"This is the Impossible in a Box" — Irish Times Covers Orbo: Behind the Scenes at Steorn (Video)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/technology/has-a-dublin-company-made-a-never-die-battery-1.2509360

shaunmac

http://innovation.mag.irishtimes.com/

“We’re trying to sell a battery that doesn’t die”

“This is the impossible in a box”

“If it works for a month it’s a very, very good battery; if it works for two months it’s bordering on magic; if it works for three months it is magic … we give a 12 month warranty”

“Our only option as a business now is to produce products, because every other avenue has failed.”

“We found that we could slow down and speed up electro-magnetic fields, which traditionally should travel at the speed of light, and when we did that we got these energy anomalies … we think we’re converting time into energy”

These are just a few quotes from Steorn CEO Shaun McCarthy who hosted a journalist from the Irish Times and gave him a tour of Steorn’s Dublin facilities, showed him some of their Orbo products, and discussed their Orbo technology.

It’s a very interesting video, giving a nice idea of what’s going on at Steorn and getting some insight into what it’s been like for the company to have been dealing with intense skepticism over the past ten years since they went public with their claims.

The link to the video is here: http://bcove.me/913dte2f

At the end of the video it states that the Irish Times will be testing the Orbo cube in 2016 — so that will be another source to help establish a body of evidence about this technology. I’m hopeful that the Ocubes will begin shipping soon, and we have an order in for an Ocube for ECW testing, so we can finally get some concrete hands-on experience with this technology.

UPDATE: There’s an accompanying article to the video here at the Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/fact-or-fiction-irish-firm-invents-everlasting-battery-1.2506832

McCarthy is quoted saying: “All that we can say is it’s not degrading or drawing on any known energy source but then there are vast swathes of energy that we call dark energy in scientific terms.”

Prof Luke Drury, a physicist at the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies talked to the Irish Times and said, “Really what Steorn are saying is that they can create mass out of nothing . . . Matter and energy does not appear spontaneously out of nothing, and nor does it disappear without trace.”

More here: http://innovation.mag.irishtimes.com/

  • @Frank: Did you hear anything about your delivery state?

    • ecatworld

      Nothing specifying the delivery date yet. I got this response to an email inquiry I sent on Friday: “there are several issue around packaging, logistics etc we’re finalising at the moment, we expect to start shipping in the next several days, we’ll give you an update in the next few days. Thanks for your patience!”

      • Okay, then let’s hope they get these issues fixed, and it will not take for ever…

      • Zephir

        There is only one main risk – the device works as announced, but into account of less or more hidden corrosion of electrodes (i.e. like the common electrochemical cell) – which may not be apparent immediately even for Steorn.

        • ecatworld

          True, you’d need a track record of length of operation. McCarthy has said they have had a battery running continuously for 2 years or so with no degradation of performance, so far.

          • Zephir

            The total charge drained from battery is what is crucial here – not just the length of operation. The carbon in form of graphite is lightweight element, it can provide lotta charge by its gradual oxidation. We should be sure, that the total charge is larger than the amount of charge released by possible oxidation of cell material.

  • @Frank: Did you hear something about the delivery state of your orbo?

    • Frank Acland

      Nothing specifying the delivery date yet. I got this response to an email inquiry I sent on Friday: “there are several issue around packaging, logistics etc we’re finalising at the moment, we expect to start shipping in the next several days, we’ll give you an update in the next few days. Thanks for your patience!”

      • Okay, then let’s hope they get these issues fixed, and it will not take for ever…

      • Paul Smith

        They are simply waiting it from the aliens…:-)

      • Zephir

        There is only one main risk: the device works as announced, but into account of less or more hidden corrosion of its material (i.e. like the common electrochemical cell) – which may not be apparent immediately even for Steorn. Why?

        In my opinion the battery is formed with wax electret filled with graphene particles. The electret waxes are formed with esters of organic acids – at the case of hydrolysis with aerial humidity the acid part (i.e. palmic acid) will get released from ester and it would serve as a generator of protons by its reduction into an organic alcohol (palmitol) – whereas the graphite will release electrons by its oxidation instead. The condition for electrochemical cell work will be fulfilled after then.

        If we attach the electrodes to a layer of such material, then the oxidization of graphite may proceed in hidden way inside this layer instead of at the metal surface of electrodes itself – and as such to evade the attention. Even the regular weighing of battery may no reveal this issue, as the graphene particles may oxidize itself into another solid products (graphene oxide, for example).

        • Frank Acland

          True, you’d need a track record of length of operation. McCarthy has said they have had a battery running continuously for 2 years or so with no degradation of performance, so far.

          • Zephir

            The total electric charge drained from battery is what is crucial here – not just the length of operation. The carbon in form of graphite is lightweight element, it can provide lotta electrons by its gradual oxidation. We should be sure, that the total charge generated with Orbo is substantially larger than the amount of charge released by possible oxidation of cell material. Not only graphite may get oxidized during it, but also portion of wax used and metal electrodes by itself.

            I’d recommend to discharge the Orbo unit with resistor bridge followed by some monitoring system (Arduino-like voltage and current recorder or something similar) and to collect the voltage/current data together with time into a file for later integration of coulombic charge and energy drained.

  • Angry SQUIRREL!!

    “we think we’re converting time into energy”
    what??????

    • Andreas Moraitis

      E = t * P 😉

  • Angry SQUIRREL!!

    “we think we’re converting time into energy”
    what??????

    • Andreas Moraitis

      E = t * P 😉

  • Mats002

    McCarthy is a great opening act before Rossi/IH, good show Frank!

    If Orbo do not deliver the impossible we will witness the consequences at the end of the impossible-product-road. On the other hand if they deliver we will see how the science community react to it. Either way this will be fun!

    • And if they deliver, Rossi has more pressure to bring his device to market.

      I guess when the message is out in mainstream media and science, Rossi’s technology could shortly be obsolete.

      • Mats002

        Popcorn time for the peanut gallery! This is better than an Agatha Christie story, who is guilty of what? How was the deed done? And why depending on the outcome.

      • ecatworld

        Hard to say. The claimed power density of the E-Cat is far above the claimed power density of this first Orbo product. But we really don’t know the potential of either tech at this stage.

        I do think, though, that if Orbo is confirmed to be valid, Steorn and Leonardo will be major competitors.

        • LindbergofSwed

          have you heard anything about the possibility to scale up?

          • ecatworld

            Yes, Shaun McCarthy has said power density can be improved, but it would require advanced manufacturing facilities, which is too expensive for them right now.

            This is why, I think, they are anxious to license their technology so those with the necessary facilities can improve the product. Shaun says Steorn does not want to be a manufacturer of Orbo products, but they see it as being necessary to make a product on their own at this point.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Licensing as far and wide as possible is a very good approach with something that is intended for mass market and global transformation.

          • Mats002

            And because Rossi is right about that no one will accept impossible inventions, only products on the market can overcome the disbelief.

  • Mats002

    McCarthy is a great opening act before Rossi/IH, good show Frank!

    If Orbo do not deliver the impossible we will witness the consequences at the end of the impossible-product-road. On the other hand if they deliver we will see how the science community react to it. Either way this will be fun!

    • And if they deliver, Rossi has more pressure to bring his device to market.

      I guess when the message is out in mainstream media and science, Rossi’s technology could shortly be obsolete.

      • Mats002

        Popcorn time for the peanut gallery! This is better than an Agatha Christie story, who is guilty of what? How was the deed done? And why depending on the outcome.

      • Frank Acland

        Hard to say. The claimed power density of the E-Cat is far above the claimed power density of this first Orbo product. But we really don’t know the potential of either tech at this stage.

        I do think, though, that if Orbo is confirmed to be valid, Steorn and Leonardo will be major competitors.

        • LindbergofSwed

          have you heard anything about the possibility to scale up?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, Shaun McCarthy has said power density can be improved, but it would require advanced manufacturing facilities, which is too expensive for them right now.

            This is why, I think, they are anxious to license their technology so those with the necessary facilities can improve the product. Shaun says Steorn does not want to be a manufacturer of Orbo products, but they see it as being necessary to make a product on their own at this point.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Licensing as far and wide as possible is a very good approach with something that is intended for mass market and global transformation.

          • Mats002

            And because Rossi is right about that no one will accept impossible inventions, only products on the market can overcome the disbelief.

    • mike wolf

      You know mats, you are a skeptic, the good kind. When you’re on board, I’ll know it is a fact. I am not. My hope gets me high. too high to think rationally, but I still love it. Go ORBO!!!!

  • priestie

    “Really what Steorn are saying is that they can create mass out of nothing . . . Matter and energy does not appear spontaneously out of nothing, and nor does it disappear without trace.”

    – Except for the Big Bang, Mr. Drury should add. It’s tragic how tunnel vision is in full control in the consensus driven scientific community.
    The arrogance in existing ideas is blocking major advancements. It’s sad.

    • mike wolf

      Yep, amen. Can’t blame them for thinking that way. But way can blame them for their Aggressive protection of their fallacy.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, what about 100 years before the big bang? Why stop observations at one event? Of course this would not be the first time we had a story about something from nothing! – but such stories tended to be based on Voodoo as opposed to reasoning.

      So toss out all math, science and the explain of what things were like 100 years before the big bang? So some particle existed, but how long was it sitting there, and what caused such a thing to wake up and become active? Either you have something, or you don’t! But something from nothing makes no sense at all!

      Much simpler to adopt a static universe that always existed – but then we discover that stars are tanks of fuel with a limited capacity and lifespan. So just like walking into a room and observing a lit candle – we know that candle could not have always been burning due to limited fuel supply.
      So we had to toss out the idea of a static (always existing universe).

      In some quick hurry the big bang was cooked up, but that really just smoke and mirrors – either you had something before the big bang, or you did not. So this just kicks the can further down the street unless someone going to accept something from nothing which is most silly!

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • GreenWin

      Wonder if Mr. Drury has forgotten proofs of virtual energy even in perfect vacuum. Or the bizarre world of negative absolute zero where atoms enter high energy states. No law of physics is inviolable except in the minds of men. http://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

  • priestie

    “Really what Steorn are saying is that they can create mass out of nothing . . . Matter and energy does not appear spontaneously out of nothing, and nor does it disappear without trace.”

    – Except for the Big Bang, Mr. Drury should add. It’s tragic how tunnel vision is in full control in the consensus driven scientific community.
    The arrogance in existing ideas is blocking major advancements. It’s sad.

    • mike wolf

      Yep, amen. Can’t blame them for thinking that way. But way can blame them for their Aggressive protection of their fallacy.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, what about 100 years before the big bang? Why stop observations at one event? Of course this would not be the first time we had a story about something from nothing! – but such stories tended to be based on Voodoo as opposed to reasoning.

      So toss out all math, science and the explain of what things were like 100 years before the big bang? So some particle existed, but how long was it sitting there, and what caused such a thing to wake up and become active? Either you have something, or you don’t! But something from nothing makes no sense at all!

      Much simpler to adopt a static universe that always existed – but then we discover that stars are tanks of fuel with a limited capacity and lifespan. So just like walking into a room and observing a lit candle – we know that candle could not have always been burning due to limited fuel supply.
      So we had to toss out the idea of a static (always existing universe).

      In some quick hurry the big bang was cooked up, but that really just smoke and mirrors – either you had something before the big bang, or you did not. So this just kicks the can further down the street unless someone going to accept something from nothing which is most silly!

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • GreenWin

      Wonder if Mr. Drury has forgotten proofs of virtual energy even in perfect vacuum. Or the bizarre world of negative absolute zero where atoms enter high energy states. No law of physics is inviolable except in the minds of men. http://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

  • Curbina

    To those of us that have been following Steorn since 2006 the idea of energy coming from time is familiar. It makes sense only within the “violation” of Noether’s theorem that is allegedly behind the Orbo effect.

    • Zephir

      This device may not violate the Noether’s theorem (momentum conservation law connected with 1st thermodynamic law) – but a 2nd thermodynamic law, if it produces an electricity into account of its own heat content (temperature) like sorta magnetocaloric battery.

      • Bob Greenyer

        In my opinion, just like other electrets, it will generate power from harvesting any environmental delta in temperature (of which it is extremely difficult to avoid as we have found out in our experiments) or vibration – including seismic, which are again VERY difficult to completely exclude.

        It would be easier to test for enhanced charging rate in both cases than to attempt to eliminate them. I have suggested experimental approaches previously.

        • Zephir

          Why not, but the announced power density produced with Orbo is rather high. If the recharging unit is capable of power 0.4 W as announced previously, then it’s even more powerful, than the the charging unit presented at 1st webinar, because its volume is deeply bellow 1 dm3 – it looks really like the disruptive technology (power density ~ 12 kWatt/m3). Just one fifth of cubic meter of electret could cover the consumption of average household after then.

          • FC

            Zephir,
            My power density calculation yields a result one order of magnitude lower than yours. To wit, there’s two Orbo cells in an OPhone, which apparently deliver a constant 0.04 W. Therefore, each cell delivers 0.02 W. (And it also means that an OCube contains 20 Orbo cells, which I am not so sure of). Now, from the videos, the volume of an Orbo cell is fairly similar to an AA battery, that is around 0.01 liters. Thus, I arrive at a power density of 2 W per liter, or 2 kW/m3.
            At any rate, we are just guessing here, and I am sure we will be better informed once the first OCubes are delivered, tested, and taken apart by the good people such as Frank who will spare us the expense and the risk of making a bad investment.

          • Zephir

            /* I arrive at a power density of 2 W per liter, or 2 kW/m3… */

            Still not bad: one box of common refrigerator size filled with wax and graphite could heat your home for ever. With compare to inherently dangerous E-Cat which must be refilled each year it looks quite well…

            We’ll see – but the Maxwell demon is already out of bottle …

          • FC

            Zephir,
            I agree with you. Even at these power densities, Orbo looks like a winner to me, at least for stationary applications (once the price drops enough to be competitive).
            Not so much for powering vehicles yet, for which it is still too bulky and probably too heavy as well.

          • Zephir

            Of course, but Orbo could charge your battery powered car overnight. After all, even the E-Cat currently doesn’t look feasible as a mobile energy device, despite its energy density is much higher.

          • FC

            Absolutely, Zephir. 🙂

            Regarding LERN, IMHO it’s too complicated and unstable (requiring complex control systems) to compete with the unparalleled simplicity and robustness of Orbo.

            Besides, if Orbo works as stated, it is already a mature technology. Further developments would be related mostly to the application of thin metal sheet manufacturing techniques to increase Orbo’s power density. Although refinements to the specific materials used for the dissimilar plates could also bring some increases in power density.

          • artefact

            “which apparently deliver a constant 0.04 W”
            Wasn’t it 0.4 W? Then you have found the order of magnitude.

          • FC

            artefact,
            According to Shaun McCarthy, OCubes deliver a constant 0.4 W, but we still don’t know how many Orbo power cells they contain. On the other hand, OPhones deliver a constant 0.04 W, and we know they contain 2 cells. Please read my post again now. 🙂

          • artefact

            I see 🙂

        • Wrap it in earthed aluminium foil and stick it in a freezer resting on a foam cushion? If output remains constant it is probably not harvesting ambient energy.

        • LarryJ

          It seems like a lot of power out for the barely discernible environmental effects you are describing. Sort of like powering your cellphone off the movement of the spring in your bi-metal thermometer.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Granted, but they have put it in a LARGE Aluminium box which will respond fast to environmental temperature changes. How much energy needs to go in and out to change its temperature – remember, both directions will yield harvested energy as the two dissimilar metals will be selected to vary greatly in their thermal expansion coefficients. Likewise vibrational energy will couple nicely as it appears that the collector is screwed hard into the large case.

            The voltage regulator stores the low yield from the electret layer cake into a Lithium based battery for high current charging when needed.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – if you were to assume that the unit was 1kg of Aluminium, then to change it by 1ºC you would need to add or subtract around 0.254W/h

            The device will not be 100% efficient of course. It should generate power in both heating and cooling and with any direction of sound – but sticking with just thermal energy.

            Dublin has minimum day night temperature differences of 4 degrees and often 7ºC. of course – any change in the environment will be captured.

            Is this enough? I don’t know. It would be interesting to see if the unit performed the same if it were taken out of the aluminium box and put in say 4 inches of expanded polyurethane foam.

      • Curbina

        As I was uner NDA with Steorn for some years, I (an all the roughly 300 people that were in the same agreement) know that what Steorn found seems to violate Noether’s theorem in the sense that it allegedly functions by making an electromagnetic interaction within time constraints that allow to gain energy.

        • Zephir

          I think you’re talking about Steorn Orbo, not about Steorn Cube. But I don’t think that both devices violate first thermodynamic law neither, they just utilize loopholes in 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Noether theorems are based on energy conservation law (by applying it to various symmetries), so that the violation of Noether theorem would also violate the energy conservation law, which I don’t think is really probable here.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/2n51z8/simplest_theory_of_overunity_devices_possible

          IMO both devices are conceptually quite similar: they do represent a thermodynamically metastable system (magnets squeezed together, condensator charged), which can utilize negentropic phenomena instead of these entropic ones (as the common equillibrial systems do).

          I actually don’t think, you could use the Orbo or Cube for heating of your home by simply placing them in your kitchen and connecting resistor for heating, as I believe these devices produce electricity by cooling themselves – so that the energy drained from them will be actually utilized for their heating. They’re perpetuum mobiles of 2nd kind, not 1st kind. But you can indeed place these devices at your yard and leave them to cool the rest of Universe – they would act like the true perpetuum mobile and the source of free energy from every practical perspective after then…;-)

          The violation of Noether theorem is about violation of momentum conservation law across various momentum spaces, whereas the Steorn devices just transfer energy and momentum of fluctuations from material to electrons i.e. from one dimension to another . The total energy and momentum content still remains preserved there.

          • Curbina

            Well, Orbo is the same principle behind the Ocube (hence the “O” in Ocube). It implies managing interaction times of electromagnetic fields. How is that embodied in the later interaction is a big question mark, but the principle is the same than in the earlier embodiments.

          • Zephir

            The Orbo is just marketing name. The first Orbo was based on magnetic motor, whereas the Orbo Cube is based on capacitor stack.

  • Gerard McEk

    In normal life the Orbo is not very practical or economical at all, it is just a scientific riddle and I think people may buy it because of that. A much cheaper solar panel with a battery will do a better job, considering 24 energy supply of the Orbo power quantity.
    I am interested in how it works though. Let us hope that will be revealed the coming time.

