Steorn: Orbo

[vbloke]

Those chaps at Steorn have finally named their spiffy new perpetual motion machine "Orbo" and launched a shiny new website to promote it.

No information on the device itself, although it appears to use "magnets"

http://www.steorn.com/

[Cuddles]

I hope they're at least quantum magnets. I'm sure you're not going to get perpetual motion with the boring regular kind. And I suppose that technically magents really are quantum crystals, so they don't even need to make anything up. Apart from the perpetual motion of course.

[Admin]

Well if they're using unipolar magnets I'm investing in the company.

I reckon a £20,000 investment should be enough to make me a million once this product is on the market. ;D

What's the betting that there'll be production delays? :D

And 'technical hitches' if they ever dare demonstrate the device!!


And "Orbo" - is that meant to sound technically advanced or something? ;D ;D ;D

[tkingdoll]

That's a nice website.

So, I musta missed the debate on this one. Do we know what they're actually claiming? Cause the website doesn't tell me anything other than IT violates Science As We Know It, Amen. But it doesn't say what IT is.

I assume they've been asking for money for investment?

Could make quite a tidy profit on the interest on that money if given sufficiently in advance :D

[Admin]

They're claiming to have developed a 'free energy' machine.

It will be interesting to see if the whole thing pans out like other free energy fiascos.

They're always after more money from investors, the machines never materialise, if a demonstration is done there's always a reason why it didn't or couldn't work, production dates are set - then delayed - then reset - then delayed again....

Oh yes.... they'll always need more 'investment'.

[Araneus]

The depressing thing is, people will still fall for it. On another (non-skeptical) forum, there were a couple of comments along the lines of "It must be real, why else would they make the claim?". ::)

I would be automatically skeptical of any organisation that represents itself as an "Intellectual Property development company". This screams "we want your investment capital" very loudly indeed.

[Lister]

I've been following that story out of curiosity since it started in August. It does seem very different in some ways from run of the mill free energy scams. In fact I quite think that maybe it is not a scam at all. My guess is that its whose purpose is the forum itself, probably some study of human behaviour or something crazy like that.
The company (Steorn) seems to be a company that can just only manage to stay afloat and probably earns its keep by doing lots of little odd jobs, probably mostly IT related. Maybe the whole 'Orbo' thing is just one of many such little jobs they are doing for some university or even something like Discovery channel.

[Amelie]

Need more information before I make a judgement. Any other helpful links?

[Mojo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

[gm137]

Well I'm sold: anyone else want my money? ???

Every time I see a "Perpetual-Motion-but-we're-not-going-to-prove-it" site, I get the urge to start humming the Flanders and Swann thermodynamics skit:

"Oh you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
You can try it if you like, but you're far better notta"

...and so on.

[evomedia]

I really hope it works, why?

I've been in heated debate with a friend for over 2 year now, I arguied that a nearly perpetual motion machine (not actual perpetual) using magnetics fields mechanically forced on and off by use of gravity as an opposing force, so would run for thousands of years using neodymium magnets, against gravitation field created by earth) . My mates has been argueing its against physical laws, and hey presto today I read about the orbo technology. Not sure if the idea is identical but pretty damn close, I argued that using 3 forces may create a self sustaining loop.

Fingers crossed for its true, as winning a supposed unwinnable arguement would be wonderful. Wished I'd orginally patented the idea now when I thought of it 5 years ago if it works lol

[Araneus]

II argued that using 3 forces may create a self sustaining loop.

That's where you go wrong, of course. Assuming that forces like gravity and magnetism can somehow generate energy, which they can't.

[Cuddles]

Wished I'd orginally patented the idea now when I thought of it 5 years ago if it works lol

Don't worry, it doesn't.

[evomedia]

That's where you go wrong, of course. Assuming that forces like gravity and magnetism can somehow generate energy, which they can't.

Hehe ok here goes, ok, lets say you drop a object, you can harness some of that power if you hit say a bar attached to a disc, the disc rotates and charges a dynamo, now I completely agree that you would have to use an equal force to gravity get the object back to the top. But the reaction of it hiting and rotated the disc generates a charge (electricity) So to say gravity cant generate electricity is rubbish, the problem is that you have to use that charge plus some to get the object back up. So generating electric via gravity is a one off reaction.

So lets say that gravity equals 10 joules, and to counter gravity you need 10 joules to get it back to the top. Ok, the force stored in the dynamo would be alot less than the energy required to move the object against gravity, especially when friction is accounted for etc.

So introducing magnetic forces could offset the loss of energy in fact create a positive into the equation.

Why? I argue that moving electric charges, such as an electron, will accelerate in the presence of a magnetic field, causing it to change velocity and its direction of travel. And that the acceleration of electrons in the presence of a magnetic field is a release of free energy, but only if you put force into the equation, lets say you have 2 magnets repelling on the negative poles if you pushed one the other would repel with equal force again no energy gained.

