resistor/finger system to reach thermal equilibrium. It just gives you a sense of how much power a watt really is.

    With respect to pick-up coils, I think that it's fair to say that they typically only pick up a fraction of the available rotor energy, and it is probably comparable to the bearing + air friction power. Unfortunately I don't think I have ever seen a serious attempt to measure pick-up coil power vs. load resistor vs. rotor RPM vs. electrical input power for any motor on YouTube, be it Bedini, Orbo, SuperKludge, whatever.

    However, I have seen a lot of blinking LEDs connected to coil discharges and occasionally connected to pick-up coils. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to measure the power dissipation in an LED unless you have a nice DSO. Now with a boring resistor and a true-RMS multimeter you could measure the pick-up coil power easily, like really easily. Anybody listening? O solo mio!

    Anyway, please let's try to have a long-running tech thread here. If you want to make a snarky comment about Steorn or Sean or booze or whatever, there are many other threads to do that in. No hijacking this thread please or else the MIB make a call.

    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010 edited
    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.
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010
    I'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.
    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
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010
    Posted By: discombobulatorrangus
    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

    I'm impressed.
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010 edited
    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.

    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.
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010
    Yes, I remember the offer. I didn't realise that 0.1% precision was available. Not an easy thing to do, it seems, which is in line with what I imagined.
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2010 edited
    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 ?? "
    • CommentAuthorMileHigh
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2010 edited
    Hey Al and company:

    Very interesting stuff. It occurred to me that now that you know the real supplied power at a given RPM to maintain a constant velocity you have solved for one variable.

    Supposing that you use 550 RPM as a baseline. Do three spin-downs and measure the slope at 550 RPM to get the average running power to maintain that 550 RPM (P_MAINTAIN).

    Then with that datum you measure the electrical input power with no pick-up coil load at 550 RPM (PIN_NOLOAD). Then you add a pick-up coil and a load resistor. The speed drops so you increase the supply voltage to get back to 550 RPM. Then you measure the input power to the motor (PIN_LOAD) and the output power from the pick-up coil (POUT_COIL).

    This at least puts some numbers on the table for believers and non-believers to ponder:

    PIN_NOLOAD - measured electrical input power to maintain 550 RPM with no load resistor on the pick-up coil

    PIN_LOAD - measured electrical input power used to maintain 550 RPM with a load resistor on the pick-up coil

    PIN_DELTA - the difference between the starting power and the running power = (PIN_LOAD - PIN_NOLOAD)

    P_MAINTAIN - measured electrical input power required to overcome friction losses at 550 RPM with no load resistor on the pick-up coil, this has to come from PIN_NOLOAD or PIN_LOAD.

    PIN_JOULE1 - the difference between the running power no-load and the maintaining power which is the Joule heating that Sean wants to discount = (PIN_NOLOAD - P_MAINTAIN)

    PIN_JOULE2 - the difference between the running power with load and the maintaining power which is the Joule heating that Sean wants to discount = (PIN_LOAD - P_MAINTAIN)

    POUT_COIL - the output power from the pick-up coil into a given load resistor at 550 RPM

    There are some interesting relationships that could be looked at.

    POUT_COIL has to come from the spinning rotor. We had to add PIN_DELTA to drive that load. How do they compare?

    Anyway there are other conclusions that can be drawn from these measurements. What you can ultimately prove is that when you slice up the input power pie for the Orbette 2 that nothing special is happening. You can also generate data that blasts a hole through the 3:1 energy return claimed in the first demo and you could also show that the "final proof" integral simply cannot be true. By measuring the power required to maintain 550 RPM and working back from that with the other easier electrical measurements you can deconstruct the energy trail of the Orbette 2.

    Then the "leap of logic" for the believers is to apply the "If it looks like a duck" theorem with respect to Orbo and Orbette 2.

    • CommentAuthorscience
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2010
    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
    Posted By: science
    Home Depot, the local surly concrete guy, and a thesaurus

    It's hilariously funny, but....

    I don't get it.
    @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, 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.
    • CommentAuthorMileHigh
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2010

    Yes we seem to be in an Orwellian space where Big Steorn has changed the reality again. I would not be surprised if they barely ever mention all of the magnet motor Orbos again. Just like the 2007 PM Orbo does not really exist in the current corporate pitch. It all points to what a total farce this experience has been, at the expense of the investors.

    If you don't feel any fire in your belly to play with Orbette 2 then don't feel compelled to because of your Internet audience. You have done a lot of hard work already.

    The SS Orbo is apparently the new "reality." There are people around here that can deconstruct any attempts by Sean and the lads to pitch an SS Orbo. It's an alleged motionless electromagnetic generator! Perhaps Bearden will pick a fight with Sean! lol

    One day Steorn is going to go bust. The best thing that could happen after that would be to bust them and throw the laddies in jail.

    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2020