    • Zephir

      I’ve multiple solar chargers combined with power banks, but they simply don’t perform well at conditions other than at direct sunlingth. If the Orbo works as announced, it’s already better than that. And we should keep on mind, it’s still just a simple poorly optimized prototype – something like first Newton computer from Apple.

      • Gerard McEk

        I think you are a bit too positive about this, Zephir. Even the inventor does not know how it works. That makes it difficult to speculated if the effect can be so much optimized that the energy produced will be economical in the future.
        Let us wait and see what scientists find out about this. If it indeed converts time into energy, then time may stop, when we use too much energy, like my clock does when the battery runs empty;).

    • LarryJ

      All new technologies start out by being very expensive and working poorly. As time progresses they improve exponentially and become very inexpensive and work almost perfectly. At this current point in time practicality and economics are not even part of the picture. It’s the principle of the thing that would be startling.

  • Gerard McEk

    In normal life the Orbo is not very practical or economical at all, it is just a scientific riddle and I think people may buy it because of that. A much cheaper solar panel with a battery will do a better job, considering 24 energy supply of the Orbo power quantity.
    I am interested in how it works though. Let us hope that will be revealed the coming time.

    • FC

      Gerard,
      I beg to disagree. Orbo power cells are the pinacle of simplicity and robustness. And once they are manufactured using more sophisticated techniques (which only become cost-effective through large economies of scale that Steorn do not yet possess), Orbo cells’ power density will be impossible to match too.

      • Gerard McEk

        Orbo power density impossible to match? I guess you mean the energy density. Then you you are right, if it never stops and that it does not require any other power source -like heat or light or radiation of particles or mass (nuclear) or chemical. At the same time you can ask the question where the energy comes from. For that I would like to see an explanation, otherwise you cannot predict the economical future of the Orbo.

        • FC

          Gerard,
          You are right that an Orbo power cell’s energy density is extremely high, provided the cell lasts for long enough. But no, I didn’t mean energy density. I meant power density.
          Please, let me explain. According to Shaun McCarthy, the voltage of an Orbo power cell is fixed, as it is a function of the materials used. But its current (hence, its power) is directly proportional to the contact surface area between the two plates (not the plates’ thickness). Therefore, the power density of an Orbo cell can be easily increased by making the plates thinner and packing more contact surface area within the same volume.
          Now, we still don’t know the thickness of the metal plates (probably very thin foils) used in Orbo power cells. But I very much doubt that they are thinner than 0.01 mm. If that was the case, their thickness could still be reduced by 7 orders of magnitude (or 10 million times) until they reach their absolute limit (the width of a metal atom).
          Therefore, by applying nanotechnology manufacturing techniques, the power density of Orbo cells could be increased by at least 7 orders of magnitude. In other words, their power density could reach more than 10 MW/m3, probably much more.

          • FC

            CORRECTION
            I meant 10 MW per liter, or 10 GW/m3
            Apologies.
            As you can see, Gerard, this power density is very hard to match, because at those levels of miniaturization we bump into the limits of the atoms themselves, independently of the methods used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum flux (the final reservoir of all energy in the universe).

        • mike wolf

          Yea, really. Scaled up, nothing will need a plug. Do they need to leave the light on? hehe It is an impossible device. I hope it works.

    • Zephir

      I’ve multiple solar chargers combined with power banks, but they simply don’t perform well at conditions other than direct sunlight. If the Orbo works as announced, it already performs better than that. And we should keep on mind, it’s still just a simple poorly optimized prototype – something like first Newton computer from Apple. It’s future could be much brighter than that, after we’ll understand its working principle in full depth.

      • Gerard McEk

        I think you are a bit too positive about this, Zephir. Even the inventor does not know how it works. That makes it difficult to speculated if the effect can be so much optimized that the energy produced will be economical in the future.
        Let us wait and see what scientists find out about this. If it indeed converts time into energy, then time may stop, when we use too much energy, like my clock does when the battery runs empty;).

    • LarryJ

      All new technologies start out by being very expensive and working poorly. As time progresses they improve exponentially and become very inexpensive and work almost perfectly. At this current point in time practicality and economics are not even part of the picture. It’s the principle of the thing that would be startling.

  • “we think we’re converting time into energy” Sounds like a big red flag.

    • A bit of a shot in the dark I suspect. However a link posted by georgehants over on the ‘always open’ thread (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-in-spain-create-first-ever-magnetic-wormhole-in-lab-a6829131.html ) points to some weird findings by a Spanish team that might link magnetism to time, possibly in a way that is similar to the link between gravity and spatial dimensions.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Not related to time:

        “Using magnetic metamaterials and metasurfaces, our wormhole transfers the magnetic field from one point in space to another through a path that is magnetically undetectable.”

        “While the wormhole created is not a “space-time wormhole” such as those depicted in films such as sci-fi thriller Interstellar, but the Scientific American reports it is the “realisation of a futuristic ‘invisibility cloak’”.” (sic)

        • OK, I’ll accept that. My thinking was that if the ‘effect’ is not detectable at any point in between source and target, then the field energy is either travelling along an unknown spatial dimension, or ‘spacetime’ is a more subtle construct than is understood by current science and ‘time’ isn’t what we conceive it to be.

          For example (wild speculation just to illustrate the point) all points in space may be in fact superposed but separated by a temporal dimension defined by the quantum state embedded in particles of ‘matter’. In other words space may be an illusion. I am not expecting a Nobel Prize for this idea.

          • mike wolf

            There is place where time doesn’t exist. Everything is everywhere, then, now and forever. Until it is observed, then it is here and now for who knows how long. Because wherever “it” is, that time is not, neither is space. Since your wild speculation includes source and target, you must be wrong. For wherever there is space there is time, and wherever there is time, there is matter. Without time, there is no space, without space there is no time, without matter there is neither.

            Word it any way you like, one does not exist without the other. In a way, my statement is kind of contradicting too, but being in the physical plane, that is the only way I can explain it. But someone of your intellect may one day have an answer.

            Just get that quantum monkey out of your back, Orbo debunks it. As well as ecat, the suncell and several others. Look, it isn’t my fault quantum physics wants to limit its lifespan by saying something is impossible when it is possible. That is on them.

          • georgehants

            Mike it has been a difficult subject under discussion for many years.
            ——–
            Time is relative, and flexible and, according to Einstein, “the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion”.
            So reality is ultimately TIMELESS. This sounds pretty bizarre from the
            view of classical physics, but from the view of consciousness theory and
            spirituality, it fits in perfectly.
            ——–
            The proven instantaneous effect between entangled particles over billions of light years imply that time is an illusion or the distance between everything is zero.
            http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/more-evidence-support-quantum-theory-s-spooky-action-distance

          • “The proven instantaneous effect between entangled particles over billions of light years imply that time is an illusion or the distance between everything is zero.”

            Thanks George – just what I was trying to suggest in my own fumbling way. A frustration I share with yourself is the apparent lack of response in the scientific community (other than frequent hostility and rejection) when people are able to clearly demonstrate ‘anomalies’ that reach to the heart of any true understanding of reality. I have in mind such things as quantum entanglement across time, apparently step-varying time constants in certain relatively close astronomical objects, and now projection of energy without passing through the intervening space.

            Entanglement in time:
            http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156673-the-first-quantum-entanglement-of-photons-through-space-and-time
            http://io9.gizmodo.com/5744143/particles-can-be-quantum-entangled-through-time-as-well-as-space

            Anomalous redshift:
            http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
            http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_quasars_and_galaxies.pdf

          • georgehants

            Peter, so agree, these things have been known for many years but after about 1950 everything in science and science education has been designed to hide it all away.
            If psychologist had the slightest idea what they where talking about (unfortunately they also cover-up the Truth regarding the Mind etc) then things could have been different.
            We must I suppose think ourselves lucky that at this late stage the Quantum guys seem to be unaffected by the diseases of the rest of science and education and are at last powering forward at great speed.
            Will they be stopped?

          • This blog seems to be a hotbed of sometimes disruptive and wide ranging speculation:

            http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/

            Rather a lot to search through though.

          • georgehants

            Peter put up a Google search on your e-mails for say Quantum research or whatever interests you.
            You will receive a steady stream of updates as they happen.

          • George, I already have enough problems levering myself away from all the fascinating information on the interweb without more distractions! Just following your links and the ones they lead to eats half my day. Besides, I’m reasonably sure that thinking about ‘quantum’ stuff too much probably results in serious brain injury. It feels like that, anyway.

          • You summarise my own cloudy thoughts on the matter better than I can! It’ll take someone with real intellect rather than a partly informed habitual rebel such as myself to untangle just the ‘simple’ strangeness such as the observer effect, virtual pairs from vacuum, entanglement across both space and time, quantised local time constants (Halton Arp, redshift anomalies) and so on.

            The small part of the greater reality underlying ‘space-time’ that we can glean from experiments is so full of paradox that it’s evident we are only picking up on epiphenomena on ‘our’ side of the divide – bits of the ‘quantum’ interface that generates the 4D(+) universe we appear to inhabit. While parts of this interface can be described (if not understood) using the tool of mathematics, this can take us only so far (I use ‘us’ generically – maths doesn’t take me very far at all). To state the obvious, you can’t use the ‘rules’ (mathematics) of a dynamically generated subset in order to understand the mechanism that produced it.

            It’s rather like those thought models that physics nerds use to try to illustrate the nature of gravity – the spherically warped 2D surface inhabited by 2D ants that can only operate within their local geodesics. The ants can have no conception of what may lie in directions orthagonal to their accustomed paths through their distorted 2D space – only we are the ants trying to understand a 4D (at least!) universe, which in turn is built on quantum foundations we literally can’t comprehend except though 3D analogies.

            About the only thing I personally can take away from any consideration of the fundamental nature of our reality is that it is inherently not possible for three dimensional intelligences to more than partially understand it, so any statements of certainty, and any assumed limits, are misguided. I suppose it can be fun trying, though.

          • GreenWin

            Excellent dialog Mike and Agaricus. My take is, Mike suggests viewing matter/energy/space/time all in superposition – until some form of consciousness requests & renders it manifest. In one sense this makes a remarkably efficient reality. Since there is no need to manifest until there is a conscious “fetch.”

            I use the word ‘fetch’ in reference to CPU programming. Yes George, I’m referring to a reality rendered by Qbit computer simulation. We live in a holographic world created by… Okay, I’ll stop here. :>) Lovely discussions taking place in response to growing evidence we only know ~4% of the universe around us!

          • Intuitively, the idea of all loci across time being superposed sort of feels on the right track. All particle coordinates, vectors and location in time are then defined by their quantum state, in embedded variables that are present in addition to spin, colour, charge, etc., – a concept that might allow a better understanding of entanglement and the rest of quantum weirdness. It would then ‘only’ be necessary to alter information (the quantum state) by some means related to entanglement, in order to ‘physically’ transpose matter through space or time without any necessity to cross the intervening spatial or temporal separation, or any consideration of resultant energy differences.

            I’ll take that Nobel prize now.

            However I must admit to some reservations about the concept of events being dependent for their realisation in spacetime on an observing consciousness (if a tree falls, etc). For a start, humans are only special in quantity, not in quality, so it must be assumed that any consciousness must be enough to bring this about (my cat? – he is certainly conscious and expects things to remain the same and to his liking – or a rather less conscious guppy in my fish tank, or one of the minute crustaceans it feeds on?) otherwise how could ‘reality’ have existed long enough to have evolved the planet and form the fossils we find (i’m aware that this might be too simplistic a question, but you gotta start somewhere).

            But then, what about, this (or any other) planet before life – how could the records of change spanning billions of years that we see in the rocks have come about with no consciousness to observe, unless its enough that some sentient cabbage on a long extinct planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy glanced this way a few billion years ago and wondered if there were sentient cabbages on the planets of distant stars.

            Even the operation of definitely non-conscious machines such as sensors in an unattended twin slit experiment seem to ‘collapse’ a probabilistic duality, and if I leave my ‘trail camera’ out in the garden to observe foxes and badgers, it seems to record an image of my garden NOT evaporating back into the quantum void, even though I’m absent and asleep. Granted that nothing is actually what it seems, and causality is probably illusory, but still…

            Suns form, live and die without any apparent intervention from consciousness, (unless a very bored god sits and watches for aeons while very little happens) and a few millions of years later their light comes down my telescope and I seem to see objects from the distant past, as they were long before any form of consciousness existed here. Unless of course you are right and everything, including simulations of the records of a distant past is conjured by software that runs the matrix. In which case, (a) who or what built the all encompassing quantum computer, and what is the nature of the ‘reality’ it it exists in? – and (b) why bother to get up in the morning if we’re just avatars inhabiting a virtual illusion programmed by who knows what.

            I think I’ll just stay with the relatively simple proposition of an infinitely branching multiverse that generates a 3D illusion through which my consciousness threads its way, leaving a wake of interwoven multiple paths and simultaneously exploring all possible futures – from every point in my infinite number of timelines. Or something like that.

          • GreenWin

            All good questions. Those that resolve around ‘The Measurement Problem’ seem to be answered by intention of proxy as with sensors sans human observer. Some consciousness theories include all life, organic and otherwise as well as rocks, lava, stars and nova. So, more of the morphic resonance suggested by Sheldrake – than sentient consciousness. Keep in mind consensus cosmology insists dark matter/energy fills some 96% of our universe – that we neither see or sense. If this proves true, there is lot going on we are blind to – which may be by design or sub-par intellect.

            If as Mike suggested there is a place without space or time and all points are ‘now,’ the 14.5B arrow of time since the Big Bang is human fabrication; an epic movie our ‘science’ has invented and agreed upon to explain our existence.

            As to the conundrums: (a) who or what built the all encompassing quantum computer, and what is the nature of the ‘reality’ it inhabits? – and (b) why bother to get up in the morning if we’re just avatars inhabiting a virtual illusion.

            (a) I dunno. A teenage alien hacker most likely. (b) the hack allows free will and the infinitely branching multiverse that our consciousness wends its way through. The good part is a potential for full reset. i.e. a virtual life do-over if you screw up royally and the hacker likes you. Heretics like us at ECW make the game a LOT more fun!!

          • GreenWin

            Kudos on the sentient cabbage thought. Apparently you are not alone: http://bit.ly/1RLVSAn

          • Amazing. It seems it not possible any more to have an original thought – they’ve all been thought before. Or perhaps only a limited set that can be drawn on have been programmed into the matrix.

          • GreenWin

            When bending/warping spacetime you affect both space and time. If you use energy rather than matter (gravity) to bend spacetime – some portion of the energy is lost to the spacetime warp. Applying enough energy might cause the warp to close in on itself – creating a spacetime “bubble.” A tiny relativistic universe. I am expecting a Hugo Award for this idea.

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, Einsteins Shadow says, no chance, you have not taken into account that the Sim programmers will automatically change things so that you are incorrect.
            Known as sod’s law

          • GreenWin

            You are so right. Sim programmers seem to know what I’m thinking. Before I do! Curses.

        • georgehants

          Pekka, a quote in Sci Am means nothing in this context without explaining clearly if any time elapsed between production and detection of the field.
          No time passes in QM when a spin is reversed and detected a great distance away in it’s entangled partner

  • georgehants

    Physics
    What does it mean to “convert energy into time”?
    In a recent article about creating electron-positron pairs by colliding photons in a laboratory, Andrei Seryi, director of the John Adams Institute at Oxford University, was quoted to said:
    It’s breathtaking to think that things we thought are not
    connected, can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy,
    particles and light. Would we be able in the future to convert energy into time and vice versa?
    Let’s ignore for the moment that a physicist is amazed that γγ→e−e+γγ→e−e+
    process is possible in a laboratory. But what does he mean by
    converting energy into time? Is this just a poetic sentence to emphasize
    his amazement, or is there some deeper meaning behind it?
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113615/what-does-it-mean-to-convert-energy-into-time

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, time is simply a measuring of motion. We can measure for example heat, and one would NOT conclude that we can have temperature travel.

      We can measure weight, and one would not conclude we can as a result have weight travel!

      So time travel is science fiction. Time is ALWAYS a measure of motion. Time is not some “stand alone” “thing” that you have, but ONLY a measurement of movement.

      So saying that you convert time into energy is silly, since time is only a measurement of motion. However, saying one converts motion into energy or into electricity certainly makes sense.

      So no we don’t have temperature travel any more than time travel. Time is not some “thing” or some kind of magic “medium” but is only a measurement of motion.

      Because we measure weight does not by logic suggest we now have weight travel!

      Any object cannot be demonstrated to move without a cause. We live in a universe based on causality. Objects don’t appear out of thin air and objects cannot move themselves. Any motion we observer is the result of that motion being caused. The simple basic truth and observation is that objects cannot move without a cause. Because we cannot measure or see that cause does not suggest otherwise. Any speak as such simply breaks with logic and reasoning.
      Until someone can demonstrate that a object can move itself, then no logic nor reason exists to suggest as such.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • georgehants

        “Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics”-Richard Feynman
        Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/favorite-quotes.58355/
        ———
        Quantum mechanics is an example where rationalism fails. If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t, because it is illogical, irrational, and is NOT the simplest explanation possible. How can you be a rationalist when the universe may not be rational?
        https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-be-a-rationalist-given-that-quantum-mechanics-and-other-things-about-our-universe-are-irrational-illogical-and-do-not-follow-Occams-razor

        • Albert D. Kallal

          If the universe is not rational, then you cannot conclude anything of value from it!

          So you freely admit your making an irrational argument then? In other words why would anyone accept that to make your point you must throw out truth, logic and reason and now be “irrational”?

          So in other words, stop reasoning and then your position becomes acceptable?

          The instant you throw out logic and reason is the VERY instant you can propose any kind of fantasy you want. It called voodoo thinking. And the result is anything stated based on being irrational is going to be well, irrational!

          Quantum mechanics is fine up to the point of using statistics to analyze something because we LACK better means and instruments to determine such outcomes. There is NO such thing as a random event.

          In other words, we can observe a baseball flying through the air. Because we don’t know where the baseball is going to land is NOT a solid reason to conclude the baseball while flying along decides to start thinking and CHANGE where it is going to land! So we can use statistics (to quantify), and say that 80% of the time the baseball will land in the field. So up to this, to “quantify” or use quantum mechanics is fine and dandy. That is the best we can do. We don’t have good enough means to determine the variables, so we use statistics – this is fine!