But I suggest that if you cross 2 magnetic fluxes at their point of lowest magnitued and follow a curve to the point of highest magnitude via an external force like gravity will cause the electrons under the influence of the Lorentz force to naturally increase in velocity as it passes across the flux.

So I suggect that if you cross the flux optimum angle entering at the weekest point, and use a force like gravity the natural acceleration of electrons will increase as the field increases in magnitude, essentially the energy generated by the lorentz force generates free energy.

I reason if you use 2 magnets at the top where the combined magnetic attaction is greater than friction but less gravity on a slope towards a drop,it attracts then one will drop. if the falling magnet falls into a curve that enters the weekest point of the positive poles flux of another magnet and curves to the point of highest magnitude where the point of entry to the flux is less that gravity and the combined magnetic force at the point of greatest magnitude is greater than gravity you could push the magnet back to the top and create a loop.

If you then use the addition force to enter the magnetic flux at the weekest point of a stronger magnet it will again accelerate as it reaches maximum magnitude, all you need to do is repeat this until the velocity is enough to carry it back to the top, your already creating a greater force than gravity and as such can scale the ascent back to the top.

[Mojo]

But if it works, won't it cause global warming? All that free energy has to go somewhere.

[evomedia]

I must say that the current laws of physics still mean it probably shouldn't work, but no it wouldn't cause global warming as its just harnessing the natural movements of electrons with a magnetic field, and as such is not burning carbon, or using chemical reactions. Magnetic fields and gravity are carbon netural lol

Still I'll buy some magnets one day and test my theory, all I need to do is lots of maths to work out field strengths, combined magnetic magnitudes and such like lol

[Araneus]

Short article with picture:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/04/steorns-orbo-free-energy-machine-demonstrated-tomorrow/

[Cuddles]

So to say gravity cant generate electricity

Which is why nobody said that. What Araneus said is that it can't generate energy. Which it can't. Energy can be stored in a gravitational field (or any other field) but it can't be created from nothing.

This is where your whole idea falls apart. You propose using the energy released from a gravitational field to store energy in a magnetic field which will then be released again. At no point does any energy actually enter the system. Your messing around with forces and flux and funny shaped fields is all completely irrelevant. In order to release energy from any field you have to move from a high potential to a low potential. The problem is, in order to get to the high potential you must first move there from a lower one. There is no way around this.

With no friction and no other losses your idea would move forever. Unfortunately, with no friction and no losses, pretty much any system will move forever. When losses are introduced, as is always the case in the real world, keeping a system running forever requires adding energy to the system. If you don't add energy, it stops. If you do add energy, it is not perpetual motion.


I must say that the current laws of physics still mean it probably shouldn't work, but no it wouldn't cause global warming as its just harnessing the natural movements of electrons with a magnetic field, and as such is not burning carbon, or using chemical reactions. Magnetic fields and gravity are carbon netural lol

Global warming has nothing to do with carbon, it is all about energy. Carbon dioxide traps energy by preventing energy absorbed from outside the Earth from escaping again. However, this is certainly not the only way of heating the Earth. You are proposing to create energy from nothing. That is, you are adding heat energy to the Earth. Where exactly do you propose this energy would go to prevent the Earth heating up?


Still I'll buy some magnets one day and test my theory, all I need to do is lots of maths to work out field strengths, combined magnetic magnitudes and such like lol

This should be a big giveaway that you are not onto something. If your idea worked, you should be able to work out a general case. If you need to work out specific field strengths in order to get anything because the general case doesn't work, that can only be because the principle is flawed. You must first work out the principle before specifics. It is a trap perpetual motion inventors fall into over and over again. If an idea doesn't work in principle then no amount of tweaking parameters will make it work. If it does work in principle then it will work straight off.

[Araneus]

With no friction and no other losses your idea would move forever. Unfortunately, with no friction and no losses, pretty much any system will move forever. When losses are introduced, as is always the case in the real world, keeping a system running forever requires adding energy to the system. If you don't add energy, it stops. If you do add energy, it is not perpetual motion.

Quite aside for the reality of friction and other unwanted losses, if extracting energy from the system results in it not running forever (which it does), then you don't have a free energy source.

Somebody made this mistake in the Slashdot discussion on Orbo (and for some bizarre reason was modded up) -- objects moving in space might be thought of as a form of perpetual motion, but that is only because no energy is being extracted. As soon as you try to use the energy, the "perpetual motion" no longer exists.

[evomedia]

This is where your whole idea falls apart. You propose using the energy released from a gravitational field to store energy in a magnetic field which will then be released again. At no point does any energy actually enter the system. Your messing around with forces and flux and funny shaped fields is all completely irrelevant. In order to release energy from any field you have to move from a high potential to a low potential. The problem is, in order to get to the high potential you must first move there from a lower one. There is no way around this.


