ECW Orbo Week 6-7 Testing Thread — Maybe Some Progress ?

Here’s a new thread for continued testing of the ophone power pack and the ocube

For reference:
Week 1 thread
Week 2 thread
Week 3 thread
Week 4-5 thread
The Google document started by Ged which summarizes key information from testing so far .
The Spreadsheet with the terminal readings from the ocube
Spreadsheet with ECW testing data with the power pack from the ophone
The video posted by Steorn showing some of the inner workings of the Ocube

This weekend I found there was signs of life in the Ophone power pack which Steorn had sent me for testing. We had lost all readings from the terminals o3-o4 after the o1-o2 cells had drained down below 3.7 Volts, and I thought the unit was pretty much damaged beyond repair. So I decided to put a 5V DC power supply on o1-o2 with a 2.2 k Ohm resistor in series hopes of reviving it.

After it had charged for 2-3 days (I lost track of how long exactly), and o1-o2 was sitting above 4.2 V, I was able to measure 5.17 Volts across terminals o3-o4 again.

This meant that we could start measuring the of the orbo again, by putting resistors as a load across o3-o4 — but it did not take away the fact that the cell on o1-o2 was draining voltage, and I had been able to boost the voltage only by pumping significant amounts of energy into the cell (see the spreadsheet for various systems used) — and this defeats the purpose of what Orbo is supposed to do.

Then on Sunday March 13 I came up with a different approach. Steorn has said that Orbo cells recharge much better when exposed to high voltage fields, so I have decided to limit the current going into o1-o2 with a 1M Ohm resistor, and boost the voltage by combining 9 Volt batteries. So far, this approach seems to have had the desired effect of stopping the Voltage drain on o1-o2 (when there is no load on o3-o4). Again, see the spreadsheet for data.

I’ll try and minimize confusion about what I’m talking about with the following video.

I thought I’d follow the suggestion of seeing what might happen if you connected o1-2 to o3-4. Video below:

March 21 2016

The following video shows what happens when you put a reference voltage on o3-o4 when the controller has not kicked in to provide a steady ~5.17 voltage:

March 22 2016

Yesterday I (and other people who had ordered Orbo products) received the following email from Steorn:

Dear Customer,
First of all we would like to again thank you for your order and your interest in Orbo technology. We are contacting you to provide you with an update on the current situation with respect to product design, production and shipment.

As you may know we have been investigating a charging issue with the initial batch of products we shipped, specifically the charge controller board used and consequent under/over charging.

We believe that we have now developed a solution to the issues caused by the charge controller board failure. Testing is underway on the redesigned system, and assuming that the new approach meets our test parameters, we will then move on to the production stage of the process.

While we are eager to get your order to you as soon as possible, we have to establish that the work we have done to address the issues we encountered is capable of delivering the high-quality product you are entitled to expect.
As such, it is currently not possible to say exactly when your order will ship but please rest assured we are doing everything we can to minimise the delay.We will be in touch again shortly with further updates as work progresses.

Best regards

The Orbo Team

March 24, 2016

Maybe some progress to report. If you check the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UBIA4JTDb_kBwoytR9LP7OP7tH63yUeiPn2kKye4frY/edit#gid=0), you’ll see that there is a 100 Ohm resistor on o3-o4, with the goal of keeping that orbo cell drained. On o1-2 there’s a 100k Ohm resistor to see if we can get some energy out of o1-o2 without draining it. So far the voltage has been climbing even with the load on it. Let’s see how it progresses. Below is a video showing the setup.



March 25, 2016

Below is a discharge test done on the Orbo pack with a 220 Ohm resistor on o1-2.

Here’s a recharge test that follows on from the video above.

March 26, 2016

Today I did a discharge/recharge test on the o1-2 side of the Orbo pack. The data is in the spreadsheet, and Sanjeev kindly prepared these graphs.

Discharge Test, Mar 26, 2016

Orbo recharge test March 26, 2016

  • Well it seems your O1-O2 internal Input resistance is around 120 KOhms in this example, as the Voltage divider from the external 1 MOhm and internal around 120 KOhms pulls down the 33.74 Volts from the batteries to 4.07 Volts, so for this to happen the input resistance of O1-O2 must be around 120 KOhms…. So maybe you should try to reduce the 1 MOhm resistor to around 1 KOhm to really have a high voltage at the input otherwise the voltage division will just pull the voltage too much down…What did Steorn say to you, what voltage likes the reference cell to see for best operation ???

    • Frank Acland

      They want it to stay above 5V

      • Okay, than just take 470 KOhms !

        • Will the O1-O2 voltage then be above 8 Volts ?

          • Frank Acland

            No, I don’t think it is supposed to get too far above 5 V.

          • Okay, then use a 470 KOhm resistor in series with a 470 KOhm pot in series instead of the 1 MOhm resistor and put the pot this way, that you get about
            6 Volts at the input of O1-O2 or just use a lab PowerSupply and just set it at 6 Volts or so…

          • DrD

            At one time we were told that when charged, the electrets behave like a 23F capacitor (YES 23F!). The Orbo was supplied also with an internal 7F capacitor). We have parallel and series combinations of electrets to make up the primary and secondaries.
            Furthemore, it also acts like there might be a zener and/or a current/voltage source in there.
            This is why you can’t assume it is a 470KOhm resistor, it simply doesn’t work.
            Some of us have verified that it does indeed act as if it is just such a large capacitor based on DC charging measuremts (but NOT ac Cv measurements, which Frank didn’t attempt).
            Also, given that the secondary relies on being immersed in a field provided by the primary (to which it has no electrical connection) we must conclude that the physical positioning within the compound is important.
            Having said all of that, we can not guarantee the truth of any of it, in fact that is probably a secondary part of Franks objective. The primary objective is probably to prove or refute the claims that it’s generating free power as claimed.
            BTW, Steorn are talking to Frank and seem to be very helpful.
            Even if Frank could input enough current to force O1-2 upto 6V he risks destroying it. Imagine trying to force a 5V zener up to 6V (not that it is a 5V zener!). You might just get away with it but then again, you might destroy it so I think the guys would be a bit sad.

          • DrD, can you then please draw up the substitute circuit diagram of this OPhone black block ? I just only went by what was shown in this block diagram…and there was no Zener diode…
            http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.health-answers.co.uk%2Fphone_3.jpg&key=r3MJdl_SXnRmy9xGTxIEvA&w=800&h=389

          • DrD

            I will see if i can find it later, it’s already been done and will be posted somewhere here. BTW, I didn’t say it does have a zener, we simply don’t know that much detail. Sorry if I gave that impression, all I meant was that it behaves a bit like a zener. In fact a 23F capacitor fed through a 1MegOhm would look a bit like a zener.

  • Well it seems your O1-O2 internal Input resistance is around 120 KOhms in this example, as the Voltage divider from the external 1 MOhm and internal around 120 KOhms pulls down the 33.74 Volts from the batteries to 4.07 Volts, so for this to happen the input resistance of O1-O2 must be around 120 KOhms…. So maybe you should try to reduce the 1 MOhm resistor to around 1 KOhm to really have a high voltage at the input otherwise the voltage division will just pull the voltage too much down…What did Steorn say to you, what voltage likes the reference cell to see for best operation ???

    • Frank Acland

      They want it to stay above 5V

      • Okay, than just take 470 KOhms instead of the 1 MOhm resistor !

        • Will the O1-O2 voltage then be above 8 Volts ?

          • Frank Acland

            No, I don’t think it is supposed to get too far above 5 V.