          However, such “quantifying” is NOT a proof or reason to toss out gravity, air resistance and the path the baseball will take. Given the SAME circumstances the SAME math and set of rules apply to the baseball and the outcome is the SAME every time. The math does not all of a sudden “change” and now 2 + 2 is not 4. The same experiment and same conditions for that baseball will result in the SAME outcome every time for the same event you observe. And this applies to whatever level of detail, including particles at the atomic level.

          The simple logic is no experiment exists that shows anything can move on its own, and no experiment or observation exists that shows some thing or object can MOVE on its own without a cause. If by observing the event, the outcome changes then the tools used to observe that event are changing the outcome.

          So just because we can’t know where the baseball lands does not by logic prove or even suggest the baseball now thinks and changes it path without some cause.

          If you accept a branch of science that forces you to throw out causality, then such science has no means to allow one to make logical and intellectual conclusions because you forced to toss out the very concept of truth. Once this is done, you can conclude anything you want – but at the cost of truth.

          So, because one does not know where some object going to land is not a logical or even science based prof that such objects are not subject to a cause or that such causes don’t exist anymore.

          Quantum mechanics does not ask one to throw out truth, but many read into QM that you must throughout causality – noting could be further from the truth.

          If you suggesting to toss out truth to accept your position, then such a positon is of little value and you cannot make any reasoned conclusions from such a position based on lack of truths. You have to toss out the VERY act that reasoning is based on – the result is conclusions devoid of truth.
          Until such time a experiment is produced that shows objects can move without a cause, there simply no reason to toss out this simple fact.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • georgehants

            Albert, I am making no argument simply reporting that which has been known for many years.
            The only rational explanation is to allow that rational thinking can suffice in the basic low level reductionist, outdated, hard science, practiced by most scientists and rationally except that the Quantum has always led us to the genesis of low level physics so Wonderfully covered 150 years ago by our brilliant predecessors.
            I think you should take up your argument with the authors of all the Quantum papers being published if you disagree with their findings.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I don’t disagree with quantum mechanics,

            but YES I most certainly disagree with anyone who asks me to be irrational. And
            I don’t accept people’s conclusion due to lack of means to determine the
            outcome of an event means we have to toss out reason and causality.

            For example, many concluded from Einstein that everything is relative. (so by logic truth does not exist). That not all a reasoned conclusion one can and should make from Einstein. The ONLY point Einstein was making is we are to measure motion and objects relative to each other.

            So now a conclusion from Einstein that reason and logic are relative is silly! And NOT what Einstein was suggesting. However, popular press and media NEAR ALL reading as such concluded that Einstein was suggesting everything we think about is relative.

            So I am not going to accept a pretext of reason that says you have to toss out reason to accept such a position! In other words, I don’t have the truth, but trust what I say is not based on truth!

            So papers and observations from QM are fine. However, I MOST certainly disagree if THEN people conclude without merit that we must toss out truth, reason and causality.

            As such, none of the QM papers have any rational experiment or observation that shows events or particles can move without a cause. To think otherwise is to make false conclusions from such papers. This really the same as reading Einstein theory of relativity and THEN saying relativity means we are to now toss out truth and logic, or truth and logic is only relative!

            – No such implying exists in such papers!

            Any paper that says you have to be irrational to accept their point of view means we substituted voodoo for science.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • georgehants

            Once again your argument seems to be with QM etc. and not me.
            As I have stated above one cannot use classical logical, rational thinking when talking about the Quantum, how you choose to interpret that must be your own decision pf course.

          • FC

            CORRECTION
            I meant 10 MW per liter, or 10 GW/m3
            Apologies.
            As you can see, Gerard, this power density is very hard to match, because at those levels of miniaturization we bump into the limits of the atoms themselves, independently of the methods used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum flux (the final reservoir of all energy in the universe).

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Somebody on Vortex has posted this link:

            http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2015/10/new_video_reveals_internals_of_orbo_powe.html

            According to the photos, the device contains a lithium-ion battery (…?)

          • ecatworld

            Yes, the Li-ion battery is part of the ocube. There is apparently an ‘Orbo power pack’ which charges a Li ion battery, which then is the charges devices via a USB port. The theory is that the battery acts as an energy reservoir that gets trickle-charges by the Orbo pack, which puts out 0.4 W continuously.

          • Roland

            Albert, I would strongly suggest you read ‘Order Out Of Chaos’ by Ilya Prigogine. The death of Aristotelian thought, and its offshoot Scientific Materialism, does not imply the death of reason per se but rather that the orderly world views of the 6th century BC and the 18th century AD have not survived the physics experiments of the 20th century.

            As Prigogine demonstrates, rigorous thinking can continue to advance our understanding of the universe and discover hidden levels of ‘order’ even though linear causality doesn’t exist outside of the discredited orthodoxies of an aged philosophy.

            Objects have been moved without any explanation acceptable to Scientific Materialism, this doesn’t mean we should abandon all attempts to understand what occurred through every available tool, including reason. Reason begins with refusing to ignore entire categories of data and experience because they confound theory.

            From what can be gleaned from the physics experiments around quantum mechanics there are levels of hidden order that bind outcomes to certain pathways, what is indeterminate is which pathway any particular event will take; and the complete inability to establish all the characteristics of any system in a way that would lead to a rigorous causality that extends all the way up to a thrown ball.

            To understand what is, potentially, at stake with the ORBO research David Bohm’s calculation of the bound energy of a cc of empty, at absolute zero, space/time. His formalism has withstood every attack since the mid 1950s. The attacks have been rabid because the formalism reveals (potentially) that extraordinary energies are bound in space/time itself.

            If Bohm, a Nobel Laureate, is correct we exist in a hidden sea of energies that dwarf even matter/anti-matter annihilations.

            There is a theoretical basis for what ORBO is attempting and we’ll soon see if they’ve achieved the first foothold, or not.

          • GreenWin

            Thoughtful reply Roland. And wonderful to see David Bohm credited here for extraordinary vision. He has been a great influence to my thinking. Some part of Bohm’s prediction has already been validated by acceptance of the Casimir effect.

        • mike wolf

          ah, you said it a lot better than I did above.

        • Zephir

          The quantum mechanics is quite easy to understand – as easily as the general relativity. This doesn’t imply, that the Universe is fully organized. https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/428s6t/neutral_result_charges_up_antimatter_research/czb8ijs

          • georgehants

            Zephir, try this one, link below, people always trying to make out they know about things they do not have a clue about.
            Typical dumb scientists, we know UFO’s can’t exist etc.
            The only Truthful way to understand the Quantum is to say we don’t understand it in any classical sense and let the Evidence speak for itself.
            ———-
            News
            Quantum Physics
            Quantum histories get all tangled up
            Tracing a particle’s past requires multiple chronologies, physicists say
            “There really is something very deep going on here about the nature of
            quantum mechanics and time,” Cotler says. “Our best description of the past is not a fixed chronology but multiple chronologies that are
            intertwined with each other.” The experiment may offer a new means of
            exploring and interpreting quantum weirdness.
            https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-histories-get-all-tangled

          • Zephir

            Try to think about this: when you’re observing distant star across gravitational lens, it’s light gets fragmented into multiple images, which are delayed each other mutually… Now, try to imagine, that the quantum fuziness is also consequence of passing light and information about objects through tiny gravitational lens – density fluctuations of vacuum which undulate all the time like the air shivering above camp fire. This will give you sorta geometric insight into multiple histories concept.

            BTW Wilczek is not so dumb: he even promoted aether concept before some time – i.e. before he realized, he will not get Nobel prize in this way,

            http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ether.pdf

      • mike wolf

        I don’t think energy into time is accurate either. by logic it is more like turning time into energy. But Doesn’t a decision we make tomorrow effecting the way a particle hits its target today have any logic? That is why it is called a paradox. You make assumptions as to what is logical as being the only thing possible. You are making the same mistake you accuse Steorn of, who MAY not be making a mistake. By your logic, nothing new beyond our logic exists. But that is the only way to limit what you can create. Maybe that is why science is at a virtual standstill.

      • Observer

        It would be more remarkable if two different objects were stationary in the same frame of reference. Everything is in perpetual motion, even if it is only Brownian motion. Even at zero Kelvin, the electrons are still in motion.

        Alas, like teenagers, just because they are constantly in motion, does not mean you can get any useful work out of them.

      • LarryJ

        You say that objects don’t appear out of thin air. I thought that particles and antiparticles are created out of the vacuum all the time but for the most part they recombine and are annihilated. I believe this was the reasoning behind Hawking radiation where these particles come into existence on the event horizon of a black hole and one half stays in our reality and the anti particle goes into the black hole. Would that not be something out of nothing.

        • Roland

          Check out the DARPA funded PSI studies at SRI run by Targ & Puthoff in the 1970s; particularly their work with Ingo Swann.

          Ingo showed up one day, having heard about the studies they were conducting, and demonstrated the ability to do PSI on demand in a laboratory setting with extraordinary reliability.

          One of Ingo’s tricks was making substantial objects disappear, and reappear, at will at a distance from said objects (across the lab) while 5 high speed (1200fps) cameras observed the objects.

          Ingo also taught military personel, supplied by DARPA, to do remote viewing. The graduates continue to employ remote viewing as a commercial enterprise to this day. Ingo was of the opinion that anyone could be taught to do remote viewing and that no particular talent is required.

    • mike wolf

      I think it would be more accurate to say converting time into energy. That would mean what we see as the quantum paradox, is not a paradox at all. We just don’t understand it because are formulas are somehow wrong. And it is funny, what he says about dark energy, it brings us to Hydrino theory. Is it possible a coincidence that a working miracle supports Mills’ theory? That is the miracle.

  • georgehants

    Physics
    What does it mean to “convert energy into time”?
    In a recent article about creating electron-positron pairs by colliding photons in a laboratory, Andrei Seryi, director of the John Adams Institute at Oxford University, was quoted to said:
    It’s breathtaking to think that things we thought are not
    connected, can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy,
    particles and light. Would we be able in the future to convert energy into time and vice versa?
    Let’s ignore for the moment that a physicist is amazed that γγ→e−e+γγ→e−e+
    process is possible in a laboratory. But what does he mean by
    converting energy into time? Is this just a poetic sentence to emphasize
    his amazement, or is there some deeper meaning behind it?
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113615/what-does-it-mean-to-convert-energy-into-time

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, time is simply a measuring of motion. We can measure for example heat, and one would NOT conclude that we can have temperature travel.

      We can measure weight, and one would not conclude we can as a result have weight travel!

      So time travel is science fiction. Time is ALWAYS a measure of motion. Time is not some “stand alone” “thing” that you have, but ONLY a measurement of movement.

      So saying that you convert time into energy is silly, since time is only a measurement of motion. However, saying one converts motion into energy or into electricity certainly makes sense.

      So no we don’t have temperature travel any more than time travel. Time is not some “thing” or some kind of magic “medium” but is only a measurement of motion.

      Because we measure weight does not by logic suggest we now have weight travel!

      Any object cannot be demonstrated to move without a cause. We live in a universe based on causality. Objects don’t appear out of thin air and objects cannot move themselves. Any motion we observer is the result of that motion being caused. The simple basic truth and observation is that objects cannot move without a cause. Because we cannot measure or see that cause does not suggest otherwise. Any speak as such simply breaks with logic and reasoning.
      Until someone can demonstrate that a object can move itself, then no logic nor reason exists to suggest as such.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • georgehants

        “Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics”-Richard Feynman
        Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/favorite-quotes.58355/
        ———
        Quantum mechanics is an example where rationalism fails. If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t, because it is illogical, irrational, and is NOT the simplest explanation possible. How can you be a rationalist when the universe may not be rational?
        https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-be-a-rationalist-given-that-quantum-mechanics-and-other-things-about-our-universe-are-irrational-illogical-and-do-not-follow-Occams-razor

        • Albert D. Kallal

          If the universe is not rational, then you cannot conclude anything of value from it!

          So you freely admit your making an irrational argument then? In other words why would anyone accept that to make your point you must throw out truth, logic and reason and now be “irrational”?

          So in other words, stop reasoning and then your position becomes acceptable?

          The instant you throw out logic and reason is the VERY instant you can propose any kind of fantasy you want. It called voodoo thinking. And the result is anything stated based on being irrational is going to be well, irrational!

          Quantum mechanics is fine up to the point of using statistics to analyze something because we LACK better means and instruments to determine such outcomes. There is NO such thing as a random event.

          In other words, we can observe a baseball flying through the air. Because we don’t know where the baseball is going to land is NOT a solid reason to conclude the baseball while flying along decides to start thinking and CHANGE where it is going to land! So we can use statistics (to quantify), and say that 80% of the time the baseball will land in the field. So up to this, to “quantify” or use quantum mechanics is fine and dandy. That is the best we can do. We don’t have good enough means to determine the variables, so we use statistics – this is fine!

          However, such “quantifying” is NOT a proof or reason to toss out gravity, air resistance and the path the baseball will take. Given the SAME circumstances the SAME math and set of rules apply to the baseball and the outcome is the SAME every time. The math does not all of a sudden “change” and now 2 + 2 is not 4. The same experiment and same conditions for that baseball will result in the SAME outcome every time for the same event you observe. And this applies to whatever level of detail, including particles at the atomic level.

          The simple logic is no experiment exists that shows anything can move on its own, and no experiment or observation exists that shows some thing or object can MOVE on its own without a cause. If by observing the event, the outcome changes then the tools used to observe that event are changing the outcome.

          So just because we can’t know where the baseball lands does not by logic prove or even suggest the baseball now thinks and changes it path without some cause.

          If you accept a branch of science that forces you to throw out causality, then such science has no means to allow one to make logical and intellectual conclusions because you forced to toss out the very concept of truth. Once this is done, you can conclude anything you want – but at the cost of truth.

          So, because one does not know where some object going to land is not a logical or even science based prof that such objects are not subject to a cause or that such causes don’t exist anymore.

          Quantum mechanics does not ask one to throw out truth, but many read into QM that you must throughout causality – noting could be further from the truth.

          If you suggesting to toss out truth to accept your position, then such a positon is of little value and you cannot make any reasoned conclusions from such a position based on lack of truths. You have to toss out the VERY act that reasoning is based on – the result is conclusions devoid of truth.
          Until such time a experiment is produced that shows objects can move without a cause, there simply no reason to toss out this simple fact.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • georgehants

            Albert, I am making no argument simply reporting that which has been known for many years.
            The only rational explanation is to allow that rational thinking can suffice in the basic low level reductionist, outdated, hard science, practiced by most scientists and rationally accept that the Quantum has always led us to the genesis of low level physics so Wonderfully covered 150 years ago by our brilliant predecessors.
            When moving into the Quantum realm all bets are off and rationality fails.
            I think you should take up your argument with the authors of all the Quantum papers being published if you disagree with their findings.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I don’t disagree with quantum mechanics,

            but YES I most certainly disagree with anyone who asks me to be irrational. And
            I don’t accept people’s conclusion due to lack of means to determine the
            outcome of an event means we have to toss out reason and causality.

            For example, many concluded from Einstein that everything is relative. (so by logic truth does not exist). That not all a reasoned conclusion one can and should make from Einstein. The ONLY point Einstein was making is we are to measure motion and objects relative to each other.

            So now a conclusion from Einstein that reason and logic are relative is silly! And NOT what Einstein was suggesting. However, popular press and media NEAR ALL reading as such concluded that Einstein was suggesting everything we think about is relative.

            So I am not going to accept a pretext of reason that says you have to toss out reason to accept such a position! In other words, I don’t have the truth, but trust what I say is not based on truth!

            So papers and observations from QM are fine. However, I MOST certainly disagree if THEN people conclude without merit that we must toss out truth, reason and causality.

            As such, none of the QM papers have any rational experiment or observation that shows events or particles can move without a cause. To think otherwise is to make false conclusions from such papers. This really the same as reading Einstein theory of relativity and THEN saying relativity means we are to now toss out truth and logic, or truth and logic is only relative!

            – No such implying exists in such papers!

            Any paper that says you have to be irrational to accept their point of view means we substituted voodoo for science.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • georgehants

            Once again your argument seems to be with your interpretation of QM etc. and not me.
            As I have stated above one cannot use classical logical, rational thinking when talking about the Quantum, how you choose to interpret that must be your own decision of course.

          • Roland

            Albert, I would strongly suggest you read ‘Order Out Of Chaos’ by Ilya Prigogine. The death of Aristotelian thought, and its offshoot Scientific Materialism, does not imply the death of reason per se but rather that the orderly world views of the 6th century BC and the 18th century AD have not survived the physics experiments of the 20th century.

            As Prigogine demonstrates, rigorous thinking can continue to advance our understanding of the universe and discover hidden levels of ‘order’ even though linear causality doesn’t exist outside of the discredited orthodoxies of an aged philosophy.

            Objects have been moved without any explanation acceptable to Scientific Materialism, this doesn’t mean we should abandon all attempts to understand what occurred through every available tool, including reason. Reason begins with refusing to ignore entire categories of data and experience because they confound theory.

            From what can be gleaned from the physics experiments around quantum mechanics there are levels of hidden order that bind outcomes to certain pathways, what is indeterminate is which pathway any particular event will take; and the complete inability to establish all the characteristics of any system in a way that would lead to a rigorous causality that extends all the way up to a thrown ball.

            To understand what is, potentially, at stake with the ORBO research David Bohm’s calculation of the bound energy of a cc of empty, at absolute zero, space/time. His formalism has withstood every attack since the mid 1950s. The attacks have been rabid because the formalism reveals (potentially) that extraordinary energies are bound in space/time itself.

            If Bohm, a Nobel Laureate, is correct we exist in a hidden sea of energies that dwarf even matter/anti-matter annihilations.

            There is a theoretical basis for what ORBO is attempting and we’ll soon see if they’ve achieved the first foothold, or not.

          • GreenWin

            Thoughtful reply Roland. And wonderful to see David Bohm credited here for extraordinary vision. He has been a great influence to my thinking. Some part of Bohm’s prediction has already been validated by acceptance of the Casimir effect.

        • mike wolf

          ah, you said it a lot better than I did above.

        • Zephir

          The quantum mechanics is quite easy to understand – as easily as the general relativity. This doesn’t imply, that the Universe is fully organized. https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/428s6t/neutral_result_charges_up_antimatter_research/czb8ijs

          • georgehants

            Zephir, try this one, link below, people always trying to make out they know about things they do not have a clue about.
            Typical dumb scientists, we know UFO’s can’t exist etc.
            The only Truthful way to understand the Quantum is to say we don’t understand it in any classical sense and let the Evidence speak for itself.
            ———-
            News
            Quantum Physics
            Quantum histories get all tangled up
            Tracing a particle’s past requires multiple chronologies, physicists say
            “There really is something very deep going on here about the nature of quantum mechanics and time,” Cotler says. “Our best description of the past is not a fixed chronology but multiple chronologies that are intertwined with each other.” The experiment may offer a new means of exploring and interpreting quantum weirdness.
            https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-histories-get-all-tangled

          • Zephir

            Try to think about this: when you’re observing distant star across gravitational lens, it’s light gets fragmented into a multiple images, which are delayed each other mutually due to various paths of light across curved space-time… Now, try to imagine, that the quantum fuziness is also consequence of passing light and information about objects through tiny gravitational lens – density fluctuations of vacuum, which are undulating all the time in similar way, like the air shivering above camp fire. This will give you sorta geometric insight into multiple histories concept of quantum mechanics.

            BTW Wilczek is not so dumb: he even promoted aether concept before some time – i.e. before he realized, he will not get Nobel prize in this way,

            http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ether.pdf

      • mike wolf

        I don’t think energy into time is accurate either. by logic it is more like turning time into energy. But Doesn’t a decision we make tomorrow effecting the way a particle hits its target today have any logic? That is why it is called a paradox. You make assumptions as to what is logical as being the only thing possible. You are making the same mistake you accuse Steorn of, who MAY not be making a mistake. By your logic, nothing new beyond our logic exists. But that is the only way to limit what you can create. Maybe that is why science is at a virtual standstill.

      • Observer

        It would be more remarkable if two different objects were stationary in the same frame of reference. Everything is in perpetual motion, even if it is only Brownian motion. Even at zero Kelvin, the electrons are still in motion.

        Alas, like teenagers, just because they are constantly in motion, does not mean you can get any useful work out of them.

      • LarryJ

        You say that objects don’t appear out of thin air. I thought that particles and antiparticles are created out of the vacuum all the time but for the most part they recombine and are annihilated. I believe this was the reasoning behind Hawking radiation where these particles come into existence on the event horizon of a black hole and one half stays in our reality while the anti particle falls into the black hole. Would that not be something out of nothing.

        • Roland

          Check out the DARPA funded PSI studies at SRI run by Targ & Puthoff in the 1970s; particularly their work with Ingo Swann.

          Ingo showed up one day, having heard about the studies they were conducting, and demonstrated the ability to do PSI on demand in a laboratory setting with extraordinary reliability.

          One of Ingo’s tricks was making substantial objects disappear, and reappear, at will at a distance from said objects (across the lab) while 5 high speed (1200fps) cameras observed the objects.

          Ingo also taught military personel, supplied by DARPA, to do remote viewing. The graduates continue to employ remote viewing as a commercial enterprise to this day. Ingo was of the opinion that anyone could be taught to do remote viewing and that no particular talent is required.

    • mike wolf

      I think it would be more accurate to say converting time into energy. That would mean what we see as the quantum paradox, is not a paradox at all. We just don’t understand it because are formulas are somehow wrong. And it is funny, what he says about dark energy, it brings us to Hydrino theory. Is it possible a coincidence that a working miracle supports Mills’ theory? That is the miracle.

  • Observer

    The more you are certain of one thing, the less you are certain of another.

    • Yes – certainty means rejection of possibilities that may have explained anomalies, now or in the future. All knowledge is provisional.

  • Observer

    The more you are certain of one thing, the less you are certain of another.

    • Yes – certainty means rejection of all conflicting possibilities, some of which that may be valid. All knowledge is provisional.

  • Gerard McEk

    Orbo power density impossible to match? I guess you mean the energy density. Then you you are right, if it never stops and that it does not require any other power source -like heat or light or radiation of particles or mass (nuclear) or chemical. At the same time you can ask the question where the energy comes from. For that I would like to see an explanation, otherwise you cannot predict the economical future of the Orbo.

  • Zephir

    /* I arrive at a power density of 2 W per liter, or 2 kW/m3… */

    Still not bad: one box of common refrigerator size filled with wax and graphite could heat your home for ever. With compare to inherently dangerous E-Cat it looks quite well…

  • artefact

    “which apparently deliver a constant 0.04 W”
    Wasn’t it 0.4 W? Then you have found the order of magnitude.

  • Not quite up to the intellectual standard of other observations, but – do we know why the casing looks like a monkey’s head? (or perhaps a skull). Just a bit of Irish whimsy perhaps.

    • GreenWin

      Maybe Sean is demonstrating self-awareness? Or reflections seen in the monolith discovered by ape men in “2001 A Space Odyssey?”

      • I suspect that your imagination may be some way ahead of Shawn’s, GW.

      • artefact

        (I think the monolith did not reflect anything. It was totally black and absorbed all light)

        • keV

          How about constructing a comparison test device packed the best (power density) batteries you can find with the same weight and output rate as the O-Cube and then run a series of tests side by side. It would be interesting to see if it behaves differently to what would be expected from an actual battery as Sean mentioned (ability to short it out etc.).

        • GreenWin

          Wait. If it absorbed all light – would it be visible??

          • artefact

            yes, as a totaly black object 🙂

  • Not quite up to the intellectual standard of other observations here, but – do we know why the casing looks like a monkey’s head? (or perhaps a skull). Just a bit of Irish whimsy perhaps.

    • GreenWin

      Maybe Sean is demonstrating self-awareness? Or reflections seen in the monolith discovered by ape men in “2001 A Space Odyssey?”

      • I suspect that your imagination may be some way ahead of Shaun’s, GW.

      • artefact

        (I think the monolith did not reflect anything. It was totally black and absorbed all light)

        • GreenWin

          Wait. If it absorbed all light – would it be visible??

          • artefact

            yes, as a totaly black object 🙂

  • mike wolf

    Hey Frank, do you have a plan to keep the charger, charging perpetually? While having a way to drain what is being charged to recharged in a chain. You should have gotten 2. One for normal usage and one for continual charging. You know, to see how far you can take it.

    I mean if it can only last a year at normal charging for a person. 1200 a year is not very economical, only the scientific ramifications. But if it can be continually in use, then the power of the universe is at our finger tips now. If scaled up, imagine.

    • ecatworld

      Well just getting one I would consider be quite an achievement for now. I suppose If we need another, maybe that can be arranged at some future point.

      I will try to keep it charging or working as much as possible. And try various experiments along the way. I agree fully that 1200 euros for the electricity this is said to provide is not a good deal economically, but scientifically speaking this could be a very significant first product.

      • Skip

        Frank, do you have a plan for testing? If not, why not ask for suggestions?
        What’s a few thousand extra posts for a blog wizard like you…

        • ecatworld

          I have some ideas, but I am more than willing to take suggestions. I plan a new post for Orbo testing ideas when I learn that the Orbo is finally on it’s way. Don’t want to get carried away too soon.

          • Blue Energy

            How about you hook the Orbo portion of the device up to hardware that detects watts on a time interval and has a digital output that can be sent to a computer. Then, log the reading every 5 seconds to a database table that has that field plus one logging the date and time. Periodically, you can do queries against the database for any readings under .4 watts – and in particular for readings of zero.

            Then, after a significant length of time has passed, do it all again. But, this time isolate Orbo magnetically, electrostatically, thermally, and against motion. Compare the averaged output for the two runs using simple SQL statements.

            If there is a significant difference between the two runs, remove the isolation for half of the potential perurbants, etc until the combination that causes the difference is found.

          • ecatworld

            Good idea, but you mention some equipment that I don’t have right now. One thing is I don’t want to do anything to the ocube that will void the warranty, so I will have to be careful what I do with it, especially during the early days.

          • Blue Energy

            I get why you wouldn’t want to void your warranty. But, which pieces of equipment are you missing?

          • ecatworld

            “hardware that detects watts on a time interval and has a digital output that can be sent to a computer.”

          • Blue Energy

            My original idea was to use something like a “Watt’s Up” meter. But, on reflection, that’s probably a bad idea since it is made to measure wall current not fractions of watts. It also has the disadvantage of not sending in realtime. I’ll look around, Frank. Maybe I’ll see something that should work.

          • Blue Energy

            Here is a piece of equipment that would work, I think. It is capable of storing 104,000 samples and will output to csv. You could use the LED for the load, which would assure you that it was still working if you just looked at it.

            http://www.powerwerx.com/digital-meters/pwrcheck-dc-power-analyzer-watt-meter-logging-software-usb.html

            But it does more than you really need and is priced as such. I’m still looking for something slimmed down and less expensive.

          • ecatworld
          • Blue Energy

            It doesn’t look as if it allows the capture of test data.

          • Blue Energy

            Oh! This is more like what I was looking for, Frank:

            http://www.yoctopuce.com/EN/products/usb-electrical-sensors/yocto-watt

            From watching you on the recent video, I intuit that you are a coder. This product has an API – which will make automating the squirreling away of the data output much more flexible. It even supports multiple languages – including coding examples. It is more accurate at DC power measurement than need be for your purposes. There is a downloadable manual.

          • Sanjeev

            Ocube tester (to be) Emso updates on how he plans to measure its performance.
            https://orboblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/quick-update/

          • ecatworld

            He says he’s been in touch with Steorn and they say delivery will be in the next few days.

          • Sanjeev

            Good news.

          • SG

            It appears that Steorn’s labs have been surreptitiously surveilled since 09/10. Pictures posted to facebook. https://www.facebook.com/shaundmccarthy

            There is at least one government or corporate entity that believes Steorn, or at least is curious enough to go to the trouble.

          • ecatworld
          • Rip Kirbyian

            If they had been shipped I guess they would have made some noise about it…Now its only a cryptical message about the difficulties of shipping Li… a fiasco again?

          • Blue Energy

            When I read your post I had a flash of a Three Stooges movie where they owned an alternative energy startup…

            Moe: “Well, it turns out you can’t ship lithium batteries through the mail.”
            Larry: “If you’re so smart – why didn’t you think of that before?”

            Curly: “Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck…”
            Moe: “Both of you – come here, I want to show you something. Riiiight here…”
            Larry: “Ow!”
            Curly: “Ow!”
            Moe: “Spread ouuuut…”
            Curly: “What’d I do?!”

          • Sanjeev

            Could be a competitor. Obviously, they thought its worth taking the trouble and risk to bug Steorn’s office. They must have spent a lot of money to buy people to do that. I wonder if same is done to Rossi/IH.

            Now this is a wake up alarm for all the guys out there developing cutting edge tech. Please check your cable ducts !

          • Zephir

            You can buy USB LED lamp, which has consumption 0,2 W – well within the expected output power of Orbo charger.

            http://www.banggood.com/Mini-LED-Night-Light-Lamp-Portable-USB-Power-Module-p-985621.html

          • ecatworld

            Great! I’ve been looking for something exactly like that, and I’ve just ordered it. Thanks!

          • Blue Energy

            How will you know whether the light went out at some point when you weren’t watching it?

          • Blue Energy

            Zephir – somehow when I originally read your post I only saw the LED lamp suggestion. I think either your Hantec or oscilloscope suggestion would work. Really, anything where you can accurately determine wattage right now and log it on a regular and ongoing basis. I’m curious, though, how that would work for the data logger with two channels of voltage only? How do you determine amperage from voltage?

          • “Converting time into energy” is a large claim for such a small and simple device.

          • Zephir
          • Blue Energy

            Huh! Cool.

            Well, hopefully our suggestions will help Frank do good work testing the OCube.

          • Curbina

            Yes, and has keep founding more, pinhole cameras. Freaky.

          • SG

            “Testing sans li, because people hate shipping li.” That is what Shaun just stated on his facebook page along with a photo of Orbo power cells without a lithium battery. https://www.facebook.com/shaundmccarthy

            I’ve thought in the past that they might run into shipping problems with a relatively large LI battery incorporated into the product.

            “That’s one reason the FAA banned shipments of nonrechargeable lithium metal batteries on passenger planes in 2004. But that ban only applies in the United States; international authorities are still considering whether to enact such a rule. Cargo and passenger aircraft are free to carry lithium ion batteries, although they are subject to labeling and packing regulations.”

            http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/opinion/adcock-flight-370-lithium-batteries/

          • EEStorFanFibb

            yes, shipping batteries is fraught with difficulties…. especially by air. IATA regulations have made it extremely difficult. and for good reason.

          • ecatworld

            And it’s going to get harder. New regulations coming in on April 1 of this year — makes sense that they would like to get away from using them.
            http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/lithium-battery-update.pdf

          • Yes, the electrets are probably immune to accidental overload and similar abuse, but the lithium buffering battery certainly won’t be.

          • Zephir

            I’d exclude the lithium battery from testing completely, i.e. dissemble the actual power unit and connect it to LED, which is easy to follow and monitor. More thorough experiments should indeed involve continuous voltage and charge measurements, as I wrote about it already.

          • ecatworld

            Disassembly of the Ocube, according to Steorn’s terms and conditions, would void the warranty, so I don’t want to take anything apart.

    • SG

      I don’t think we should get too caught up in the economics at this time. If it works at all, and does not draw energy from known environmental sources, as is claimed by Steorn, then we have a very significant and perplexing development on our hands. It will be well worth the price tag–at least for some–to have one to prove or disprove the claim. That is what Frank and those who have contributed to the purchase of the initial unit wish to accomplish.

      Also, bear in mind this is a first run product to showcase the technology from an engineering consultancy company, not a large manufacturing outfit. When mass production kicks into gear (and if it works as claimed, then this is bound to happen), the prices will come down.

      • Anon2012_2014

        It’s got to be significantly more average (continuous) power than an RF power harvester, solar cell, or vibrational energy harvester (i.e. an electret microphone) to be something new.

        It might be a clever application of all 3 of the above phenomenon, particularly with regard to ultra ultra low frequency magnetic field fluctuations induced by solar wind or lightning.

        If Steorn has found a way to harvest this energy, then Orbo will have at least some use commercially. However, if each Orbo needs to be the size of a mac-mini computer to produce 0.4 watts, I question the economics of scaling the unit to commercial household use.

  • mike wolf

    Hey Frank, do you have a plan to keep the charger, charging perpetually? While having a way to drain what is being charged to recharged in a chain. You should have gotten 2. One for normal usage and one for continual charging. You know, to see how far you can take it.

    I mean if it can only last a year at normal charging for a person. 1200 a year is not very economical, only the scientific ramifications. But if it can be continually in use, then the power of the universe is at our finger tips now. If scaled up, imagine.

    • Frank Acland

      Well just getting one I would consider be quite an achievement for now. I suppose If we need another, maybe that can be arranged at some future point.

      I will try to keep it charging or working as much as possible. And try various experiments along the way. I agree fully that 1200 euros for the electricity this is said to provide is not a good deal economically, but scientifically speaking this could be a very significant first product.

      • Skip

        Frank, do you have a plan for testing? If not, why not ask for suggestions?
        What’s a few thousand extra posts for a blog wizard like you…

        • Frank Acland

          I have some ideas, but I am more than willing to take suggestions. I plan a new post for Orbo testing ideas when I learn that the Orbo is finally on it’s way. Don’t want to get carried away too soon.

          • Blue Energy

            How about you hook the Orbo portion of the device up to hardware that detects watts on a time interval and has a digital output that can be sent to a computer. Then, log the reading every 5 seconds to a database table that has that field plus one logging the date and time. Periodically, you can do queries against the database for any readings under .4 watts – and in particular for readings of zero.

            Then, after a significant length of time has passed, do it all again. But, this time isolate Orbo magnetically, electrostatically, thermally, and against motion. Compare the averaged output for the two runs using simple SQL statements.

            If there is a significant difference between the two runs, remove the isolation for half of the potential perurbants, etc until the combination that causes the difference is found.

          • Frank Acland

            Good idea, but you mention some equipment that I don’t have right now. One thing is I don’t want to do anything to the ocube that will void the warranty, so I will have to be careful what I do with it, especially during the early days.

          • Blue Energy

            I get why you wouldn’t want to void your warranty. But, which pieces of equipment are you missing?

          • Frank Acland

            “hardware that detects watts on a time interval and has a digital output that can be sent to a computer.”

          • Blue Energy

            My original idea was to use something like a “Watt’s Up” meter. But, on reflection, that’s probably a bad idea since it is made to measure wall current not fractions of watts. It also has the disadvantage of not sending in realtime. I’ll look around, Frank. Maybe I’ll see something that should work.

          • Blue Energy

            Here is a piece of equipment that would work, I think. It is capable of storing 104,000 samples and will output to csv. You could use the LED for the load, which would assure you that it was still working if you just looked at it.

            http://www.powerwerx.com/digital-meters/pwrcheck-dc-power-analyzer-watt-meter-logging-software-usb.html

            But it does more than you really need and is priced as such. I’m still looking for something slimmed down and less expensive.

          • Frank Acland
          • Blue Energy

            It doesn’t look as if it allows the capture of test data.

          • Blue Energy

            Oh! This is more like what I was looking for, Frank:

            http://www.yoctopuce.com/EN/products/usb-electrical-sensors/yocto-watt

            From watching you on the recent video, I intuit that you are a coder. This product has an API – which will make automating the squirreling away of the data output much more flexible. It even supports multiple languages – including coding examples. It is more accurate at DC power measurement than need be for your purposes. There is a downloadable manual.

          • Zephir

            This USB stick monitors both voltage, both current

            http://www.banggood.com/Mini-Portable-LCD-Digital-USB-Voltage-and-Current-Detector-Tester-p-973233.html

            http://www.banggood.com/USB-Detector-Current-Voltage-Tester-Double-USB-Row-Shows-p-973712.html

            This USB data logger monitors two channels of voltage, i.e. it’s capable of power measuring.

            http://www.ebay.com/itm/0-30V-Dual-2-Channel-Voltage-Data-Logger-8-Bit-USB-Data-Acquisition-System-/252265513241

            This Hantec datalogger also works with computer

            https://www.circuitspecialists.com/content/174069/365b_manual.pdf

            Most of multichannel digital oscilloscopes could be used too.

            For load you can buy USB LED lamp, which has consumption 0,2 W – well within the expected output power range of Orbo charger.

            http://www.banggood.com/Mini-LED-Night-Light-Lamp-Portable-USB-Power-Module-p-985621.html

          • Frank Acland

            Great! I’ve been looking for something exactly like that, and I’ve just ordered it. Thanks!

          • Blue Energy

            How will you know whether the light went out at some point when you weren’t watching it?

          • Blue Energy

            Zephir – somehow when I originally read your post I only saw the LED lamp suggestion. I think either your Hantec or oscilloscope suggestion would work. Really, anything where you can accurately determine wattage right now and log it on a regular and ongoing basis. I’m curious, though, how that would work for the data logger with two channels of voltage only? How do you determine amperage from voltage?

          • Zephir
          • Blue Energy

            Huh! Cool.

            Well, hopefully our suggestions will help Frank do good work testing the OCube.

          • The electrets are probably immune to accidental overload and similar abuse, but the lithium buffering battery certainly won’t be.

          • Zephir

            I’d exclude the lithium battery from testing completely, i.e. dissemble the actual power unit and connect it to LED, which is easy to follow and monitor. More thorough experiments should indeed involve continuous voltage and charge measurements, as I wrote about it already.

          • Frank Acland

            Disassembly of the Ocube, according to Steorn’s terms and conditions, would void the warranty, so I don’t want to take anything apart.

    • SG

      I don’t think we should get too caught up in the economics at this time. If it works at all, and does not draw energy from known environmental sources, as is claimed by Steorn, then we have a very significant and perplexing development on our hands. It will be well worth the price tag–at least for some–to have one to prove or disprove the claim. That is what Frank and those who have contributed to the purchase of the initial unit wish to accomplish.

      Also, bear in mind this is a first run product to showcase the technology from an engineering consultancy company, not a large manufacturing outfit. When mass production kicks into gear (and if it works as claimed, then this is bound to happen), the prices will come down.

      • Anon2012_2014

        It’s got to be significantly more average (continuous) power than an RF power harvester, solar cell, or vibrational energy harvester (i.e. an electret microphone) to be something new.

        It might be a clever application of all 3 of the above phenomenon, particularly with regard to ultra ultra low frequency magnetic field fluctuations induced by solar wind or lightning.

        If Steorn has found a way to harvest this energy, then Orbo will have at least some use commercially. However, if each Orbo needs to be the size of a mac-mini computer to produce 0.4 watts, I question the economics of scaling the unit to commercial household use.

  • artefact

    I see 🙂

    • Sean

      Lets take the electret unit out and hook it up to a LED. Starting with ultra sensitive led’s then up the ladder to higher milliwatt led’s. If it can charge the battery then we should be able to get some light from it. How about if it works? If so then NOMA would like them for the outdoor garden lights. Sales would go throught the roof for the everlasting light. Just thinking!

      • FC

        Sean,
        That is actually a very good idea for a technology demonstrator. Another one would be an everlasting fan. But my favorite is an everlasting AA battery, and let everyone decide what they want to power endlessly with it.

      • LarryJ

        Their web page states that opening the device voids the warranty. It would probably be better to test it as it is intended to be used. As Steorn says if it lasts a month it’s a very good battery, 2 months and it’s bordering on magic, 3 months and it is magic.

  • Ron Kita

    Hopefully…at some point..we should be able to compare Steorn s Electret Battery with the Electret Power Source/Battery that was invented by my late Lockheed Martin friend, Boyd Bushman on December 31, 1996.
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22bushman+boyd%22&OS=%22bushman+boyd%22&RS=%22bushman+boyd%22

    Ad Astra,
    Ron Kita, Chiralex…
    Note: A Homocharged electret on formation goes to zero charge ..then self-recharge

    • FC

      Ron Kita,
      Thank you for the link. Pretty amazing stuff.
      To me, Orbo power cells have the advantage that they don’t need any input (not even being exposed to an electrostatic field, like your friend’s device).
      Furthermore, according to Shaun McCarthy, Orbo cells even work inside a Faraday cage, which rules out any external source of energy (like ambient electromagnetic waves or the Earth’s magnetic field). It appears that the only possible source of energy is the quantum vacuum flux itself (the source of all the energy in the universe and its final repository when all that energy gets dissipated after being used).

      • Anon2012_2014

        Kita,

        Look up the Faraday cage again. They cancel out electric fields and high frequency E&M fields because they are made of conductors (like copper) that effectively take the electric or E&M to induce current within the cage. They don’t prevent magnetic fields from penetrating, and a slowly varying magnetic field of sufficient magnitude would energy the Orbo if it is a varying magnetic field harvester.

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, you are right about the cage. Earth M-field can be a source of energy, but I think its too easy to test. Just bring a magnet near the Orbo, and if it start outputting more power, you know.
          It will be alarming if it doesn’t respond to E or M fields of any kind (static/dynamic).

  • Ron Kita

    Hopefully…at some point..we should be able to compare Steorn s Electret Battery with the Electret Power Source/Battery that was invented by my late Lockheed Martin friend, Boyd Bushman on December 31, 1996.
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22bushman+boyd%22&OS=%22bushman+boyd%22&RS=%22bushman+boyd%22

    Ad Astra,
    Ron Kita, Chiralex…
    Note: A Homocharged electret on formation goes to zero charge ..then self-recharge

    • FC

      Ron Kita,
      Thank you for the link. Pretty amazing stuff.
      To me, Orbo power cells have the advantage that they don’t need any input (not even being exposed to an electrostatic field, like your friend’s device).
      Furthermore, according to Shaun McCarthy, Orbo cells even work inside a Faraday cage, which rules out any external source of energy (like ambient electromagnetic waves or the Earth’s magnetic field). It appears that the only possible source of energy is the quantum vacuum flux itself (the source of all the energy in the universe and its final repository when all that energy gets dissipated after being used).

      • Anon2012_2014

        Kita,

        Look up the Faraday cage again. They cancel out electric fields and high frequency E&M fields because they are made of conductors (like copper) that effectively take the electric or E&M to induce current within the cage. They don’t prevent magnetic fields from penetrating, and a slowly varying magnetic field of sufficient magnitude would energy the Orbo if it is a varying magnetic field harvester.

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, you are right about the cage. Earth M-field can be a source of energy, but I think its too easy to test. Just bring a magnet near the Orbo, and if it start outputting more power, you know.
          It will be alarming if it doesn’t respond to E or M fields of any kind (static/dynamic).

  • magicsnd1

    Personally, I think Orbo have perfected a technique for converting words into money. We’ll know soon enough if there’s anything to it (or not).

    Another mystery: I have a mechanical clock that has been running continuously for 60 years. No one has wound it or raised weights in that time, and it has no batteries or wiring of any kind.

    • Blue Energy

      I’d have busted a stitch if I’d had any (fortunately not…). I’m with you! But, as you say, we’ll know soon enough – and I, for one, will be more than pleased to be wrong.

      Personally, I have trouble believing that your mechanical clock has evolved beyond the need to be wound though. Perhaps you could send it to Frank and he could test it in parallel with the Orbo? Are you willing, Frank?

      • ecatworld

        I think Alan would be the best person to test the clock, 60 years without winding is pretty impressive, though.

        • Blue Energy

          Still – 60 years of continuous failed investigation… the problem might well benefit from a fresh set of eyes. Maybe an unknown force is acting upon the clock when Alan isn’t looking: a poltergeist or a wife? Isolating it within the Acland Orbo lab might be just the thing to prove or disprove this controversial new technology.

          Of course, if it somehow proves to be real – an analog time to energy converter would change everything. In short order all our autos would be retrofitted with clocks under the hood. American car manufacturers would describe their engines in terms of the number of jewels in their movements. No-one would be able to hear themselves think at stop lights due to the tick-tocking. And the next generation would grow up with the constant sound of the furnace stealing time – and so wouldn’t even notice the infernal racket.

          • Skip

            🙂

      • I’d like to get a bit philosophical. I see a lot of people claiming that it is unlikely that The Orbo is “generating energy from nothing” because “Science” has said that that is impossible. One problem that I have with this reasoning is that it gives, in my opinion, too much respect to “Science” – especially given the track record of how “Science” has been wrong a lot of times, in the past. (and probably is wrong about a lot, now, and, also, probably will be wrong about a lot, in the future) Another problem that I have, though, is that “energy” might not be real, at least in the sense that we typically think of it. Let’s consider the possibility that “energy” – as it is typically thought of – is not really a real thing, but is, instead, a complex metaphor that we humans have created. Perhaps, similar to Newtonian physics, this “energy” metaphor works in most cases, but maybe there are rare phenomena where the “energy” metaphor breaks down, similar to how Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances. I think that Frank, once, posted a video of a physicist dude who said that he could not believe what he was seeing when he saw a Steorn device in action. I think that he also said, during that same video, that he thought that the physics community might have taken a wrong turn at some point, in the past. Perhaps this “energy” metaphor was the wrong turn. Perhaps we started believing in this “energy” stuff as a real thing, or, at least, as real set of absolute rules that govern how the universe works, rather than as a metaphor that works most of the time, but breaks down in some rare instances. In these rare cases where the “energy” metaphor breaks down, it would not make sense to ask a question like: “Where is the energy coming from?” It’s not “coming from” anywhere because there is no “energy,” in reality. The metaphor does not work in these kinds of rare cases. Instead, these kinds of cases would probably be better talked about as just being processes causing other processes. One of the implications of the “energy” metaphor might be that no processes can continue forever without outside “energy” being injected into the process. However, in the rare cases where the “energy” metaphor breaks down, this implication would not, necessarily, hold true. Maybe there really are some processes that really can go on forever, as long as they are not stopped – and maybe, just maybe, the folks at Steorn have found one of these rare processes.

        • ecatworld
        • Sanjeev

          If you define “real” as anything that can be measured then Energy is a real thing and if you define real as anything that can be perceived objectively then it is unreal, as we do not perceive energy directly, only its effects.

          Its not real in another sense as its not an “object”. Its a quantity that stays constant while thermodynamic interactions take place in a closed system. So its purely mathematical in this sense and applies to closed systems only. The word “closed” means that no energy gets in or out of the system under inspection. Its a bit circular if you think about it. No text book can give you an example of a real closed system, its a purely theoretical/ideal thing (was made up for simplicity). Usually if CoE holds then the system is assumed to be closed.

          Somehow common folk and even the learned scientists tend to assume that this physical universe is a closed system. Its only a hypothesis waiting to be proved. Its not the truth and there are no “truths” in Science, only evidences. This dogmatic and stone headed assumption has lead to a very sad situation in science, no one wants to research energy generation phenomena outside this tiny box of dogma. Blame it on the education system and bad science reporting, which fails to encourage students to question everything and remain curious about everything. Instead they teach them “facts” which they must memorize and then forget about them once the exams are over.

          We also need some fresh ideas in the philosophy of science, which is now almost a dead field, probably because it generates no “science jobs”.

    • Sanjeev

      Well Alan you have been sitting on a free energy machine all the time while spending your life on cold fusion… 😀
      Lets test the hell out of your clock !

    • Skip

      I think Simon is playing a trick on you.
      That wouldn’t explain the first 50 years tho…
      😉

    • Sanjeev

      Alan, you’ve been sitting on a free energy machine while spending your life on this cold fusion thing 😀

    • magicsnd1

      OK I’ll tell ya.

      The clock is called “Atmos”, made by Jaeger. It has a very light mainspring which is continually tensioned by a diaphram with a sealed chamber behind it. The minute motion of the diaphragm due to changing air pressure is imparted to a ratchet and pawl assembly, which in turn winds the spring.

      The pendulum is a flywheel suspended on a torsion spring wire. The period is about 30 seconds, with the suspended flywheel rotating about 180 degrees each way. It must be very efficient, probably around 2 watts worth of mechanical energy pulled right out of the air.

      The problem is it appears to make time slow down, about 2 minutes a week.

      • Blue Energy

        Well – that’s probably the amount of time that has been converted to energy to run the clock.

        Actually, I had forgotten, but I’ve seen one of those clocks before. Pretty brilliant piece of work, actually.

        • magicsnd1

          For the conversion of time to power, we can write P=qΔt
          where P= power in watts
          q= time energy constant in watts per minute consumed

          In the case of my clock, q = 1.25E-7 watts/minute.
          It will be interesting to measure q for the Orbo device.

          • Blue Energy

            Yes, there is nothing to do but wait for competing data. Still, although I don’t have hard data yet, I think there might be hints at the time-converting scope of the Orbo. Whenever the subject comes up on the forum, a relatively enormous amount of my personal time disappears with nothing of substance to show for it. It’s sporadic and sudden – and therefore difficult to have the appropriate instruments on hand and operational when they would be required. If and when I manage to measure the effect I’ll apply your formula and we’ll be able to compare the two technologies, apples to apples.

          • magicsnd1

            Well, a resting human body consumes about 100 watts, or maybe 125 if thinking hard. Assume the time you spend here is moderately thoughtful and you use 125 watts. One minute is ~1E-4 week, so the power you spend in a minute here represents 1.25E-2 watt-weeks. That’s five orders of magnitude less efficient than my clock. But it doesn’t think or type (though it does breathe), so that’s OK.

          • Blue Energy

            And – I spend *hours* every time it exerts it’s will upon me. Others do as well! Great Caesar’s *GHOST*!! The thing is diabolical! And it’s only the beginning. Right now it’s only the geeks geeks who are aware of it’s existence. if you multiply the now measured effect on me by all the other effected humans that will come into its range of influence if it appears successful… the effect could be staggering! The total time lost could prevent the future progress of the entire human race! The world could starve from the lost time. We have to do something!! It must be stopped!

  • magicsnd1

    Personally, I think Orbo have perfected a technique for converting words into money. We’ll know soon enough if there’s anything to it (or not).

    Another mystery: I have a mechanical clock that has been running continuously for 60 years. No one has wound it or raised weights in that time, and it has no batteries or wiring of any kind.

    • Blue Energy

      I’d have busted a stitch if I’d had any (fortunately not…). I’m with you! But, as you say, we’ll know soon enough – and I, for one, will be more than pleased to be wrong.

      Personally, I have trouble believing that your mechanical clock has evolved beyond the need to be wound though. Perhaps you could send it to Frank and he could test it in parallel with the Orbo? Are you willing, Frank?

      • Frank Acland

        I think Alan would be the best person to test the clock, 60 years without winding is pretty impressive, though.

        • Blue Energy

          Still – 60 years of continuous failed investigation… the problem might well benefit from a fresh set of eyes. Maybe an unknown force is acting upon the clock when Alan isn’t looking: a poltergeist or a wife? Isolating it within the Acland Orbo lab might be just the thing to prove or disprove this controversial new technology.

          Of course, if it somehow proves to be real – an analog time to energy converter would change everything. In short order all our autos would be retrofitted with clocks under the hood. American car manufacturers would describe their engines in terms of the number of jewels in their movements. No-one would be able to hear themselves think at stop lights due to the tick-tocking. And the next generation would grow up with the constant sound of the furnace stealing time – and so wouldn’t even notice the infernal racket.

          • Skip

            🙂

    • Sanjeev

      Well Alan you have been sitting on a free energy machine all the time while spending your life on cold fusion… 😀
      Lets test the hell out of your clock !

    • Skip

      I think Simon is playing a trick on you.
      That wouldn’t explain the first 50 years tho…
      😉

    • Sanjeev

      Alan, you’ve been sitting on a free energy machine while spending your life on this cold fusion thing 😀

    • magicsnd1

      OK I’ll tell ya.

      The clock is called “Atmos”, made by Jaeger-LeCoultre. It has a very light mainspring which is continually tensioned by a diaphragm with a sealed chamber behind it. The minute motion of the diaphragm due to changing air pressure is imparted to a ratchet and pawl assembly, which in turn winds the spring.

      The hermetically sealed capsule also contains a mixture of gaseous and liquid ethyl chloride, which expands as the temperature rises, further displacing the diaphragm. (I wonder if there’s any Nickel in there as well)

      The pendulum is a flywheel suspended on a torsion spring wire. The period is about 30 seconds, with the suspended flywheel rotating about 180 degrees each way. It’s very efficient. The maker’s web site says ” it would take 60 million Atmos clocks to consume the same amount of energy as a 15-watt bulb!”, in other words 1/4 microwatt to run it.

      The problem is it appears to make time slow down, about 2 minutes a week.

      • Blue Energy

        Well – that’s probably the amount of time that has been converted to energy to run the clock.

        Actually, I had forgotten, but I’ve seen one of those clocks before. Pretty brilliant piece of work, actually.

        • magicsnd1

          For the conversion of time to power, we can write P=qΔt
          where P= power in watts
          q= time energy constant in watt-weeks per minute consumed

          In the case of my clock, q = 1.25E-7 watt-weeks/minute.
          It will be interesting to measure q for the Orbo device.

          • Blue Energy

            Yes, there is nothing to do but wait for competing data. Still, although I don’t have hard data yet, I think there might be hints at the time-converting scope of the Orbo. Whenever the subject comes up on the forum, a relatively enormous amount of my personal time disappears with nothing of substance to show for it. It’s sporadic and sudden – and therefore difficult to have the appropriate instruments on hand and operational when they would be required. If and when I manage to measure the effect I’ll apply your formula and we’ll be able to compare the two technologies, apples to apples.

          • magicsnd1

            Well, a resting human body consumes about 100 watts, or maybe 125 if thinking hard. Assume the time you spend here is moderately thoughtful and you use 125 watts. One minute is ~1E-4 week, so the power you spend in a minute here represents 1.25E-2 watt-weeks. That’s five orders of magnitude less efficient than my clock. But it doesn’t think or type (though it does breathe), so that’s OK, and your minute isn’t entirely consumed, since you created new thoughts and maybe wrote something during it.

          • Blue Energy

            And – I spend *hours* every time it exerts it’s will upon me. Others do as well! Great Caesar’s *GHOST*!! The thing is diabolical! And it’s only the beginning. Right now it’s only the geeks geeks who are aware of it’s existence. if you multiply the now measured effect on me by all the other effected humans that will come into its range of influence if it appears successful… the effect could be staggering! The total time lost could prevent the future progress of the entire human race! The world could starve from the lost time. We have to do something!! It must be stopped!

  • Now, this is interesting! From the discussion here it seems the Orbo could be anything from an energy harvesting device, an electret based phenomenon, or an extremely long lasting electrochemical process, to a system extracting mostly unknown dark energy from undetectable sources. Some even seem to think it can produce energy from nothing, which I personally find very far fetched. In comparison, a dark energy hypothesis seems much more plausible. Yet, dark energy would place the Orbo phenomenon in a class far beyond the E-Cat, which at least most easily could be explained with a yet undefined nuclear process transforming binding energy/matter into other forms of energy – in itself well inside established physics.
    So, the tests of Orbo will be interesting to follow. First thing must be to calculate the total amount of energy released over a long period, like years.
    I also think this patent, brought up by Ron Kita at Vortex-l, might be relevant: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=14&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22bushman+boyd%22&OS=%22bushman+boyd%22&RS=%22bushman+boyd%22

    • SG

      The cited patent is interesting, although now expired, which means it is now in the public domain and free to be used by anyone.

      Steorn’s Orbo technology, if functional, has energy outputs much greater than conventional electret technology.

    • Sanjeev

      Time has finally come. We are going to get a BIG surprise or a big disappointment.
      If Orbo is what its claimed to be, a device producing anomalous energy, then it will be MUCH bigger than LENR or ECat.
      We will see soon.

    • Zephir

      Dark energy is attributed to accelerated expansion of Universe and it’s volume density is very low. You probably have Zero Point Energy on mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

  • Sean

    Lets take the electret unit out and hook it up to a LED. Starting with ultra sensitive led’s then up the ladder to higher milliwatt led’s. If it can charge the battery then we should be able to get some light from it. How about if it works? If so then NOMA would like them for the outdoor garden lights. Sales would go throught the roof for the everlasting light. Just thinking!

    • FC

      Sean,
      That is actually a very good idea for a technology demonstrator. Another one would be an everlasting fan. But my favorite is an everlasting AA battery, and let everyone decide what they want to power endlessly with it.

    • LarryJ

      Their web page states that opening the device voids the warranty. It would probably be better to test it as it is intended to be used. As Steorn says if it lasts a month it’s a very good battery, 2 months and it’s bordering on magic, 3 months and it is magic.

      • Sean

        Hi Larry, in the interest of science, I’d take the risk. You can always buy another one.

        • LarryJ

          Orbo would them respond that their test is not valid because the testers tampered with it and destroyed its efficacy. It should be possible to effectively test it without damaging it.

          • Sean

            The component in question is the Electret. The only way you can test it is if the battery is disconnected from the circuit. The demonstration on the video shows a volt meter at the electret. I am saying if there is sufficient power to charge a battery, then there is sufficient power to light a small led. You have to experiment by deduction. However Frank has suggested a Faraday cage. I could also do the experiment in this also. BUT we need the electret unit. That is what is in question. The electret could also be doing something like more that 100% Leds as seen in a MIT LAB. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

            Perhaps we can make our own Electret? The stuff is already in some microphones. No venture no gain.

            Right now I think we should be more interested in the ECAT. I would not plan on taking that apart. Especially as it might be powering your new car Larry. No speeding though!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Somebody on Vortex has posted this link:

    http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2015/10/new_video_reveals_internals_of_orbo_powe.html

    According to the photos, the device contains a lithium-ion battery (…?)

    • Frank Acland

      Yes, the Li-ion battery is part of the ocube. There is apparently an ‘Orbo power pack’ which charges a Li ion battery, which then is the charges devices via a USB port. The theory is that the battery acts as an energy reservoir that gets trickle-charges by the Orbo pack, which puts out 0.4 W continuously.

  • Bob Greenyer

    For the doubters that this is a valid area of power generation – look at this valid Sanyo patent based on electrets called “Electric power generator ”

    http://www.google.com/patents/US7525205

    • SG

      Electrets are an interesting analogy. Still, something doesn’t fit. There is a multiple orders of magnitude difference in terms of higher power levels reported by Orbo compared to conventional electret technology. Do we really believe that an O-cube having only about 1/3 of its volume available for electrets is capable of harvesting enough vibration to produce .4 W continuous? There is a mystery here that is not completely explained by electrets–at least not of the traditional type.

      • Zephir

        This is why I think McCarthy found an improvement in mixing of electret with graphite. This effectively separates one larger capacitor into a number many small ones, formed with graphene platelets. This idea actually comes from Bedini, who did improve his crystal batteries with graphite.

    • Blue Energy

      But, the patent in your link describes a device which harvests mechanical vibrations – rather than… you know… time. Its’ two surfaces move in relation to each other as a result of environmental vibration, whereas the Orbo surfaces seemingly do not. Or, at least, that is the impression I have from watching the videos. It seems to be a radically different device.

      Most of my skepticism stems from Orbo’s association with Steorn though. I just have difficulty accepting that a future-changing invention could come out of Sean McCarthy. But, as ever, I will be thrilled to be shown to be wrong, if that is possible. I will admit to having difficulty imagining what the planned end-game could be – if not success. What sort of person would deliberately set themselves up for that kind of ridicule and legal action? But, this isn’t a new thought process for me in relation to Steorn. I’ve had it over and over every time they’ve announced something for a decade.

      • SG

        “I just have difficulty accepting that a future-changing invention could come out of Sean McCarthy.” I’ve had similar thoughts and similar doubts. But it isn’t a one-person effort over at Steorn. They’ve always had a core group of experienced engineers. Sean just happens to be the public face of Steorn, for good or bad.

        • ecatworld

          I tend to focus on technology rather than personalities, but I think if they pull this off, then Shaun McCarthy would deserve many kudos for his persistence in bringing the Orbo to market. He is the first to admit that he personally has made numerous mistakes when it comes to the business side of Orbo, but he and his team have stuck with the long term goal, and I for one admire and respect that.

          The funny thing is about Steorn is that they never set out to develop any revolutionary energy technology. They were just a standard engineering company, but when they noticed some strange anomalies they were alert enough to follow up and see where it led them.

    • Sanjeev

      But that is not what the claim says. Which is remarkable. Do you have any ideas why would they call their energy harvesting device a “free energy” device and commit a commercial suicide ?. SM seems to be a bit eccentric fellow but I don’t think he is that stupid.
      They could have easily earned billions by now via simply licensing this tech as an (VERY) efficient energy harvester, and it would have worked just as well. But they wasted many years trying to push it as physics defying thing, ending up producing a small lot themselves, which most people wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole.
      I find this very interesting. I’ve followed them in their beginning and gave up finally, but I think this story will see its climax now.

      • Blue Energy

        I have followed them since the full page ad. they published searching for world class scientists to verify their magnetic perpetual motion technology. Steorn has been nothing if not entertaining. For one thing, ‘Orbo’ has been a noun searching for a technology for all this time. The electret version of Orbo is very recent. Initially, ‘Orbo’ was a technology that capitalized upon the time it took for undeclared atoms within permanent magnets to align (the version that was purportedly utilized for the donated well pump in the anonymous rural African village…) and then later an electrified coils ability to nullify the magnetic field in a permanent magnet. There have been many points along the way that I have felt certain that the climax had arrived. But – here we are. So, don’t count Steorn out if this version somehow bombs too.

        OK. I’m going to stop being negative now – at least until Frank has a chance to test it.

        • Sanjeev

          You are so right about the fiasco. A series of failures and ridicule that followed.
          However …. Those prototypes never ended up in the hands of ordinary consumers, and this one is different just because the orbo will be available in the wild. This is a definitive thing.
          Perhaps I should not be so certain about it till it actually ends up in the wild.

          • Blue Energy

            Yes – the ante has certainly been upped. It’s hard to imagine how they could come back from this one if it proved to be a bust. I wonder what the interest is on a million dollars for a month or two?

          • Sanjeev

            No coming back this time.
            If it fails, it will be a come back from the jail, after many years…

          • Blue Energy

            Well… what if they just refund everyone’s money before they deliver? They could say that there was an unforeseen problem that prevented them from delivering a flawed product and they are too ethically pure to charge anyone for anything other than what they paid for. Then they could keep the short term interest on the million? Next year maybe they have fixed the problem and Orbo is for sale again?

            Personally, I’m just hoping that, against all logic, this is the time that Steorn comes through.

          • Sanjeev

            I had exactly the same thoughts when they started the ordering. Its a good scheme, even if a cheap one.
            But then I saw the heaps of Orbos sitting in their office. They invested too much money there, they could have done this with “invisible” products, that are “about to be manufactured”. Not a wise way to get millions from customers.
            I think… if they don’t deliver and hold the money for, say, a year before refunding it all, someone can sue them easily and demand a refund WITH interest. This depends on the judges and their law but seems possible. In this case, they not only risk 0 income and may probably get some jail time.
            I’ve thought about it in many ways, but reached no conclusion.

          • Blue Energy

            What you saw was a table with a few Orbo-looking faceplates on it, I think. At least, that’s what I saw. Those might not be so expensive as props. Still – the amount that could be gained in a short time would probably not be worth the con.

          • Sanjeev

            You may be right about the props, but there are these people who saw them in real, like the reporter in the above video. It would be foolish to let outsiders see the props in real. I wouldn’t believe any videos of heaps of “free energy” generator in this age of CG 🙂

            I’m not arguing for Steorn though, its an interesting discussion.

          • Blue Energy

            Yeah. It is. The truth is that I desperately want for it to be true. I’ve just been burned so often by them that I protect myself reflexively.

          • Sanjeev

            Its a good reflex. I too do not invest too much of myself emotionally in such things. The heart break is not cool. Better to be on fence. I do same for the E-Cat.
            Frankly, we alt-energy enthusiasts, want any, just any device to work. The present condition of the world demands it. I want to see the energy abundance to happen in my lifetime.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            Heart break is something I’m quite familiar with. After six+ years I’m still waiting for EEStor. But like with Steorn and Rossi I’m hoping 2016 is finally the year. 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        Despite very clear statements about temperature deltas and vibration ambient energy harvesting potential – they have yet to explicitly deny that it does this. They have taken the trouble to reject EM harvesting.

        This speaks volumes to me – IMPO their device could harvest energy from the above two modes – so if they are doing it some other way they are missing a trick!.

        This will all be resolved following testing.

        • Curbina

          Bob, some of us are in contact with Shaun in a private forum and the issue of the energy harvesting is adressed. They claim this works in isolation of any possible source, they even asked us to figure out what else to consider as a possible source of energy to make straight forward demos to disprove that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Tests will show. Did they share their tests? or was it just a claim.

          • Curbina

            Bob, they are completely sure of their claims, they are in the process of making some material to share (probably will be audiovisual, and with the aim to answer questions to people that are not under the “Steorn is a scam” label), in which they adress all the possible sources of environmental energy and discard one by one. This was on preparation, put on hold due to the last minute shipping complications, but I assume they will get back on it when shipping is taken care of.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That could mean a number of things – their claims principally are the rate of energy production – which I can find easier to see as credible (for previously stated reasons) and will obviously be completely testable.

            I have not seen them specifically claim that they have proof that stands up to scrutiny that their device does not harvest thermal variation or sound/seizmic vibration.

            Nor have they claimed that it does not capture energy from neutrinos – I simply could not imagine they even have the equipment to test that – the only option I could see is to get some time on the US neutrino gun and see if more neutrinos adds to the output.

  • Bob Greenyer

    For the doubters that this is a valid area of power generation – look at this valid Sanyo patent based on electrets called “Electric power generator ”

    http://www.google.com/patents/US7525205

    • SG

      Electrets are an interesting analogy. Still, something doesn’t fit. There is a multiple orders of magnitude difference in terms of higher power levels reported by Orbo compared to conventional electret technology. Do we really believe that an O-cube having only about 1/3 of its volume available for electrets is capable of harvesting enough vibration to produce .4 W continuous? There is a mystery here that is not completely explained by electrets–at least not of the traditional type.

      • Zephir

        This is why I think McCarthy found an improvement in mixing of electret with graphite. This effectively separates one larger capacitor into a number many small ones, formed with graphene platelets. This idea actually comes from Bedini, who did improve his crystal batteries with graphite first.

    • Blue Energy

      But, the patent in your link describes a device which harvests mechanical vibrations – rather than… you know… time. Its’ two surfaces move in relation to each other as a result of environmental vibration, whereas the Orbo surfaces seemingly do not. Or, at least, that is the impression I have from watching the videos. It seems to be a radically different device.

      Most of my skepticism stems from Orbo’s association with Steorn though. I just have difficulty accepting that a future-changing invention could come out of Sean McCarthy. But, as ever, I will be thrilled to be shown to be wrong, if that is possible. I will admit to having difficulty imagining what the planned end-game could be – if not success. What sort of person would deliberately set themselves up for that kind of ridicule and legal action? But, this isn’t a new thought process for me in relation to Steorn. I’ve had it over and over every time they’ve announced something for a decade.

      • SG

        “I just have difficulty accepting that a future-changing invention could come out of Sean McCarthy.”

        I’ve had similar thoughts and similar doubts. But it isn’t a one-person effort over at Steorn. They’ve always had a core group of experienced engineers. Sean just happens to be the public face of Steorn, for good or bad.

        • Frank Acland

          I tend to focus on technology rather than personalities, but I think if they pull this off, then Shaun McCarthy would deserve many kudos for his persistence in bringing the Orbo to market. He is the first to admit that he personally has made numerous mistakes when it comes to the business side of Orbo, but he and his team have stuck with the long term goal, and I for one admire and respect that.

          The funny thing is about Steorn is that they never set out to develop any revolutionary energy technology. They were just a standard engineering company, but when they noticed some strange anomalies they were alert enough to follow up and see where it led them.

    • Sanjeev

      But that is not what the claim says. Which is remarkable. Do you have any ideas why would they call their energy harvesting device a “free energy” device and commit a commercial suicide ?. SM seems to be a bit eccentric fellow but I don’t think he is that stupid.
      They could have easily earned billions by now via simply licensing this tech as an (VERY) efficient energy harvester, and it would have worked just as well. But they wasted many years trying to push it as physics defying thing, ending up producing a small lot themselves, which most people wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole.
      I find this very interesting. I’ve followed them in their beginning and gave up finally, but I think this story will see its climax now.

      • Blue Energy

        I have followed them since the full page ad. they published searching for world class scientists to verify their magnetic perpetual motion technology. Steorn has been nothing if not entertaining. For one thing, ‘Orbo’ has been a noun searching for a technology for all this time. The electret version of Orbo is very recent. Initially, ‘Orbo’ was a technology that capitalized upon the time it took for undeclared atoms within permanent magnets to align (the version that was purportedly utilized for the donated well pump in the anonymous rural African village…) and then later an electrified coils ability to nullify the magnetic field in a permanent magnet. There have been many points along the way that I have felt certain that the climax had arrived. But – here we are. So, don’t count Steorn out if this version somehow bombs too.

        OK. I’m going to stop being negative now – at least until Frank has a chance to test it.

        • Sanjeev

          You are so right about the fiasco. A series of failures and ridicule that followed.
          However …. Those prototypes never ended up in the hands of ordinary consumers, and this one is different just because the orbo will be available in the wild. This is a definitive thing.
          Perhaps I should not be so certain about it till it actually ends up in the wild.

          • Blue Energy

            Yes – the ante has certainly been upped. It’s hard to imagine how they could come back from this one if it proved to be a bust. I wonder what the interest is on a million dollars for a month or two?

          • Sanjeev

            No coming back this time.
            If it fails, it will be a come back from the jail, after many years…

          • Blue Energy

            Well… what if they just refund everyone’s money before they deliver? They could say that there was an unforeseen problem that prevented them from delivering a flawed product and they are too ethically pure to charge anyone for anything other than what they paid for. Then they could keep the short term interest on the million? Next year maybe they have fixed the problem and Orbo is for sale again?

            Personally, I’m just hoping that, against all logic, this is the time that Steorn comes through.

          • Sanjeev

            I had exactly the same thoughts when they started the ordering. Its a good scheme, even if a cheap one.
            But then I saw the heaps of Orbos sitting in their office. They invested too much money there, they could have done this with “invisible” products, that are “about to be manufactured”. Not a wise way to get millions from customers.
            I think… if they don’t deliver and hold the money for, say, a year before refunding it all, someone can sue them easily and demand a refund WITH interest. This depends on the judges and their law but seems possible. In this case, they not only risk 0 income but also may get some jail time.
            I’ve thought about it in many ways, but reached no conclusion.

          • Blue Energy

            What you saw was a table with a few Orbo-looking faceplates on it, I think. At least, that’s what I saw. Those might not be so expensive as props. Still – the amount that could be gained in a short time would probably not be worth the con.

          • Sanjeev

            You may be right about the props, but there are these people who saw them in real, like the reporter in the above video. It would be foolish to let outsiders see the props in real. I wouldn’t believe any videos of heaps of “free energy” generator in this age of CG 🙂

            I’m not arguing for Steorn though, its an interesting discussion.

          • Blue Energy

            Yeah. It is. The truth is that I desperately want for it to be true. I’ve just been burned so often by them that I protect myself reflexively.

          • Sanjeev

            Its a good reflex. I too do not invest too much of myself emotionally in such things. The heart break is not cool. Better to be on fence. I do same for the E-Cat.
            Frankly, we alt-energy enthusiasts, want any, just any device to work. The present condition of the world demands it. I want to see the energy abundance to happen in my lifetime.

          • Heart break is something I’m quite familiar with. After six+ years I’m still waiting for EEStor. But like with Steorn and Rossi I’m hoping 2016 is finally the year. 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        Despite very clear statements about temperature deltas and vibration ambient energy harvesting potential – they have yet to explicitly deny that it does this. They have taken the trouble to reject EM harvesting.

        This speaks volumes to me – IMPO their device could harvest energy from the above two modes – so if they are doing it some other way they are missing a trick!.

        This will all be resolved following testing.

        • Curbina

          Bob, some of us are in contact with Shaun in a private forum and the issue of the energy harvesting is adressed. They claim this works in isolation of any possible source, they even asked us to figure out what else to consider as a possible source of energy to make straight forward demos to disprove that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Tests will show. Did they share their tests? or was it just a claim.

          • Curbina

            Bob, they are completely sure of their claims, they are in the process of making some material to share (probably will be audiovisual, and with the aim to answer questions to people that are not under the “Steorn is a scam” label), in which they adress all the possible sources of environmental energy and discard one by one. This was on preparation, put on hold due to the last minute shipping complications, but I assume they will get back on it when shipping is taken care of.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That could mean a number of things – their claims principally are the rate of energy production – which I can find easier to see as credible (for previously stated reasons) and will obviously be completely testable.

            I have not seen them specifically claim that they have proof that stands up to scrutiny that their device does not harvest thermal variation or sound/seizmic vibration.