I was not saying that, what I was saying was that it you turn a disc via a object falling, you can store the energy of the velocity/mass via a dynamo, not from gravity or by the magnet itself but from the falling mass of the object, I suggest that you can rotate an object via use of gravity and magnet field and generate energy from the mass of the object rotating, NOT the magnet or gravity alone... you drop a block from a crane, gravity does not cause the energy I agree, but the mass increasing in velocity as it hit the ground can be collected. A bag of sand sat on the ground has no energy output, but if the bag of sand is dropped then a release of energy is present, its the same prinicple as a turbine, now magnets are being used to levitate objects, take the nasa research into magnet launch systems using magnetic fields to accelerant a ship, trains that use magnetic fields. Its essentially balancing gravity vs use magnets for accelerantion, if you use increasing the magnet strengths one after another, so it pushes an object into a weakest point of a slightly stronger magnet you can essentially counter gravity and return an object to the top of a drop, then the increase of mass vs velocity from a drop is storable.

AS i said orginally, this saw a thoerectical arguement, between myself and a friend, I just like argueing about theorectical impossibilities, but at the end of the day conventions should be challenged sometimes, even if just for fun.

[evomedia]

Now I know this is all probably rubbish, but I'm a perpetual antagonist,

Here is a question, if gravity and magentic field has no inherant energy, then if you drop one magnet past another with both poles set in opposition, then the falling magnet will change direct, it will be pushed away from the one on the way down, so given that a mass at velocity was altered even againgst friction of air pressure, suggests that although no energy has been release to cause that movement, it was a natural excitement of electrons with a magnetic field did move the mass against the natural course of gravitygravity, its that natural excitment that I suggest could essentailly be used to counter the gravitation pull for an object to stay at the bottom of a loop, and rotate back to the top is not energy but harnessing the behaviour of electrons, within magnetic fields, then its the acceleration of mass under gravity that the energy comes from.

Lets take space, you put an objects in space near a planet, it is weightless, but why does gravity pull one towards the other? if there is no energy why would they be attracted? I suggest the same prinicple, using gravity and magents to create motion, and then use the natural reaction of mass, being pull towards a greater mass ie the earth to harness the power.

SO I'm not saying energy comes from nowhere, but the gravitation feild of the earth, ie, the mass of the earth, and the falling mass of the object through natural attraction is a harnessable power.

[Araneus]

Here is a question, if gravity and magentic field has no inherant energy, then if you drop one magnet past another with both poles set in opposition, then the falling magnet will change direct, it will be pushed away from the one on the way down, so given that a mass at velocity was altered even againgst friction of air pressure, not no energy has been release to cause that movement, it was a natural excitement of electrons with a magnetic field, its that natural excitment that I suggest could essentailly counter gravitation pull, so the rotation back to the top is not energy but harnessing the behaviour of electrons, within magnetic fields, then its the acceleration of mass that the energy comes from

I'm not aware that ordinary magnetic repulsion has anything to do with the excitation of electrons, however it has been a while since I studied physics so I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, you (like many PMM inventors before you) are failing to account for the demagnetisation of the magnets, which happens whenever the repulsion takes place. If you perform this experiment enough times, eventually the magnets involved will lose all of their magnetism and become inert.

Just as a battery contains a limited amount of electrical energy, a fixed magnet contains a limited amount of magnetism. It is certainly not a source of free energy.

[evomedia]

Yep I totally agree, Its not perpectual motion, but Neodyium magnets last 10 thousand years potentially, still long enough for me lol

[Cuddles]

I was not saying that, what I was saying was that it you turn a disc via a object falling, you can store the energy of the velocity/mass via a dynamo, not from gravity or by the magnet itself but from the falling mass of the object,

Exactly. This is your problem. The energy of the falling object is from gravity. It is the energy it has extracted from the gravitational field by moving from a high gravitational potential to a lower one. That energy was stored in the field by moving the object from a low potential to the higher one.


now magnets are being used to levitate objects, take the nasa research into magnet launch systems using magnetic fields to accelerant a ship, trains that use magnetic fields.

No. Levitation, using magnets or anything else, does not use energy. The forces are balanced so that the upwards force from the magnets exactly equals the downwards force from gravity. Since the net force is zero there is no motion and therefore no change in energy.


Its essentially balancing gravity vs use magnets for accelerantion, if you use increasing the magnet strengths one after another, so it pushes an object into a weakest point of a slightly stronger magnet you can essentially counter gravity and return an object to the top of a drop, then the increase of mass vs velocity from a drop is storable.

This just makes no sense. Yes, it is possible to use magnetic fields to move something upwards. However, you have once again missed the part about energy. Energy does not just appear out of nowhere. Something falling down takes energy from the gravitational field that was previously stored in it. Something being pushed by a magnet takes energy out of the magnetic field that was previously stored in it. You can't suddenly decide to ignore the energy in one field and claim you have perpetual motion.


AS i said orginally, this saw a thoerectical arguement, between myself and a friend, I just like argueing about theorectical impossibilities, but at the end of the day conventions should be challenged sometimes, even if just for fun.

There are no conventions being challenged here. Your understanding of fields and energy is wrong. That is all there is to it.

[median]

Just a quick question, evomedia and I'm not trying to be elitist.:-\
What is your level of education with regards to physics?:smiley: