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.
SolidState 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 188.8.131.52 (b) i.e. ferrite removed, but neo magnet only in rotor. Conversely, a net energy GAIN (through a 360 degree rotation) is evident for 184.108.40.206 (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.
# # #
This story is also published at BeforeItsNews.
What You Can Do
- Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
- Get involved in the replication process.
- We at PES Network are in a pinch right now. Donations would be greatly appreciated.
- Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
- Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology.
Resources from PESWiki.com