            Nor have they claimed that it does not capture energy from neutrinos – I simply could not imagine they even have the equipment to test that – the only option I could see is to get some time on the US neutrino gun and see if more neutrinos adds to the output.

  • I’d like to get a bit philosophical. I see a lot of people claiming that it is unlikely that The Orbo is “generating energy from nothing” because “Science” has said that that is impossible. One problem that I have with this reasoning is that it gives, in my opinion, too much respect to “Science” – especially given the track record of how “Science” has been wrong a lot of times, in the past. (and probably is wrong about a lot, now, and, also, probably will be wrong about a lot, in the future) Another problem that I have, though, is that “energy” might not be real, at least in the sense that we typically think of it. Let’s consider the possibility that “energy” – as it is typically thought of – is not really a real thing, but is, instead, a complex metaphor that we humans have created. Perhaps, similar to Newtonian physics, this “energy” metaphor works in most cases, but maybe there are rare phenomena where the “energy” metaphor breaks down, similar to how Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances. I think that Frank, once, posted a video of a physicist dude who said that he could not believe what he was seeing when he saw a Steorn device in action. I think that he also said, during that same video, that he thought that the physics community might have taken a wrong turn at some point, in the past. Perhaps this “energy” metaphor was the wrong turn. Perhaps we started believing in this “energy” stuff as a real thing, or, at least, as real set of absolute rules that govern how the universe works, rather than as a metaphor that works most of the time, but breaks down in some rare instances. In these rare cases where the “energy” metaphor breaks down, it would not make sense to ask a question like: “Where is the energy coming from?” It’s not “coming from” anywhere because there is no “energy,” in reality. The metaphor does not work in these kinds of rare cases. Instead, these kinds of cases would probably be better talked about as just being processes causing other processes. One of the implications of the “energy” metaphor might be that no processes can continue forever without outside “energy” being injected into the process. However, in the rare cases where the “energy” metaphor breaks down, this implication would not, necessarily, hold true. Maybe there really are some processes that really can go on forever, as long as they are not stopped – and maybe, just maybe, the folks at Steorn have found one of these rare processes.

    • Frank Acland
      • Thanks, Frank!

    • Sanjeev

      If you define “real” as anything that can be measured then Energy is a real thing and if you define real as anything that can be perceived objectively then it is unreal, as we do not perceive energy directly, only its effects.

      Its not real in another sense as its not an “object”. Its a quantity that stays constant while thermodynamic interactions take place in a closed system. So its purely mathematical in this sense and applies to closed systems only. The word “closed” means that no energy gets in or out of the system under inspection. Its a bit circular if you think about it. No text book can give you an example of a real closed system, its a purely theoretical/ideal thing (was made up for simplicity). Usually if CoE holds then the system is assumed to be closed.

      Somehow common folk and even the learned scientists tend to assume that this physical universe is a closed system. Its only a hypothesis waiting to be proved. Its not the truth and there are no “truths” in Science, only evidences. This dogmatic and stone headed assumption has lead to a very sad situation in science, no one wants to research energy generation phenomena outside this tiny box of dogma. Blame it on the education system and bad science reporting, which fails to encourage students to question everything and remain curious about everything. Instead they teach them “facts” which they must memorize and then forget about them once the exams are over.

      We also need some fresh ideas in the philosophy of science, which is now almost a dead field, probably because it generates no “science jobs”.

  • Job001

    Electromagnetic energy is all around us in trace amounts. As a kid I did the crystal radio thing with no battery and it worked fine, and still does. Now we have TV, computers, house and car wiring, radio, WIFI modems, and abundant emitters of radio waves. Antenna and rectifiers have improved greatly, so, it is just a matter of how much trace energy can be received, rectified, and stored. It is no mystery and it isn’t free, we pay our electrical bills which include the EM losses and also indirectly in higher priced goods for the energy transmitted usually to provide advertising.

    The point is, trace amounts of energy are worth trace to negligible amounts. Let’s say the everlasting battery will provide 1milliamp at 1.5 v. This is worth at typical commercial electrical rates about $0.15/KwHr x 8000 hr/yr x 0.001×1.5/1000 = $0.0018/yr or about 0.2 cents/yr. If the device lasts 10 years you will have about 2 cents payback(my estimate since I’ve seen no performance claims). Now admittedly the actual power might be more or less, but, the device isn’t likely to pay for itself.

    My cheap $11.99 crank flashlight radio with built in solar cell, USB, and phone charger has a lot more power available and paid for itself in entertainment and emergency light and radio almost immediately.

    • SG

      Except that Steorn have repeatedly said that the Orbo tech does not draw from any known environmental energy source, that it runs in a Faraday cage, and has qualities unlike any tech out there. It also has reported power densities *far* in excess of typical energy harvesters. I agree that most of us immediately go there as the most likely explanation. But it doesn’t square with the explained characteristics of Orbo. It needs testing by others, dearly.

      As for the hand crank stuff, and solar cell powered gadgets, I’ve purchased those in the past and have always been disappointed. I guess I would rather have something that just works rather than something that makes me have to do something (crank, put in sunlight, etc.) So I think the Orbo would be better than all of these other options, hands down. Now, if only it works.

  • Job001

    Electromagnetic energy is all around us in trace amounts. As a kid I did the crystal radio thing with no battery and it worked fine, and still does. Now we have TV, computers, house and car wiring, radio, WIFI modems, and abundant emitters of radio waves. Antenna and rectifiers have improved greatly, so, it is just a matter of how much trace energy can be received, rectified, and stored. It is no mystery and it isn’t free, we pay our electrical bills which include the EM losses and also indirectly in higher priced goods for the energy transmitted usually to provide advertising.

    The point is, trace amounts of energy are worth trace to negligible amounts. Let’s say the everlasting battery will provide 1milliamp at 1.5 v. This is worth at typical commercial electrical rates about $0.15/KwHr x 8000 hr/yr x 0.001×1.5/1000 = $0.0018/yr or about 0.2 cents/yr. If the device lasts 10 years you will have about 2 cents payback(my estimate since I’ve seen no performance claims). Now admittedly the actual power might be more or less, but, the device isn’t likely to pay for itself.

    My cheap $11.99 crank flashlight radio with built in solar cell, USB, and phone charger has a lot more power available and paid for itself in entertainment and emergency light and radio almost immediately.

    Negligible energy and no or inadequate replication plus the nonsense about time slowdown makes me a skeptic. Many mechanisms can provide the inaccurately measured negligible energy. It needs experimental blind tests also like using other battery types rather than a lithium and testing in a vibration and noise and thermal and light and EM isolation chamber. In essence it is an untested “magic” negligible energy toy until the magic is revealed. Non-science hearsay and testimony is unacceptable evidence also.

    • SG

      Except that Steorn have repeatedly said that the Orbo tech does not draw from any known environmental energy source, that it runs in a Faraday cage, and has qualities unlike any other energy tech. As to the source of the energy, the only two possibilities that they have floated is that it draws from dark energy or converts time to energy. Neither seems plausible, which is why it is mysterious. It also has reported power densities *far* in excess of typical energy harvesters. I agree that most of us immediately go there as the most likely explanation. But it doesn’t square with the explained characteristics of Orbo. It needs testing by others, dearly.

      As for the hand crank stuff, and solar cell powered gadgets, I’ve purchased those in the past and have always been disappointed. I guess I would rather have something that just works rather than something that makes me have to do something (crank, put in sunlight, etc.) So I think the Orbo would be better than all of these other options, hands down. Now, if only it works.

    • Jas

      Steorn have stated that the Orbo is a demonstration device to show the potential of the technology. It isnt designed at the moment to make anyone a profit. Its designed in my opinion for convenience. If it works and is mass produced then the cost will cone down. No one wants to buy a PS4 or Xbox one controller that costs €1k. People will buy any gadget that doesn’t need to be plugged in or charged up. Convenience wins.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Smartphones consume about 4 kWh of electric energy per year. In many countries that amount is available for less than one dollar. So why should one pay 1200 USD for a charger, even if the energy were ‘for free’?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Curiosity – which, apparently – kills Cats!

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Curiosity is a legitimate reason, but for normal users this product does not seem to make sense. In case that they want to provide their device for research they could do that without demanding money from persons who would take no advantage of it.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Absolutely no practical use or value for normal user with the alternatives available.

          If it works as described, as a first run artefact it does have value.

          People pay more for 1/1000 Limited Edition prints of paintings and all they do is sit on a wall at best – though they do reorganise the balance of light frequencies in that portion of a room without requiring an external power source (other than environmental incident light) and have proven to do this for hundreds of years.

        • Omega Z

          “Curiosity is a legitimate reason, but for normal users this product does not seem to make sense.”

          Both Valid points.
          The 1st could lead to a change of the 2nd.

          If it really works, then possibly efficiency along with falling costs will in time provide a product that does make sense.

          Keep in mind that many useful & cheap products today started out the same way. Overly expensive & nearly useless. Most so cheap today there use once and disposable. Anyway, well soon find out if it works. The future will tell the story.

        • Blue Energy

          Ironically, the value of the new Steorn product is directly related to the companies repeated failures. It gives long suffering true believers an opportunity to hold something in their own hand that validates their irrational obsession with the company.

  • BillH

    All the signs are there that this is not legitimate. In the video he’s effectively telling you it’s impossible. “Impossible in a box” in the end is just a box. The reporter was very pliant, he never even asked for a sample to try. The bit about the 1-2-3 month is setting it up to fail sometime in the first 3 months, No doubt if it fails early they will be only too happy to supply you with a replacement, however, once it goes over 12 months you’ll be out of luck and pocket. Where were all the staff? they couldn’t all be hiding could they? surely they are frantically test all the units that are to be sent out? It looked more like the Marie Celeste than a working factory. If this works at all I guess that there is a powerbank hidden in the box, it might power your phone for 5 or six charges it might even leech power from the partially discharged phones you try to recharge, does anyone really let their phone fully discharge? Oh, and if you try to crack it open to look inside, oops, you’ve invalidated your warranty, no refunds, sorry.

    • The tea leaves in the bottom of my cup say otherwise, and are at least as reliable as your evidence. We’ll find out soon enough.

    • Omega Z

      BillH

      It can not take energy from a cell phone battery unless that cell battery has more energy then the Orbo. Energy will find equilibrium. If the Orbo contains more energy then the cell phone, it will balance out to the cell battery.

      To test the Orbo won’t be simple, but it’s also not that complex. The evidence can speak for itself. We merely need to be patient.

  • BillH

    All the signs are there that this is not legitimate. In the video he’s effectively telling you it’s impossible. “Impossible in a box” in the end is just a box. The reporter was very pliant, he never even asked for a sample to try. The bit about the 1-2-3 month is setting it up to fail sometime in the first 3 months, No doubt if it fails early they will be only too happy to supply you with a replacement, however, once it goes over 12 months you’ll be out of luck and pocket. Where were all the staff? they couldn’t all be hiding could they? surely they are frantically test all the units that are to be sent out? It looked more like the Marie Celeste than a working factory. If this works at all I guess that there is a powerbank hidden in the box, it might power your phone for 5 or six charges it might even leech power from the partially discharged phones you try to recharge, does anyone really let their phone fully discharge? Oh, and if you try to crack it open to look inside, oops, you’ve invalidated your warranty, no refunds, sorry.

    • The tea leaves in the bottom of my cup say otherwise, and are at least as reliable as your evidence. We’ll find out soon enough.

    • Omega Z

      BillH

      It can not take energy from a cell phone battery unless that cell battery has more energy then the Orbo. Energy will find equilibrium. If the Orbo contains more energy then the cell phone, it will balance out to the cell battery.

      To test the Orbo won’t be simple, but it’s also not that complex. The evidence can speak for itself. We merely need to be patient.

  • Ted-X

    Some people on You-Tube claim that they take a positron and an electron from the vacuum and then they separate the charges using the electret. The electrets can give fantastic voltages, comparable to the Van Der Graaf generator. This would be an energy from the “zero point”.

    • If Steorn manage to break the ‘belief barrier’ by proving their device, there will be a whole new world of physics to explore (probably only loosely related to LENR, if at all) so the next generation of open minded physicists are going to have an exciting time.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I guess that the positron would annihilate immediately with a neighbouring electron, which would result in two 511 keV gamma rays.

      • Ted-X

        Could there be some other way for the positron to be converted into “something else” (like reacting with a neutron to make a proton…), rather than an immediate annihilation? This is a new physics, the old rules may not apply, perhaps. I am just trying to stay open-minded, since the phenomenon is puzzling.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Positrons are basically antimatter which usually does not behave friendly when it comes in contact with normal matter. But of course one can never completely exclude the possibility that there is some hitherto unknown mechanism. I am wondering, by the way, why there are no gammas when two virtual particles annihilate. Apparently, their energy goes directly back into the quantum vacuum. Maybe one of the physicists here could explain it?

          • Obvious

            There are no gammas because virtual pairs do not actually annihilate. They never even “touch” each other.
            One hypothesis is that virtual particles have no momentum: they are truly stationary. Since we are travelling through time at the speed of light, a truly stationary particle simply looks to us to appear and disappear as we pass through the same time slice as the stationary particle. Giving a stationary particle a “kick” can impart momentum to the particle, and bring it into motion through time so that for us, also travelling through time, it appears to stay in existence (becomes “real”). Perhaps a particle-antiparticle pair is the only stable arrangement when not moving through time.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Thanks. But if VPs had no momentum, how would you explain the Casimir effect?

          • Obvious

            The Casimir Effect is primarily a photon-related effect, in terms of force contribution (possibly the only measurable effect). Photons move, and so will interact more easily with a Casimir plate than a totally stationary particle.
            (Best guess)

  • georgehants

    As I sometimes do, like to thank ECW Admin for open-mindedly covering the Orbo story that most others would run away from like frightened sheep.
    It is the only scientific way, an open-mind, if it turns out to be mistaken or fraud then nothing lost of any kind compared with the lose from ignorance or fear of the unknown.
    In the meanwhile it has given us all a wide area of pleasure to cover many associated thoughts.

    • Zephir

      Well, the professional discussion sites are controlled with scientists, who are payed from mandatory fees and who just afraid of premature lost of their income and social influence.

      • georgehants

        Zephir, is that not an admission of the most horrific state of affairs.
        What do you think should be done to free science from such tyranny?

        • Zephir

          Well, actually nothing at the moment, when new technologies will become commercially feasible, as the scientists just follow the money, so they will optimize their profit by switching their interests. But under situation, when the new technology is not yet sufficiently mature for to pay these people, then the scientists have a good reasons for to ignore it (if not deny) by all means possible – just for not to lose their safe jobs in research of existing technologies.

          The ignorant attitude of scientists is actually easily understandable from socioeconomical perspective and with game theory. We must establish public funds dedicated to utilitarian research of perspective technologies, which are important from practical, not just theoretical (i.e. scientific) perspective.

          • georgehants

            Ha, do I take it you are saying if we want science and scientists to be free thinking then change the “socioeconomical perspective”, game theory is very dangerous, used almost exclusively by the US in it’s Wars that have proved to be disastrous and even more so if they abandon the Human perspective against a nuclear power.
            one of Von Neumann’s less reliable works.
            I prefer his tracing the Quantum measurement problem back to the Mind and his Wonderful support of the unknown Godel.

          • Zephir

            IMO the problem isn’t, that the scientists are working for public money, but that the projects involved are too large and farseeing – so that their sponsors lose public feedback. We must prioritize and fragment the targets of research and streamline their public feedback. Why to develop string theory or collide exotic particles, if it cannot apparently bring any tangible benefit for civilization in future fifty years? These results will usually get forgotten or obsolete well before they could be ever used practically for subsequent research. And what’s worse – they seriously compete and inhibit the research of projects, which could bring money a much sooner – like the cold fusion.

      • radvar

        Jumping in here, and acknowledging those comments below:

        This all goes back to the power theory of social behavior.

        What that follows in this post is not new, but seeing it from the perspective of power may be useful.

        In order increase happiness and decrease suffering, people need power, i.e the ability to make things happen and influence what happens.

        Power takes the form of skills, money resources, position, status, influence, control, dominance, etc.

        Power in this sense is used for mostly mundane things, which are nonetheless critical to happiness/non-suffering, such as buying shoes for the kids, making mortgage payments, etc..

        Our little monkey brains are very strongly wired to seek power, hold on to it, and use it, use it, use it. Once we have a good system of personal power worked out, it’s very difficult and very traumatic to have to give it up and find another one: e.g. British coal miners, American auto workers, hot fusion scientists, etc.

        Anyone reading this can very quickly identify the elements that make up their current system of personal, social and economic power. Hey, it probably beats being a 3rd world rural farmer! (and my apologies to any 3rd world rural farmers reading this.)

        After investing $100Ks in their education and many sacrifices for their careers, people who work in the sciences have a very strong attachment to the power that they have gained from those choices.

        This is not some lordly power to control the world’s knowledge. This is just the power to put dinner on the table.

        Of course there’s always a little of the “Ring of Power” phenomena; power is just so addicting…”my precious!” But that’s how the monkey brains evolved into human brains: more smarts => more power => more monkeys!

        The problem of course is that all this power tends to get arranged in hierarchies. So that some people have power over other people (or more precisely, some people have power over other people’s power, e.g. their salaries, careers, freedom, life forces, etc.).

        So the people at the top of the hierarchies are REALLY attached to their power. No need to name names here.

        In the current discussion framework, the senior scientists who control funding for junior scientists want that funding to go to support the senior scientists’ lines of research, e.g. $250B for hot fusion, $0 for cold fusion.

        A consequence of this is that you can’t just give grant money for scientists to study Orbo or LENR for a short while. Once they go into the woo they have damaged their careers forever. So you have to pay scientists to spend their whole careers in the woo. Which they won’t do because there aren’t enough resources or colleagues there to do much work with. I.e. there’s no power there.

        It’s like giving people a tanker of water and a truck load of garden supplies and pointing them into the Sahara.

        So, it’s easy to say that “this should happen” or “that should happen”, or “we should to this” or “we should do that”.

        However, the reality is that reality is locked into place by a immensely complex matrix of human forces backed by highly willful, highly potent, fully invested human power.

        Until the “system” is understood in at that level, effective action points will be elusive.

        One action point that could make a difference would be to start thinking and talking about the system at this level, that is, as driven by individual human power interests.

        Because, you know, that may not really be the best way to optimize happiness/non-suffering for the entire human population.