          • Okay, then use a 470 KOhm resistor in series with a 470 KOhm pot in series instead of the 1 MOhm resistor and put the pot this way, that you get about
            6 Volts at the input of O1-O2 or just use a lab PowerSupply and just set it at 6 Volts or so…

          • DrD

            At one time we were told that when charged, the electrets behave like they have 23F of capacitance across them (YES 23F!). The Orbo was supplied also with an internal 7F capacitor). We have parallel and series combinations of electrets to make up the primary and secondaries.
            Furthemore, it also acts like there might be a zener and/or a current/voltage source in there.
            This is why you can’t assume it is a 120KOhm resistor; it simply doesn’t work.
            Some of us have verified that it does indeed act as if it is just such a large capacitor and calculated it’s value based on DC charging measuremts (but NOT ac Cv measurements, which Frank didn’t attempt).
            Also, given that the secondary relies on being immersed in a field provided by the primary (to which it has no electrical connection) we must conclude that the physical positioning within the compound is important.
            Having said all of that, we can not guarantee the truth of any of it, in fact that is probably a secondary part of Franks objective. The primary objective is probably to prove or refute the claims that it’s generating free power as claimed.
            BTW, Steorn are talking to Frank and seem to be very helpful.
            Even if Frank could input enough current to force O1-2 upto 6V he risks destroying it. Imagine trying to force a 5V zener up to 6V (not that it is as simple as a 5V zener!). You might just get away with it but then again, you might destroy it so I think the guys would be a bit sad.

          • DrD, can you then please draw up the substitute circuit diagram of this OPhone black block ? I just only went by what was shown in this block diagram…and there was no Zener diode…
            http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.health-answers.co.uk%2Fphone_3.jpg&key=r3MJdl_SXnRmy9xGTxIEvA&w=800&h=389

          • DrD

            I will see if i can find it later, it’s already been done and will be posted somewhere here. BTW, I didn’t say it does have a zener, we simply don’t know that much detail. Sorry if I gave that impression, all I meant was that it behaves a bit like a zener. In fact a 23F capacitor fed through a 1MegOhm would look a bit like a zener.

  • Is this really the confirmed inside circuit òf the OPhone blackbox or is this just a guess ?
    http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.health-answers.co.uk%2Fphone_3.jpg&key=r3MJdl_SXnRmy9xGTxIEvA&w=800&h=389
    Frank, why don´t you take these circuit diagrams not also inside the article or at least into the spreadsheet so one is understanding it better ?

    • Frank Acland

      Nothing is confirmed, that image is just a guess based on statements from Steorn.

      • Hmm, seems Steorn doesn´t want to talk… also no updates on their Orbo Page on Facebook since February 15 at 12:18am ?
        Not very helpfull from them…Makes you go wonder, why they react like this instead of being open and honest ?

      • Frank Acland

        But Shaun has only mentioned three components inside the resin: reference cell, primary cell and the 5 V controller.

        • Frank, do you think, that the 5 Volt output regulator chip is still working correctly or is it also blown already ??
          If it is damaged all these tests do not make any sense…
          As you don´t know, how a damaged controller chip will affect the internal cells…

          • Frank Acland

            Shaun McCarthy thought it was blown, but since I boosted the input voltage it has started to act normally. I think it’s fine.

          • Well Frank, the question is, if this 5 Volts Controller chip is really a DC2DC converter that boosts the voltage from the Primary Generator Orbo cell from 2.5 Volts to 5 Volts, or if this Primary Generator Orbo cell is above 5 Volts and this 5 Volts controller chip is only a Linear voltage regulator IC like a 7805 chip, see:
            http://www.rakeshmondal.info/pik/IC-7805-voltage-regulator-rakesh-mondal.jpg
            which needs a higher input voltage than the regulated output voltage ?
            So what did Steorn tell you about this ?

          • Frank Acland

            They have not provided much detail about the type of controller chip that’s in there.

  • Alex Fenrick

    Frank…just curious, but why are you using 9v batteries in series as opposed to a bench power supply as it would be WAY more accurate and controlled. I apologize if I am missing a piece of methodology that would explain it.

    • Frank Acland

      No problem, I just don’t have a bench power supply.

  • FC

    Frank, DrD, everyone.

    I don’t know what you think, but personally I think that it is desirable to carefully recondition this device back to its optimum operating level (i.e. to carefully charge the secondary back to 5V), and then, to regulate the bias current as needed to compensate for the constant drain and keep O1-O2 at 5V.

    This means that we would input quite a bit of energy to recondition the device and also to keep it operating at its optimum level. Therefore, the energy balance may never be positive anymore. But unfortunately, that’s our situation due to the unexpected drain.

    On the other hand, by forgetting about the energy balance, we would be able to test the device at or near the level at which it was supposed to operate. And that may give us some new insight into this technology.

    Otherwise, I think we are just fighting the drain with the device far from its optimum capacity, which I don’t believe is giving us any meaningful data.

    • DrD

      I’m not sure but I suspect Frank might try that eventualy?
      Also, I know there seems to be a belief (came from Shaun) that biasing the cell from high voltage with high series resistance does something different compared to biasing with low voltage low series resistor. With resistors selected to give identical current the two cases are indistinguishable. The Cell will see the same voltage and same current in both cases. The extra resistance backs-off the extra volts.
      The only possible difference might be if a fault occurs; the low resistance option could “dump” more energy than the other.

      • DrD

        I notice the Ocube seems to be tumbling faster now, after having drifted very slowly through a plateau region.

        • FC

          Yes, that’s an interesting development. So long to the cores finding an equilibrium around 4.7V from which to start self-charging again, I guess. Or maybe the load is still too high, who knows.

      • FC

        Totally agreed. The secondary only sees a current, irrespective of the resistor that the current is coming from and the voltage behind it (in convential current flow).

  • FC

    Frank, DrD, everyone.

    I don’t know what you think, but personally I think that it is desirable to carefully recondition this device back to its optimum operating level (i.e. to carefully charge the secondary back to 5V), and then, to regulate the bias current as needed to compensate for the constant drain and keep O1-O2 at 5V.

    This means that we would input quite a bit of energy to recondition the device and also to keep it operating at its optimum level. Therefore, the energy balance may never be positive anymore. But unfortunately, that’s our situation due to the unexpected drain.

    On the other hand, by forgetting about the energy balance, we would be able to test the device at or near the level at which it was supposed to operate. And that may give us some new insight into this technology.

    Otherwise, I think we are just fighting the drain with the device far from its optimum capacity, which I don’t believe is giving us any meaningful data.

    • DrD

      I’m not sure but I suspect Frank might try that eventualy?
      Also, I know there seems to be a belief (came from Shaun) that biasing the cell from high voltage with high series resistance does something different compared to biasing with low voltage low series resistor. With resistors selected to give identical current the two cases are indistinguishable. The Cell will see the same voltage and same current in both cases. The extra resistance backs-off the extra volts.
      The only possible difference might be if a fault occurs; the low resistance option could “dump” more energy than the other.

      • DrD

        I notice the Ocube seems to be tumbling faster now, after having drifted very slowly through a plateau region.

        • FC

          Yes, that’s an interesting development. So long to the cores finding an equilibrium around 4.7V from which to start self-charging again, I guess. Or maybe the load is still too high, who knows.

      • FC

        Totally agreed. The secondary only sees a current, irrespective of the resistor that the current is coming from and the voltage behind it (in convential current flow).

  • Frank Acland

    No problem, I just don’t have a bench power supply.

  • Marcus W

    Perhaps the extra bias field from the batteries is to strong.Lets see if something happens if you took out one or two batteries and make the voltage on o1-o2 again 25V or 16V .

  • Sanjeev

    How did the voltage drop to 0 without a load? (The last reading).

    • Frank Acland

      I don’t know, Sanjeev. It’s done that before and took a long time to return.

      • FC

        Frank, could you please read O1-O2 with and without the bias circuit, whenever it is convenient for you? I don’t know if you remember, but yesterday we were getting quite different readings. It would be interesting to see what happens today. Thank you.

        • FC

          Thank you Frank. That’s great news. Today the voltage gain of the secondary remains after removing the bias. You may proceed with the charging whenever you want.

          • DrD

            haha Could we see 5V soon?????

          • FC

            So it seems. I would urge caution with the current, though. I’m not sure we want to overshoot 5V, as you said before.

          • DrD

            I think Shaun gave a range? up to something like 5.2V as being normal, so 5.5V probably ok for a short time.

          • FC

            I trust your judgment, DrD. Just have to make sure that Frank executes with care.

          • DrD

            oooo, that worries me. It was only a gerneral opinion. I’m sure Frank would monitor it carefully if it ever gets close. I’ve wanted to suggest agressive biasing a few times but it’s not my orbo so I avoided suggesting it.

          • FC

            Frank doesn’t seem to be concerned about overshooting 5V. He’s using a lower resistance now. 😀

          • DrD

            I can’t see the SS just now, needs care though, if it’s approaching 5V.

          • FC

            The charging was slowing down a lot with 10k. He’s using 4.7k now. Good call, Frank.

          • DrD

            I agree, I like that but with caution, if it closes on 5V.
            Signing out now, GOOD LUCK

          • Frank Acland

            Spare a thought for my batteries who are sacrificing themselves.

          • FC

            Lol. True. These tests are costing you a bundle only in batteries. Let us know if you want some help. 🙂

          • DrD

            Frank, you can use your USB charger but with the reduced R, just chose deltaV and R to give the required current. It’s the same as using lots of Volts and more R as long as the current remains the same.
            I’m sorry about your poor batteries.

          • Ged

            Time to see if that 4.7ish V cap holds or if there is another voltage step that can be crossed (or just how high the core can be super charged past resting max). Exciting times, unless you are a 9V battery!

          • FC

            We saw O1-O2 > 4.8V for more than an hour yesterday. Even while O3-O4 was discharging.

            But it’s also true that we saw a 0.4V difference in the O1-O2 readings with and without the bias. So maybe the 4.8V was fictitious.

          • FC

            It has hit a wall around 4.63-4.64V. Time to reduce the resistance again?

          • Frank Acland

            I could try, but the batteries are beginning to fail and I’m not sure we’ll get the desired effect as the input voltage drops more rapidly.

          • FC

            True. Time to rest, then.

          • FC

            Mind you, yesterday Frank was using a DC power source for the bias. Today he’s using batteries.

          • Ged

            Aye, it magically was higher and then not higher when the circuit was put on/taken off respectively. That Too is a mystery on how and why that happened but never before or since. This device is what electrical engineers make horror movies about when they want a fright that’ll keep them up sweating all night.

          • FC

            As I said below, I think that the voltage difference was due to the DC power source, which has never been used before or after with this device. Just don’t ask me why.

          • DrD

            Ah, you already did what I just suggestd (to FC), now — a long wait to see what happened.
            BTW, I
            think you could afford a slighly lower R if you want to accelerate it a bit. It will self stabilise itself — meaning that as O1-2 approaches 5v (or what ever the USB voltage is) the charging will fall off to zero.

          • Ged

            Can always get some jumper cables and hook this baby up to a running car. That should push it ;).

          • FC

            Lol. Right.

          • Ged

            Well, it failed to get past the 4.7V cap, again. Time for those jumper cables afterall?

          • FC

            It’s quite puzzling. In Frank’s video of his Skype conference with Shaun, Shaun shows on his scope that the voltage of the reference cores is well above 5V.

      • Sanjeev

        It did come back, so some self charging is going on, but I guess it discharges on its own sometimes.

        • DrD

          It is odd but it does seem to have responded well to what Frank’s doing now —- extra current. Here’s hoping it’s real, like FC just mentioned.

          • Ged

            Problem is, with all this extra current over long time frames, how will we extract enough energy to validate the tech?

          • DrD

            True, I think FC mentioned that a short time ago. If it does recover then it might perform so well that we can still prove it. I’m not convinced of that but what have we to lose.

          • FC

            Well, what I said is: forget about the energy balance. We are never going to prove anything with this device anyway, because of the unexpected drain. So let’s focus on its operating characteristics at normal levels (i.e. O1-O2 = ~ 5V).

          • Sanjeev

            There are too many problems to even start a validation.

          • DrD

            Yes, I think you’re correct. As FC just said, if by some means it can be made to work as intended we might get some where.

        • Ged

          But to where and how, I wonder. Could the potting have caused a loose connection somewhere that periodically shorts?

          • FC

            I’m starting to think that the controller chip may be malfunctioning somehow, and that it may be sucking energy from the primary and dumping it as heat? Then, the voltage oscillations of the primary could in turn be discharging the secondary through induction. Just a wild theory. 🙂

          • Ged

            One of the best ones we’ve got.

          • FC

            But to me, the real root of all of Steorn’s misery is not the faulty controller chips, but the unsteadiness and vulnerability of the polar polymer’s electric field and, consequently, it’s need to be constantly biased and reinstated.

            As I showed to you before, I believe that the two functions of the polar polymer (providing an electric field and insulating the anode from the cathode while allowing for electron tunneling) should be separated.

            The electric field could be provided by permanent electrets, which being permanent (or quasi permanent), would eliminate the need to constantly bias and reinstate the electric field, and maybe even supply a constant voltage output. Additionally, permanent electrets could potentially provide a stronger electric field than polar polymers and, hence, solve Orbo’s inherent low power rating problem.

            And finally, a regular non-polar polymer could be used to insulate the anode from the cathode while allowing for electron tunneling between them.

            But I don’t have the means to prove that this solution works either. So I hope that Steorn will do that and, if it works, that they will give free energy to the world.

          • DrD

            Hi FC, my understanding is that what you just suggested is exactly what Shaun said they are doing now, no?

          • DrD

            THe regulator does indeed seem to be working well but it could still be losing charge via leakage current or just has poor converter efficiency. I wonder how true Steorn’s statement was that it’s a problem with their regulators? I suppose they had to say something.

          • FC

            True. We’ll probably never know what’s happening inside the resin. But if the ophone test device looks anything like Shaun’s claims, and considering that the resin is non-conductive, the only thing that is electrically connected to the primary is the controller chip. So to me, that turns it into a suspect.

          • FC

            Hi DrD.

            Not exactly. Here’s three schematics to help convey what I mean:

            1. My interpretation of the Ocube.
            2. My interpretation of the Ophone.
            3. What I suggested above (in fact, I first suggested it a couple of weeks ago).

            Let me know if it still doesn’t make sense.

          • DrD

            Thanks for the explanation FC. I see what you mean but my understanding is that what shaun told Frank is not what you show. He said they will not use a bias battery anymore but will use a double (also unbiased) electret to replace the battery. This double electret then biases the electret that is the main generator. Same for Ocube and Ophone. It isn’t clear to me just how they physically orient them so that aspect is still a puzzle to me.
            It would be good if some day we could get a clear description from them, doubtful though.

          • FC

            Maybe I should have named schematic 1 Frank’s Ocube and schematic 2 Frank’s Ophone, to avoid confusions. Sorry about that.

            I agree that Shaun is talking about removing the battery in future ophones. The main difference between what Shaun is saying and what I suggest is that Shaun is still using polar polymer electrets (both for the bias and for the power core), which become depolarized when electrons are tunneled through them and by inductance (as we are experiencing in Frank’s Ophone). Whereas why I suggest is using permanent electrets, which maintain their electric field for a much longer time, and a neutral non-polar polymer between the anode and the cathode. This setup removes the need to bias anything, so that it works as a standalone unit.

            Am I making more sense now?