        And some people do care about that.

        If those good people better understood things from the point of view of power, they might start asking more pointed questions about how all this power contributes to other people’s happiness or suffering. Perhaps then some of those good people could start suggesting ways that other people might agree to in terms of making modest changes in their personal power systems.

        The staring point, again, is to start thinking and talking about the “system” as made up of individual personal power systems.

        In the meantime, bless Rossi, who we believe has the power to make eCat real. And hopefully Steorn and McCarthy as well.

    • f sedei

      To me, LENR and Orbo are finally tapping into sources of unknown energy we only suspected may exist. If so, this IS the beginning of a new scientific revolution with the greatest of potential for mankind. Our world of science will be turned upside down for the better. May see the world of energy in a ” new light”.

  • georgehants

    As I sometimes do, like to thank ECW Admin for open-mindedly covering the Orbo story that most others would run away from like frightened sheep.
    I mean this because there is almost nowhere else in the World to discuss the Truth of the subjects we are all involved in.
    In my Utopian society ECW would be paid a fair reward above the basic fair income that everybody would receive, for such a service to society and science.
    It is the only scientific way, an open-mind, if it turns out to be mistaken or fraud then nothing lost of any kind compared with the huge lose from ignorance or fear of the unknown.
    In the meanwhile it has given us all a wide area of pleasure to cover many associated thoughts.

    • Zephir

      Well, the professional discussion sites are controlled with scientists, who are payed from mandatory fees and who just afraid of premature lost of their income and social influence.

      • georgehants

        Zephir, is that not an admission of the most horrific state of affairs.
        What do you think should be done to free science from such tyranny?
        Beyond advising any of them that wish to discuss religiously banned topics to move to ECW where they can professionally show their open-minded knowledge and abilities without fear of abuse etc.

        • Zephir

          Well, actually nothing at the moment, when the new technologies will become commercially feasible, as the scientists just follow the money, so they will optimize their profit by switching their interests. But under situation, when the new technology is not yet sufficiently mature for to pay these people, then the scientists have a good reasons for to ignore it (if not deny) by all means possible – just for not to lose their safe jobs in research of existing technologies.

          The ignorant attitude of scientists is actually easily understandable from socioeconomical perspective and with game theory. We must establish public funds dedicated to utilitarian research of perspective technologies, which are important from practical, not just theoretical (i.e. scientific) perspective – and to protect them well from abusing with opportunist scientists.

          • georgehants

            Ha, do I take it you are saying if we want science and scientists to be free thinking then change the “socioeconomical perspective”, I think I have continually suggested that.
            Game theory is very dangerous, used almost exclusively by the US in it’s Wars etc. that have proved to be disastrous and even more so if they abandon the Human perspective against a nuclear power.
            One of Von Neumann’s less reliable works.
            I prefer his tracing the Quantum measurement problem back to the Mind and his Wonderful support of the unknown Godel.

          • Zephir

            IMO the problem isn’t, that the scientists are working for public money, but that the projects involved are too large and farseeing – so that their sponsors lose public feedback. We must prioritize and fragment the targets of research and streamline their public feedback. Why to develop string theory or collide exotic particles, if it cannot apparently bring any tangible benefit for civilization in future fifty years? These results will usually get forgotten or obsolete well before they could be ever used practically for subsequent research. And what’s worse – they seriously compete and inhibit the research of projects, which could bring money a much sooner – like the cold fusion.

          • If you guys want to change this society to allow scientists to research more alternative ideas without it hurting them and their careers, then I think that a significant part of that will be defeating the pseudoskeptic movement. Many, interestingly enough, are not even aware that such a movement exists, even many who work in alternative areas. It is an organized movement of people who are angry that anyone is even allowed to take certain non-mainstream ideas seriously, and so they try to harm anyone who does take these ideas seriously. We would need to totally annihilate them, or, at least, reduce them to the point where they cannot harm anyone – unlike now, where they are harming lots of people.

          • Zephir

            If you want win, you should know your enemy first.

            No pseudoskeptic movement actually exist – the skepticism against cold fusion (not to say Steorn, Tesla, MEG and similar overunity stuffs) is completely widespread across community of mainstream physicists.

            It’s against their very religion. Of course I know few pathoskeptics, who are trying to organize themselves – but these people are half-educated trolls, senile twaddlers, who have no actual influence – only loud voice at various forums.

            http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.cz/2009/05/whines-of-electric-universe.html

          • I just strongly disagree that no pseudoskeptic movement exists. What would you call CSI, formerly known as CSICOP? I mean, if you want to argue about their level of effectiveness, I guess that we could do that, but to say that they don’t exist sounds pretty wrong, to me.

          • Zephir

            What I wanted to say with it is, the biggest problem of LENR acceptation is not centrally organized censorship, but the pluralistic ignorance.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

    • f sedei

      To me, LENR and Orbo are finally tapping into sources of unknown energy we only suspected may exist. If so, this IS the beginning of a new scientific revolution with the greatest of potential for mankind. Our world of science will be turned upside down for the better. May see the world of energy in a ” new light”.

  • keV

    “Matter and energy does not appear spontaneously out of nothing” – but in the beginning there was nothing, which is the only thing science and religion agree on ; ) It’s make or break for Sean, who is playing his entire hand with these publicly available products – this is what we have been waiting so long for Rossi to do. I hope they work as stated (we should know in a couple of months). Looks like the next 3 months could be the most exciting in the last 10 years in the energy field!

    • Zephir

      /* but in the beginning there was nothing, which is the only thing science and religion agree on */

      But was it really the beginning? This is what I find suspicious on Big Bang model of creationist priest Lamaitre. In dense aether model the Universe looks like the water surface being observed by its own ripples. At the distance all ripples scatter in the underwater, which creates an illusion of the explosion of water surface at distance – but this impression is only virtual effect of scattering.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/2vc3e6/no_big_bang_quantum_equation_predicts_universe/

  • Barbierir

    From what I’ve been reading a conclusive test of this device could be trickier than expected, especially without voiding the warranty and without replacements. I hope that many clever heads will help Frank in finding the proper solution.

    • deleo77

      Just put an Orbo and cell phone in a Faraday Cage. Leave the cell phone on and have the Orbo charging the cell phone. Put a padlock on the cage and come back and open it up in 3 months to see if the cell phone still has any juice in it.

      • Frank Acland

        why the padlock?

        • GreenWin

          Probably to prevent external tampering. It’ll be interesting to see the debunk tactics leveled at O-Cube tests. Expect conspiracies involving improper probes, flawed instrumentation, incompetence, hidden wiring, masers, lasers, bias and blind mice.

          • Frank Acland

            I don’t doubt it, GW. Nice thing about the O-Cube is it is portable and I can take it into the woods or cornfields for some tests!

          • Blue Energy

            The Great Randi would use padlocks just for stage effect. Or – at least tape it to the ceiling.

          • Omega Z

            Frank,

            The 1st thing to test is whether the Orbo works as advertised.

            Batteries regardless of type can hold only a certain amount of energy. You merely need to know how much, and how much is transferred to charging the cell phone. If the Orbo battery holds 1 amp of energy, you can be certain it works without doubt after drawing 2 amps from it. This would be impossible if it weren’t generating energy in some manner.

            Once you’ve accomplished that, you can attempt to see where it obtains that energy with Faraday cages etc… Stay focused. 1 step at a time or you risk getting lost in all the possibilities doing none of them to conclusion.

          • FC

            I totally agree, Omega Z.

          • FC

            Except that we want to test for Amp-hours (or Wh), not Amps. 😉

          • SG

            While I agree with your suggestion in general, just FYI, the unit for energy is Joules not Amps. Some prefer to use kWh, which is equivalent to 3.6 megajoules.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Just to correct your units:

            Energy is typically measured in Joules
            Electrical Energy is measured in watt-hours, typically.
            A Watt is the rate of energy dissipation.
            1 Joule = 1 Watt-second.
            Battery capacity is measured in ampere-hours.
            Battery voltage is measured in Volts.
            Current is measured in Amperes.
            Instantaneous power in Watts is equal to the current in Amperes
            times the Voltage in Volts.
            An estimate of the Energy capacity of a battery is approximately
            the battery Voltage times the Ampere-Hour capacity.

            I use 3S Lithium Polymer batteries to power drones with an Ampere-Hour capacity of 2.6 A-hr. The nominal voltage is 11.7. I have measured peak powers of over 500 Watts. The estimated energy capacity (if discharged completely) is 11.7X2.6 = 30.4 Watt-hours.

            I do not recommend discharging LiPo batteries completely.

          • Omega Z

            Appreciated but not necessary. I could have stated amp hours(AH) but that is only part of the equation. You still needed the (V). My bad.

            I was just giving a simple example. If you know how much energy is stored in the battery and how much you transfer, you can rule out whether the Orbo is producing energy or not. Likely Frank wont have a whole lot to work with(equipment), but it shouldn’t be hard to ball park a number and exceeding that by a large margin, you’ll have an answer especially if it keeps going & going & going like the energizer bunny.

            As to charge/discharge, Tesla’s battery’s(Li-ion?) wont completely discharge by design. It’s also recommended that an 85% charge will increase the life cycle over fully charging them. Or is it, they wont meet life cycle rating if one always fully charges them? There’s room for manufacturer deception here.

            It’s been suggested that batteries recharge themselves. Noted in automotive use. Crank the battery down and half hour latter you can crank some more. This is an illusion.

            What is really happening is the batteries cells are balancing out between cells as some cells hold more charge then others.. To a lesser degree, you may see this in single cells balancing internally. They do not recharge or we would be energy independent. Just alternate batteries. 🙂

            Anyway, The info Frank will need should be on the batteries of both the Orbo & cell phone or what ever devices he uses for power extraction. If in doubt, he has many to draw from here at ECW.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            The Li-ion batteries in most new EVs will be damaged if discharged too far. The Li-Poly batteries that the Model RC people use are higher energy density for a reasonable price. As I understand it, the US military uses a form of disposable Li-Poly batteries to field equipment. It would be interesting to see if the Orbo device ( just weigh it) discharging ( 5V @25 ma) would outlast a LiPoly battery discharged at the same rate. Taking the 30Watt-Hour figure from above, the LiPo battery would last only 240 hours [30W-hr/(5V*0.025A) = 240 hours].

          • deleo77

            yeah, or even some kind of timed lock, so it won’t open for 3 months.

  • keV

    How about constructing a comparison test device packed the best (power density) batteries you can find with the same weight and output rate as the O-Cube and then run a series of tests side by side. It would be interesting to see if it behaves differently to what would be expected from an actual battery as Sean mentioned (ability to short it out etc.).

  • ecatworld

    Comment from Bob Higgins on Vortex-l:

    A Faraday cage requires no ground. It just requires a continuous metal box enclosure. The Orbo test would be simple. Put the Orbo and the phone inside the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box. No cables enter or exit from the box. Close the box for XX hours and see if the phone is charged when it is removed. Then close the box and keep the Orbo entirely within the box. Then do it again – over and over.

    If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside, just don’t let any cables go in or out of the box. Strictly speaking, you would also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.

    • Zephir

      I don’t think, this is the case of Orbo Cube, which is already heavily shielded with its ugly and heavy aluminium box and which still generates 0.4 Watt of power.

      But you also need the magnetic shielding for to be completely sure, as the electricity can be also mediated via magnetic field (in similar way, like at the case of common FM radio, which can be also trapped into a metal box without loss of functioning).

  • Frank Acland

    Comment from Bob Higgins on Vortex-l:

    “A Faraday cage requires no ground. It just requires a continuous metal box enclosure. The Orbo test would be simple. Put the Orbo and the phone inside the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box. No cables enter or exit from the box. Close the box for XX hours and see if the phone is charged when it is removed. Then close the box and keep the Orbo entirely within the box. Then do it again – over and over”.

    “If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside, just don’t let any cables go in or out of the box. Strictly speaking, you would also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.”

    • Zephir

      I don’t think, this is the case of Orbo Cube, which is already heavily shielded with its ugly and heavy aluminium box and which still generates 0.4 Watt of power.

      But you also need the magnetic shielding for to be completely sure, as the electricity can be also mediated via magnetic field (in similar way, like at the case of common FM radio, which can be hidden into a metal box without loss of functioning).

  • LarryJ

    Orbo would them respond that their test is not valid because the testers tampered with it and destroyed its efficacy. It should be possible to effectively test it without damaging it.

  • “Converting time into energy” is a large claim for such a small and simple device.

  • Rip Kirbyian

    My friend thought that this is a part of the “viral campaign” conducted by Steorn and he said “as fake as the boobs of the Orbo-girl”. What do you think?

    • SG

      I don’t buy it. The boobs–maybe. But I can imagine all sorts of reasons why a government or corporate entity might be interested in what Steorn are up to.

  • Sanjeev

    Ocube tester (to be) Emso updates on how he plans to measure its performance.
    https://orboblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/quick-update/

    • Frank Acland

      He says he’s been in touch with Steorn and they say delivery will be in the next few days.

      • Sanjeev

        Good news.

  • SG

    It appears that Steorn’s labs have been surreptitiously surveilled since 09/10. Pictures posted to facebook. https://www.facebook.com/shaundmccarthy

    There is at least one government or corporate entity that believes Steorn, or at least is curious enough to go to the trouble.

    • Sanjeev

      Could be a competitor. Obviously, they thought its worth taking the trouble and risk to bug Steorn’s office. They must have spent a lot of money to buy people to do that. I wonder if same is done to Rossi/IH.

      Now this is a wake up alarm for all the guys out there developing cutting edge tech. Please check your cable ducts !

  • Frank Acland
    • Rip Kirbyian

      If they had been shipped I guess they would have made some noise about it…Now its only a cryptical message about the difficulties of shipping Li… a fiasco again?

      • Blue Energy

        When I read your post I had a flash of a Three Stooges movie where they owned an alternative energy startup…

        Moe: “Well, it turns out you can’t ship lithium batteries through the mail.”
        Larry: “If you’re so smart – why didn’t you think of that before?”

        Curly: “Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck…”
        Moe: “Both of you – come here, I want to show you something. Riiiight here…”
        Larry: “Ow!”
        Curly: “Ow!”
        Moe: “Spread ouuuut…”
        Curly: “What’d I do?!”

  • Scott

    Potted. (filled gel to prevent tampering)

    • Sanjeev

      Messy stuff 🙂
      Is it yours ?

      • Frank Acland

        Shaun McCarthy posted it on FB

        • Sanjeev

          What is going on here exactly? (Sorry don’t have FB)

          • Frank Acland

            He said the potting had gone wrong — potting being putting some kind of resin into the inside of the ocube. You can see it’s smeared on the unit. So this one he’s going to keep back.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like they are trying to make the reverse engineering /hacking a bit difficult.
            I found some more info on potting here (and the pic of actual Ophone prototype)
            http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2016/01/ophone-shown-and-steorn-deals-with-security-issues/

          • Frank Acland

            It might put off some users messing around with the innards, but I doubt it would deter people who are intent on tearing the ocube apart.

          • Sanjeev

            That’s true.
            The only way to protect an IP is to not to release it.

          • Blue Energy

            It will make replacing the battery harrowing. If Shaun can be believed as to what is inside then his lone innovation will continue to produce power for years to come but the actual product’s life will be limited by the battery. Under the best of circumstances that will limit it’s resale value. On the plus side though when the battery runs out there will be no reason not to tear it apart. Also, I wonder whether whatever is in the box produces heat? No way for that to dissipate now.

          • Frank Acland

            Steorn has said that the Li-on battery can be easily replaced.

          • Blue Energy

            I remember reading that from you before. But, how will that be managed now that it’s filled with solidified resin? I was also thinking I read that replacing the battery would not void the warranty. Am I remembering that correctly? How does one replace the battery without opening it?

          • Frank Acland

            Well we don’t know yet how much of the inside is filled with resin. I was told once that you could open the cube up without voiding the warranty, you just couldn’t take anything apart inside. Not sure about how the battery changing would be dealt with.

          • Blue Energy

            Totally reasonable request on their part too. That also leaves open the possibility of attaching alligator clips to the i/o to the Orbo to test it – if it hasn’t been buried in resin.

          • I think a modern, well made li-ion battery that is continuously trickle charged might last a very long time, as long as it isn’t constantly over charged by the system… (I’m pretending that I believe this thing works as claimed, but I’m not really there yet by any means)… it’s the deep discharges and fast recharging that often does batteries in early. plus they could put a fairly beefy battery in there like Chevy does with the Volt so that the usable mAh portion remains high as the battery degrades… like extra headspace y’know.

  • BillH

    Perhaps they should have gone for the more elegant solution for a product that has lots of empty space inside it, and just made it smaller, doh!

  • ecatworld

    Steorn has said that the Li-on battery can be easily replaced.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      I think a modern, well made li-ion battery that is continuously trickle charged might last a very long time, as long as it isn’t constantly over charged by the system… (I’m pretending that I believe this thing works as claimed, but I’m not really there yet by any means)… it’s the deep discharges and fast recharging that often does batteries in early. plus they could put a fairly beefy battery in there like Chevy does with the Volt so that the usable mAh portion remains high as the battery degrades… like extra headspace y’know.

    • Blue Energy

      I remember reading that from you before. But, how will that be managed now that it’s filled with solidified resin? I was also thinking I read that replacing the battery would not void the warranty. Am I remembering that correctly? How does one replace the battery without opening it?

      • ecatworld

        Well we don’t know yet how much of the inside is filled with resin. I was told once that you could open the cube up without voiding the warranty, you just couldn’t take anything apart inside. Not sure about how the battery changing would be dealt with.

        • Blue Energy

          Totally reasonable request on their part too. That also leaves open the possibility of attaching alligator clips to the i/o to the Orbo to test it – if it hasn’t been buried in resin.

  • SG

    “Testing sans li, because people hate shipping li.” That is what Shaun just stated on his facebook page along with a photo of Orbo power cells without a lithium battery. https://www.facebook.com/shaundmccarthy

    I’ve thought in the past that they might run into shipping problems with a good-sized lithium ion battery incorporated into the product.

    “That’s one reason the FAA banned shipments of nonrechargeable lithium metal batteries on passenger planes in 2004. But that ban only applies in the United States; international authorities are still considering whether to enact such a rule. Cargo and passenger aircraft are free to carry lithium ion batteries, although they are subject to labeling and packing regulations.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/opinion/adcock-flight-370-lithium-batteries/