          • DrD

            Yes, I think it’s clearer. Got a meeting now so i’ll ponder it.
            (discussing our latest LED driver btw)

          • FC

            Hmm, that’s interesting. Man, I should have majored in electronic engineering, instead of aerospace. But I suppose it’s too late for whining now.

            So going back to our little discussion here, let me back up a little and get some basics straight. I’m sure you know these things much better than me, so let me just double check that I’m using the correct terms and definitions.

            An electret is a piece of material that has an inherent electric field thanks to either a real charge content or the polarization of its internal dipole structure. Orbo is an example of the latter, i.e. a polar polymer whose internal dipole structure is massively aligned in one particular direction.

            One of the main attributes of polar polymers is that their dipoles can become relatively easily scrambled (killing the electric field) and subsequently realigned (reestablishing the electric field).

            On the other hand, real-charge electrets (especially the ones with higher resistivity) have a more permanent electric field that can last hundreds of years.

            Are we in agreement so far?

            What Steorn have done is sandwich a polar polymer between two strips of metal, so that thanks to the polymer’s electric field and its relatively low resistivity, electrons can make it through from one metal strip to the other, creating a voltage potential across them that can be used to perform work.

            Unfortunately, this process scrambles the polymer’s dipoles, which then require time under the right bias to realign. As shown in the first two schematics, Steorn provides the bias by charging the metal strips with the same polarity as the desired electric field.

            Now, what I’m suggesting in the third schematic is to replace the polar polymer with a non-polar one, so that electrons can continue to tunnel through from one metal strip to the other, but supply the electric field with high-resistivity real-charge electrets.

            This architecture has the distinct advantage of having a more constant (almost permanent) electric field that doesn’t appreciably decay by performing work, making it unnecessary to recharge or bias the device in any way. Furthermore, the field can be much stronger with a real-charge electret than with a polar polymer electret, thus providing the device with a higher power output.

          • DrD

            Hi FC,
            Sorry for not getting back to you on this. It was just one meeting after another and then problems! To be honest, I am sure you know more about electrets than I do. My area is in Silicon semiconductors (design n development of) so never had the need to look into electrets. I need to read your summary through more carefully but my initial observation is that I don’t understand how the field can be formed initially and maintained. That also applies to the Orbo of course. Can electron tunnelling really do that? The double Orbo cell is supposed to be able to not only generate a field from the >5V pd but also supply a small current (I assume similar too that of the 2x9V batteries through the 1Meg R). We have very sophisticated modelling software here that would simulate it (I think) but it’s not easy to use and because most of my problems can be answered from experience I haven’t used it for a very long time. I guess you could say I’m “stuck in a rut” but it’s an interesting one. The unit that Franks has isn’t typical because we suspect that for some unknown reason the charge that produces the field is leaking away so at the moment we can’t draw much of a conclusion but there’s a spark of hope I see (5V atlast?).

          • FC

            Hi DrD. No worries.

            No, electron tunneling through the polymer is necessary to establish a current in the circuit. But in the case of Orbo, it scrambles the polymer’s dipoles, killing the field that pulls the electrons through the polymer in the first place. This creates the need to stop the current at some point to realign the dipoles and reinstate the field. So the field is formed by aligning a large number of dipoles within the polymer in a given direction.

            In the case of real charge electrets, the field is created by “freezing” a given distribution of charge (positive, negative, or both) in a piece of material.

            Don’t worry about the modeling software. It’s not worth the bother.

            Attached is my interpretation of Shaun’s latest setup, which he says future ocubes and ophones will have. He’s basically using a stack of cores in lieu of batteries for the bias circuit.

          • Ged

            Oh my goodness. What is wrong with you? Do -you- understand electricity? Cause this comment of yours says no.

          • davidbyrden

            In that case, Ged, explain my mistake?

          • Ged

            If you measure the voltage across one of those 9 V batteries in the circuit, what value will you expect to get?

          • Hi All, I think the Ophone circuit that Frank has would be more like this.

          • The red insulators should then also be electrets…forgot that to paint that in..through…sorry…

          • FC

            No worries.

            Yes, I see what you mean. It could be. But then, you would get a current all across the stack, which would scramble the dipoles in the top and bottom polymers (shown in red), progressively weakening the bias field. So I don’t think it would work as efficiently as the other version.

            But who knows. 🙂

          • DrD

            Just pondering this —
            I think if my memory is correct, the DC-DC/regulator they use has a cut-off at a MINIMUM input voltage (rather obvious I think). We can’t actually see that voltage. O1-2 is the “supplementary” bias to the primary which does not have a direct connection to the secondary (the one that supplies the output to the upconverter) so is it likely that when O1-2 fell to around mid 3V region, the secondary’s output (which we don’t monitor) fell below the cut-off?

          • Sanjeev

            Difficult to know unless all components can be isolated. First the voltage regulator needs to be disconnected somehow and then the reference cell must be disconnected. Must drill into the resin.

          • Frank Acland

            I think that’s a possibility. The potting most likely shifts somewhat during curing, especially if there are large temperature ranges, and they did put this on a plane soon after potting where it can get quite cold in the cargo hold. Just a guess on my part.

  • Sanjeev

    How did the voltage drop to 0 without a load? (The last reading).

    • Frank Acland

      I don’t know, Sanjeev. It’s done that before and took a long time to return.

      • FC

        Frank, could you please read O1-O2 with and without the bias circuit, whenever it is convenient for you? I don’t know if you remember, but yesterday we were getting quite different readings. It would be interesting to see what happens today. Thank you.

        • FC

          Thank you Frank. That’s great news. Today the voltage gain of the secondary remains after removing the bias. You may proceed with the charging whenever you want.

          • DrD

            haha Could we see 5V soon?????

          • FC

            So it seems. I would urge caution with the current, though. I’m not sure we want to overshoot 5V, as you said before.

          • DrD

            I think Shaun gave a range? up to something like 5.2V as being normal, so 5.5V probably ok for a short time.
            On edit:
            very much doubt we can get above about 5.2.

          • FC

            I trust your judgment, DrD. Just have to make sure that Frank executes with care.

          • DrD

            oooo, that worries me. It was only a gerneral opinion. I’m sure Frank would monitor it carefully if it ever gets close. I’ve wanted to suggest agressive biasing a few times but it’s not my orbo so I avoided suggesting it.

          • FC

            Frank doesn’t seem to be concerned about overshooting 5V. He’s using a lower resistance now. 😀

          • DrD

            I can’t see the SS just now, needs care though, if it’s approaching 5V.

          • FC

            The charging was slowing down a lot with 10k. He’s using 4.7k now. Good call, Frank.

          • DrD

            I agree, I like that but with caution, if it closes on 5V.
            Signing out now, GOOD LUCK

          • Frank Acland

            Spare a thought for my batteries who are sacrificing themselves.

          • FC

            Lol. True. These tests are costing you a bundle only in batteries. Let us know if you want some help. 🙂

          • DrD

            Frank, you can use your USB charger but with the reduced R, just chose deltaV and R to give the required current. It’s the same as using lots of Volts and more R as long as the current remains the same.
            I’m sorry about your poor batteries.

          • Ged

            Time to see if that 4.7ish V cap holds or if there is another voltage step that can be crossed (or just how high the core can be super charged past resting max). Exciting times, unless you are a 9V battery!

          • FC

            We saw O1-O2 > 4.8V for more than an hour yesterday. Even while O3-O4 was discharging.

            But it’s also true that we saw a 0.4V difference in the O1-O2 readings with and without the bias. So maybe the 4.8V was fictitious.

          • FC

            It has hit a wall around 4.63-4.64V. Time to reduce the resistance again?

          • Frank Acland

            I could try, but the batteries are beginning to fail and I’m not sure we’ll get the desired effect as the input voltage drops more rapidly.

          • FC

            True. Time to rest, then.

          • FC

            Mind you, yesterday Frank was using a DC power source for the bias. Today he’s using batteries.

          • Ged

            Aye, it magically was higher and then not higher when the circuit was put on/taken off respectively. That Too is a mystery on how and why that happened but never before or since. This device is what electrical engineers make horror movies about when they want a fright that’ll keep them up sweating all night.

          • FC

            As I said below, I think that the voltage difference was due to the DC power source, which has never been used before or after with this device. Just don’t ask me why.

          • DrD

            Ah, you already did what I just suggestd (to FC), now — a long wait to see what happened.
            BTW, I
            think you could afford a slighly lower R if you want to accelerate it a bit. It will self stabilise itself — meaning that as O1-2 approaches 5v (or what ever the USB voltage is) the charging will fall off to zero.

          • Ged

            Can always get some jumper cables and hook this baby up to a running car. That should push it ;).

          • FC

            Lol. Right.

          • Ged

            Well, it failed to get past the 4.7V cap, again. Time for those jumper cables afterall?

          • FC

            It’s quite puzzling. In Frank’s video of his Skype conference with Shaun, Shaun shows on his scope that the voltage of the reference cores is well above 5V.

      • Sanjeev

        It did come back, so some self charging is going on, but I guess it discharges on its own sometimes.

        • DrD

          It is odd but it does seem to have responded well to what Frank’s doing now —- extra current. Here’s hoping it’s real, like FC just mentioned.

          • Ged

            Problem is, with all this extra current over long time frames, how will we extract enough energy to validate the tech?

          • DrD

            True, I think FC mentioned that a short time ago. If it does recover then it might perform so well that we can still prove it. I’m not convinced of that but what have we to lose.

          • FC

            Well, what I said is: forget about the energy balance. We are never going to prove anything with this device anyway, because of the unexpected drain. So let’s focus on its operating characteristics at normal levels (i.e. O1-O2 = ~ 5V).

          • Sanjeev

            There are too many problems to even start a validation.

          • DrD

            Yes, I think you’re correct. As FC just said, if by some means it can be made to work as intended we might get some where.

        • Ged

          But to where and how, I wonder. Could the potting have caused a loose connection somewhere that periodically shorts?

          • FC

            I’m starting to think that the controller chip may be malfunctioning somehow, and that it may be sucking energy from the primary and dumping it as heat? Then, the voltage oscillations of the primary could in turn be discharging the secondary through induction. Just a wild theory. 🙂

          • Ged

            One of the best ones we’ve got.

          • FC

            But to me, the real root of all of Steorn’s misery is not the faulty controller chips, but the unsteadiness and vulnerability of the polar polymer’s electric field and, consequently, it’s need to be constantly biased and reinstated.

            As I showed to you before, I believe that the two functions of the polar polymer (providing an electric field and insulating the anode from the cathode while allowing for electron tunneling) should be separated.

            The electric field could be provided by permanent electrets, which being permanent (or quasi permanent), would eliminate the need to constantly bias and reinstate the electric field, and maybe even supply a constant voltage output. Additionally, permanent electrets could potentially provide a stronger electric field than polar polymers and, hence, solve Orbo’s inherent low power rating problem.

            And finally, a regular non-polar polymer could be used to insulate the anode from the cathode while allowing for electron tunneling between them.

            But I don’t have the means to prove that this solution works either. So I hope that Steorn will do that and, if it works, that they will give free energy to the world.

          • DrD

            Hi FC, my understanding is that what you just suggested is exactly what Shaun said they are doing in the future and have done with Franks Ophone pack but it’s not working, hence the battery is still needed, no?

          • DrD

            THe regulator does indeed seem to be working well but it could still be losing charge via leakage current or just has poor converter efficiency. I wonder how true Steorn’s statement was that it’s a problem with their regulators? I suppose they had to say something.

          • FC

            True. We’ll probably never know what’s happening inside the resin. But if the ophone test device looks anything like Shaun’s claims, and considering that the resin is non-conductive, the only thing that is electrically connected to the primary is the controller chip. So to me, that turns it into a suspect.

          • FC

            Hi DrD.

            Not exactly. Here’s three schematics to help convey what I mean:

            1. My interpretation of the Ocube.
            2. My interpretation of the Ophone.
            3. What I suggested above (in fact, I first suggested it a couple of weeks ago).

            Let me know if it still doesn’t make sense.

          • DrD

            Thanks for the explanation FC. I see what you mean but my understanding is that what shaun told Frank is not what you show. He said they will not use a bias battery anymore but will use a double (also unbiased) electret to replace the battery. This double electret then biases the electret that is the main generator. Same for Ocube and Ophone. It isn’t clear to me just how they physically orient them so that aspect is still a puzzle to me.
            It would be good if some day we could get a clear description from them, doubtful though.

          • FC

            Maybe I should have named schematic 1 Frank’s Ocube and schematic 2 Frank’s Ophone, to avoid confusions. Sorry about that.

            I agree that Shaun is talking about removing the battery in future ophones. The main difference between what Shaun is saying and what I suggest is that Shaun is still using polar polymer electrets (both for the bias and for the power core), which become depolarized when electrons are tunneled through them and by inductance (as we are experiencing in Frank’s Ophone). Whereas why I suggest is using permanent electrets, which maintain their electric field for a much longer time, and a neutral non-polar polymer between the anode and the cathode. This setup removes the need to bias anything, so that it works as a standalone unit.

            Am I making more sense now?

          • DrD

            Yes, I think it’s clearer. Got a meeting now so i’ll ponder it.
            (discussing our latest LED driver btw)

          • FC

            Hmm, that’s interesting. Man, I should have majored in electronic engineering, instead of aerospace. But I suppose it’s too late for whining now.

            So going back to our little discussion here, let me back up a little and get some basics straight. I’m sure you know these things much better than me, so let me just double check that I’m using the correct terms and definitions.

            An electret is a piece of material that has an inherent electric field thanks to either a real charge content or the polarization of its internal dipole structure. Orbo is an example of the latter, i.e. a polar polymer whose internal dipole structure is massively aligned in one particular direction.

            One of the main attributes of polar polymers is that their dipoles can become relatively easily scrambled (killing the electric field) and subsequently realigned (reestablishing the electric field).

            On the other hand, real-charge electrets (especially the ones with higher resistivity) have a more permanent electric field that can last hundreds of years.

            Are we in agreement so far?

            What Steorn have done is sandwich a polar polymer between two strips of metal, so that thanks to the polymer’s electric field and its relatively low resistivity, electrons can make it through from one metal strip to the other, creating a voltage potential across them that can be used to perform work.

            Unfortunately, this process scrambles the polymer’s dipoles, which then require time under the right bias to realign. As shown in the first two schematics, Steorn provides the bias by charging the metal strips with the same polarity as the desired electric field.

            Now, what I’m suggesting in the third schematic is to replace the polar polymer with a non-polar one, so that electrons can continue to tunnel through from one metal strip to the other, but supply the electric field with high-resistivity real-charge electrets.

            This architecture has the distinct advantage of having a more constant (almost permanent) electric field that doesn’t appreciably decay by performing work, making it unnecessary to recharge or bias the device in any way. Furthermore, the field can be much stronger with a real-charge electret than with a polar polymer electret, thus providing the device with a higher power output.

          • DrD

            Hi FC,
            Sorry for not getting back to you on this. It was just one meeting after another and then problems! To be honest, I am sure you know more about electrets than I do. My area is in Silicon semiconductors (design n development of) so never had the need to look into electrets. I need to read your summary through more carefully but my initial observation is that I don’t understand how the field can be formed initially and maintained. That also applies to the Orbo of course. Can electron tunnelling really do that? The double Orbo cell is supposed to be able to not only generate a field from the >5V pd but also supply a small current (I assume similar too that of the 2x9V batteries through the 1Meg R). We have very sophisticated modelling software here that would simulate it (I think) but it’s not easy to use and because most of my problems can be answered from experience I haven’t used it for a very long time. I guess you could say I’m “stuck in a rut” but it’s an interesting one. The unit that Franks has isn’t typical because we suspect that for some unknown reason the charge that produces the field is leaking away so at the moment we can’t draw much of a conclusion but there’s a spark of hope I see (5V atlast?).

          • FC

            Hi DrD. No worries.

            No, electron tunneling through the polymer is necessary to establish a current in the circuit. But in the case of Orbo, it scrambles the polymer’s dipoles, killing the field that pulls the electrons through the polymer in the first place. This creates the need to stop the current at some point to realign the dipoles and reinstate the field. So the field is formed by aligning a large number of dipoles within the polymer in a given direction.

            In the case of real charge electrets, the field is created by “freezing” a given distribution of charge (positive, negative, or both) in a piece of material.

            Don’t worry about the modeling software. It’s not worth the bother.

            Attached is my interpretation of Shaun’s latest setup, which he says future ocubes and ophones will have. He’s basically using a stack of cores in lieu of batteries for the bias circuit.

          • Hi All, I think the Ophone circuit that Frank has would be more like this.

          • The red insulators should then also be electrets…forgot that to paint that in..through…sorry…

          • FC

            No worries.

            Yes, I see what you mean. It could be. But then, you would get a current all across the stack, which would scramble the dipoles in the top and bottom polymers (shown in red), progressively weakening the bias field. So I don’t think it would work as efficiently as the other version.

            But who knows. 🙂

          • DrD

            Just pondering this —
            I think if my memory is correct, the DC-DC/regulator they use has a cut-off at a MINIMUM input voltage (rather obvious I think). We can’t actually see that voltage. O1-2 is the “supplementary” bias to the primary which does not have a direct connection to the secondary (the one that supplies the output to the upconverter) so is it likely that when O1-2 fell to around mid 3V region, the secondary’s output (which we don’t monitor) fell below the cut-off?

          • Sanjeev

            Difficult to know unless all components can be isolated. First the voltage regulator needs to be disconnected somehow and then the reference cell must be disconnected. Must drill into the resin.

          • Frank Acland

            I think that’s a possibility. The potting most likely shifts somewhat during curing, especially if there are large temperature ranges, and they did put this on a plane soon after potting where it can get quite cold in the cargo hold. Just a guess on my part.

          • MrHeed

            I make brushless motors and we use a potting compound that looks very similar, ofc there is no way of telling if it’s exactly the same type, but I would assume they would have similar properties.

            The compound we use is cured at 60C for about 17hrs, which isn’t very hot at all, and any significant shifting would be very bad, but we have no problems with it.

            The motors themselves are used in remote submarines that can operate 3km deep, so they stand up to some low temperatures and high pressures, so if they have potted them correctly, it is unlikely a cargo hold journey in a plane would faze them.

  • Sanjeev

    Here is a new suggestion for Ophone brick:
    You should be able to see internal wiring using a good thermal camera. If the wires that connect the reference to primary can be seen, you can cut them off by drilling at that point. This will isolate the primary orbo and make the test easier.

    • DrD

      We have the equipment here (Thermal imaging, X-ray etc) which does that but it’s no use to Frank. Thermal imaging though, tends notto be very good at locating wires unless theyre quite hot. However, the primary is not supposed to be connected to the secondary. I assume theres some field plates or inductors in close proximity. It’s a bit of a one way thing as well, if it doesn’t work were scuppered.

      • Sanjeev

        I’m assuming that the orbos are cylindrical bundles like shown in steorn videos and the connection between primary and ref is via a high value resistor. (May be its not like that)
        Xray will also work here as there is no metal around it.

        • DrD

          I was remembering what Frank said, from Shaun (I think) – no electrical connection between the two?

          • Sanjeev

            I don’t know how they can connect those two bundles electrostatically.
            Or they must have totally re-designed the orbo cell in a different way.

          • DrD

            Agree, it’s a mystery but then the whole thing is. I wonder if Frank can get an explanation?
            I assume the Ocube was the same, maybe wrongly.
            If it’s an electric field, all they have to do is place two plates either side (or end) of what ever they want to immerse but 5V is really a trivial field, hardly any strength in it.
            Alternatively, they could wind a coil round it and imerse the secondry in a magnetic field (permanent) or alteranting if that triangular waveform we saw is the one of interest. to be honest, I’m just guessing.
            Ayway, time to sign out now, heading home.

          • BillH

            To me this implies a step down mini transformer, perhaps with a 5V bias offset.

  • Sanjeev

    Here is a new suggestion for Ophone brick:
    You should be able to see internal wiring using a good thermal camera. If the wires that connect the reference to primary can be seen, you can cut them off by drilling at that point. This will isolate the primary orbo and make the test easier.

    • DrD

      We have the equipment here (Thermal imaging, X-ray etc) which does that but it’s no use to Frank. Thermal imaging though, tends notto be very good at locating wires unless theyre quite hot. However, the primary is not supposed to be connected to the secondary. I assume theres some field plates or inductors in close proximity. It’s a bit of a one way thing as well, if it doesn’t work were scuppered.

      • Sanjeev

        I’m assuming that the orbos are cylindrical bundles like shown in steorn videos and the connection between primary and ref is via a high value resistor. (May be its not like that)
        Xray will also work here as there is no metal around it.

        • DrD

          I was remembering what Frank said, from Shaun (I think) – no electrical connection between the two?

          • Sanjeev

            I don’t know how they can connect those two bundles electrostatically.
            Or they must have totally re-designed the orbo cell in a different way.

          • DrD

            Agree, it’s a mystery but then the whole thing is. I wonder if Frank can get an explanation?
            I assume the Ocube was the same, maybe wrongly.
            If it’s an electric field, all they have to do is place two plates either side (or end) of what ever they want to immerse but 5V is really a trivial field, hardly any strength in it.
            Alternatively, they could wind a coil round it and imerse the secondry in a magnetic field (permanent) or alteranting if that triangular waveform we saw is the one of interest. to be honest, I’m just guessing.
            Ayway, time to sign out now, heading home.

          • BillH

            To me this implies a step down mini transformer, perhaps with a 5V bias offset.

  • Hhiram

    Can we get a simple summary of whether the device works as Steorn says? They sent a second Ocube charger after the first one was not working (and was not to initial spec).

    Is this fraud or not? And if not, exactly *why* not?

    • Ged

      Answer to question one: No.

      Answer to question two: Can’t tell yet, but this is not legally fraud no matter what our results in the end (I’ll tell you why at the end).

      Corollary to two, answer to question three: Fraud requires maliciousness; Steorn would have to knowingly sell devices that don’t work, on purpose. However, damage may be why Frank is getting such problems, and it may not be the underlying core claims at fault. We just don’t quite know yet as we keep seeing hopefull behavior, and most of all Steorn keeps helping Frank troubleshoot which means they may yet rescue the devices due to their customer service.

      But the main reason why this can never be claimed as fraud, yet, is Steorn is offering people money back due to their technical difficulties. If Steorn ends up not getting a working product going, and also does not give back money, then they can be indicted for fraud.

      • JW

        I asked for my money back (refund on an Ocube order), and it has now been about 9-10 days without a reply! So, Steorn might be offering refunds but it doesn’t mean they are giving them. I had to get MasterCard involved, who returned my money……….still nothing from Steorn!
        Your final point was “If Steorn ends up not getting a working product going, and also does not give back money, then they can be indicted for fraud.”
        Well, they haven’t given a working product yet, and they ignored my requests for a refund.
        Those free Ophones should be leaving Steorn this week…..are you confident?

        • Ged

          I have no idea, I can’t assign any confidence, and we’ll know this week what happens it seems. But you did get your money back, you said, so that is good. Only thing Steorn has going for them is how engaging in troubleshooting they have been.

        • Roberto Siquieros

          I asked for my money back on an ocube, and they paid up straight away. Judging from your comment I asked a few days before you. It looks to me that they are in deep crises. I don’t buy into the fraud hypothese, either sales or investment. Olaf makes an interesting point but when you pay that much for a tiny battery charger there’s a grey line between sale and investment. Clearly though the whole Steorn story is very weird.

    • It is of no use answering trolls, it only feeds them.

  • Hhiram

    Can we get a simple summary of whether the device works as Steorn says? They sent a second Ocube charger after the first one was not working (and was not to initial spec).

    Is this fraud or not? And if not, exactly *why* not?

    • Ged

      Answer to question one: No.

      Answer to question two: Can’t tell yet, but this is not legally fraud no matter what our results in the end (I’ll tell you why at the end).

      Corollary to two, answer to question three: Fraud requires maliciousness; Steorn would have to knowingly sell devices that don’t work, on purpose. However, damage may be why Frank is getting such problems, and it may not be the underlying core claims at fault. We just don’t quite know yet as we keep seeing hopefull behavior, and most of all Steorn keeps helping Frank troubleshoot which means they may yet rescue the devices due to their customer service.

      But the main reason why this can never be claimed as fraud, yet, is Steorn is offering people money back due to their technical difficulties. If Steorn ends up not getting a working product going, and also does not give back money, then they can be indicted for fraud.

      • JW

        I asked for my money back (refund on an Ocube order), and it has now been about 9-10 days without a reply! So, Steorn might be offering refunds but it doesn’t mean they are giving them. I had to get MasterCard involved, who returned my money……….still nothing from Steorn!
        Your final point was “If Steorn ends up not getting a working product going, and also does not give back money, then they can be indicted for fraud.”
        Well, they haven’t given a working product yet, and they ignored my requests for a refund.
        Those free Ophones should be leaving Steorn this week…..are you confident?

        • Ged

          I have no idea, I can’t assign any confidence, and we’ll know this week what happens it seems. But you did get your money back, you said, so that is good. Only thing Steorn has going for them is how engaging in troubleshooting they have been.

        • Roberto Siquieros

          I asked for my money back on an ocube, and they paid up straight away. Judging from your comment I asked a few days before you. It looks to me that they are in deep crises. I don’t buy into the fraud hypothese, either sales or investment. Olaf makes an interesting point but when you pay that much for a tiny battery charger there’s a grey line between sale and investment. Clearly though the whole Steorn story is very weird.

    • It is of no use answering trolls, it only feeds them.

    • Olof

      This is not attempt to cheat customers, but probably attempt to run some kind of investment scam.
      http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/steorn-is-now-selling-free-energy-products/
      “At the other end of the spectrum are those who are trying to take advantage of either the true believers or naive investors. Dennis Lee is the prototype here – a con artist who is working a scam. Free-energy scams take two basic forms, either selling a device or selling an investment opportunity. The latter is more common, because you don’t have to produce an actual device, just claims that you are making progress. You are selling the potential, the hope, and as everyone knows not all research works out, there are delays, and you have to be patient. It’s a great scam.”

      http://www.businesspost.ie/steorns-deficits-rises-to-e21-million-in-most-recent-accounts/

      “Steorn’s deficits rises to €21 million in most recent accounts”
      “Steorn had spent just under €21 million of its investors’ money in its attempt to develop free energy — in violation of the laws of physics — according to accounts to the end of December 2014.”

  • OM

    Frank, could you please take some measurements?
    1) Voltages O1O2, O1O3, O1O4, O2O3, O2O4, O3O4. Please, do not omit the signs.
    2) Setup the 1MOhm resistor in parallel to your voltmeter and measure voltages again using voltmeter with a resistor.
    3) The same, but with the about 100K resistor instead of 1MOhm.
    4) The same, but with the about 10K resistor.
    5) The same, but with the about 1K resistor.
    6) The same, but with the about 100 Ohm resistor.
    7) Please, measure the resistors you have used in 2-6.

    • OM

      And then again O1O2…O3O4 without resistor to check how they have changed during the measurements.

    • OM

      To simplify the task, make only 1,2,3,5,7.
      100 Ohm may be dangerous for the device.

  • OM

    Frank, could you please take some measurements?
    1) Voltages O1O2, O1O3, O1O4, O2O3, O2O4, O3O4. Please, do not omit the signs.
    2) Setup the 1MOhm resistor in parallel to your voltmeter and measure voltages again using voltmeter with a resistor.
    3) The same, but with the about 100K resistor instead of 1MOhm.
    4) The same, but with the about 10K resistor.
    5) The same, but with the about 1K resistor.
    6) The same, but with the about 100 Ohm resistor.
    7) Please, measure the resistors you have used in 2-6.

    • OM

      And then again O1O2…O3O4 without resistor to check how they have changed during the measurements.

    • OM

      To simplify the task, make only 1,2,3,5,7.
      100 Ohm may be dangerous for the device.

  • I predict that on Thursday the Irish magic will turn on 😉 Unless of course that black tar in the Orbo’s actually glued down all the Leprecauns.

    • FC

      Good point. 🙂

  • I predict that on Thursday the Irish magic will turn on 😉 Unless of course that black tar in the Orbo’s actually glued down all the Leprecauns.

    • FC

      Good point. 🙂

  • davidbyrden

    “Orbo cells recharge much better when exposed to high voltage
    fields, so I have decided to limit the current going into o1-o2 with a
    1M Ohm resistor, and boost the voltage by combining 9 Volt batteries”

    According to the spreadsheet, the voltage across O1-O2 before you did this, was close to 4 volts.
    After you “boosted the voltage”, the voltage was STILL close to 4 volts. Your own spreadsheet makes it clear that the Orbo did NOT “experience a high voltage field”.

    Mr. Acland, do you understand electricity?

    • Ged

      Oh my goodness. What is wrong with you? Do -you- understand electricity? Cause this comment of yours says no.

      • davidbyrden

        In that case, Ged, explain my mistake?

        • Ged

          If you measure the voltage across one of those 9 V batteries in the circuit, what value will you expect to get?

          • Olof

            Davidbyrden is right. Electrostatic field is proportional to the voltage across the orbo cell.

          • Ged

            The voltage across the cell is the internal resistance of the polymer. But we have already seen that a high voltage, low current bias circuit attached to the core electrodes greatly enhances the core’s recharging and output properties. This is empirical data, and supports at least that part of what Steorn claims about that.

            David is not right, or just doesn’t understand the discussion and is on about something else. And he has no excuse for insulting Frank.

            By the way, the answer to my question is 9 volts. Because if you measure across a circuit element, such as the Orbo core, rather than the circuit end to end, you see that element. No matter how many batteries you string together, each one is individually still 9 V. The internal Orbo core voltage is no different, but the rate it grows in voltage, or stores energy, is greatly affected by the overall bias circuit voltage it is exposed to (even with amps extremely low from high uhm resistors), so we see.

          • davidbyrden

            >> “voltage across the cell is the internal resistance of the polymer”

            Voltage and resistance are two different kinds of physical property. You might as well say that speed is distance. Obviously they are related, but they are not the same kind of thing.

            >> “the rate it grows in voltage, or stores energy, is greatly affected by the overall bias circuit voltage it is exposed to”

            No, no, no. You don’t understand electricity. Let me explain.

            If you conceal part of an electric circuit behind a wall, and you have only two terminals coming through the wall, then you can measure only:
            – the voltage
            – the current
            You can’t get ANY more information about what’s behind the wall.

            The power cell, INSIDE the Ocube, knows ONLY about the terminals O1-O2. It is NOT exposed to 9V or 36V, it doesn’t “feel” them, even if they are responsible for creating the 4V on the terminals.

            Since the terminal voltage did not change, then the electric field INSIDE THE POWER CELL did not change.

            >> “if you measure across a circuit element…you see that element”

            Yup. At this point I should perhaps mention my degree in electronic engineering.

          • Ged

            We do see the voltage of O1-O2 change, much faster than the input from the bias, if you look at the sheet. It doesn’t happen instantaneously as this is an element not a pass through wire, but is slowest when near it’s preferred voltage around 4V, as it becomes highly resistant to change at that point. So you are demonstrateably wrong, unless you are trying to say something completely unrelated?

            The Orbo core isn’t some pass through wire, it’s more akin to a capacitor, though one that grows in capacitance with voltage. The dipoles are affected by voltage applied to the electrode plates which align said dipoles–and the plates most certainly experience the voltage of the bias circuit, unless you claim to be able to touch high voltage circuits without a worry. Frank was repeating Steorn in that quote, and so far on this one point Steorn has been correct in our testing. So I have no idea what you are even going on about any more in relation to the discussion here.

          • davidbyrden

            I am “going on” about the change that Mr. Acland made on March 13, with the intent of exposing the Orbo power cell to a “high voltage field”.

            As the video shows, he applied four batteries in series with a 1M resistor to the terminals O1-O2. The resistor was intended to limit the current; the batteries were intended to provide the “high voltage field” which would supposedly invigorate the Orbo. The Orbo power cell was, I understand, hidden within the Ocube box but accessible via the terminals O1-O2.

            Before AND after this change, the voltage on O1-O2 was close to 4 volts.

            Therefore I maintain that the Orbo power cell did not experience a “high voltage field”. It was exposed to 4 volts only – the spreadsheet says so.

          • Ged

            The core -produces- 4 V, as measured -without any bias circuit- attached. Is that what you misunderstood? That is the core’s output that is being measured. And if you look where the core is under 4 V and a bias is applied, the core is indeed ” reinvigorated”, and this is exactly as Steorn told Frank and he simply paraphrased for the upteenth time. Pushing to Over 4 V output requires higher current input, but under 4 V simply needs the high voltage–and it works for both this and the Ocube.

            You really need to read up on/watch all that has gone on (Google doc!) before you make ignorant judgments and attack Frank. If (and when) you calmly asked questions that is completely fine of course! But I’m really tired of all this presumptuousness.

          • davidbyrden

            Am I really failing to communicate? Here are my points:

            1. Voltage on O1-O2 was close to 4V, before and after the change on March 13.

            2. The voltage on O1-O2 directly reflects the voltage across the core itself (or so we are led to believe)

            3. The electric field in the core is proportional to the voltage across it (this is basic physics).

            4. THEREFORE, the electric field did not substantially change on March 13.

            The written account from that day gives the impression that the use of four batteries, sufficient to produce almost 36V, produced a correspondingly large electric field IN THE CORE.
            My point is that it did not. The core was not “exposed” to these batteries in any significant way. The electric field in the core was not made “higher” as intended.

          • Ged

            You didn’t read a single thing. How can we communicate with you or have you participate when you fail to engage with even the basic points of the work?

            Regardless of the voltage of the bias, the core can only physically rise to output a certain voltage, no different than those 9V batteries or a capacitor in that regard. Once at 4 V, the core cannot physically change much more as to rise in voltage, not without increased current. But below 4 V it can and does. All your points are immaterial and pointless.

          • davidbyrden

            Ged; do you believe that the core was exposed to a significantly higher electric field, when the extra batteries were added on March 13?

          • Ged

            Let’s do this exactingly.

            When Frank attaches a bias circuit with four serial 9 volt batteries, this means that the difference between terminals is now 36V based on that circuit alone. As the Orbo core is basically two parallel plate conductors (with a dipole polymer acting almost, but not exactly, like a dialectric sandwiched bewteen), where one plate is now 36V different than the other due to the bias circuit alone, the equation for the electric field is Ed = Fd/q = W/q = delta V, where E is the field strength (units: N/C), d is the distance between the plates (units: m), F is force (units: N), q is charge (units: C), W is energy (units: Joules), delta is difference (unitless), and V is volts (units: volts). Or more generally: E = V/d.

            So yes, by mathematical definition, the core must have experienced a higher field.

            When Frank measures the core by taking the circuit off and inserting his multimeter electrodes, and records that value, we see it is around 4 V during the event period in question, which is a measure of the charge separation caused by the aligned polymer. That gives us 40 V experienced between the two plates if the polarity is correct, while the bias circuit is attached. As we don’t know distance between the plates, we can’t directly calculate the field strength, unfortunately, though reasonable guesses could be made.

            Once the polymer is aligned, it’s hard to align it -more-, though we don’t know it’s true 100% alignment point (saturation point), but approaching the point would cause an increasing resistance of the polymer to continued positive alignment change, according to the mechanistic model, which we would see as the internal voltage not increasing measurably when exposed to the same level of bias voltage, and indeed much more work/force would have to be applied to push it to a higher charge value between the plates, and thus voltage, near that threshold.

          • davidbyrden

            Ah, NOW I see where we disagree.
            Watch the video again, please. I don’t believe that Mr. Acland has removed the bias circuit at the time when he takes the reading.

  • Alex Fenrick

    This may have already been mentioned so I apologize if it has (it is a bit daunting to read every nested comment at this point lol) but have you considered removing the case and potting to reveal at least some of the components and routing. I have worked in the satellite industry in the past and I have done this numerous times in the past for reverse engineering as well as specific component testing within potting compounds. In this particular case…the aluminum case can be eliminated easily and quickly with a decent machining mill (find one in any machine shop). The potting is then strategically removed with a Dremel or similar precision powered hand tool small amounts at a time as to not destroy components or wiring. If a wire is inadvertently cut…it is an easy fix….components are quite easy to navigate if you take your time. Now if Steorn comes up with a story about how removing potting changes the operation…then we have some fibbing going on (already so skeptical of the potted 9v batts)…not gonna buy that. I just see this project as being at a point of saturation in analysis because of the ridiculous amount of unknown intertwined variables compounded by the incredibly massive problem of the device not even working as intended. Please do not take this as a jab against the good work being performed here with what you have to work with from Steorn….but I think you guys are spinning your wheels at this point as you have tried many good methods to navigate this crux but alas the only course left is to get in there and observe this device physically. Also…by removing the aluminum case and at very least knocking out large portions of the potting…you could VERY easily test heat loss from any work or reactions and even localize it. (I still contend we are going to see a very sinister chemical catalyst battery explaining any magic). Again please do not take this as a jab to the good work here…there is just always that time in research where you HAVE to take a different road…and that road is cracking it open!!

    • FC

      That’s a fair analysis of the situation. And I think that a lot of people around here think just like you do.

      I substantially agree with you as well, except maybe in the hidden battery hypothesis, which to me seems implausible after having observed the ocube undergo several instantaneous shorts to ~0V and two voltage spikes during unassisted recovery. Also, I believe that having a hidden battery would have simplified this device’s behavior and make it work a lot better than it does. But I don’t discard any possibility.

      As to machining out the case and the resin, ultimately it’s Frank’s decision. These test devices are his, and only he has the right to decide what to do with them. Personally, I will support him in whatever decision he makes.

      • DrD

        Once you de-assemble it though, you can say goodbye to expecting it to work as designed, so it’s a last resort. One reason is that it’s proper functionality relies on the main electret being inside the field produced by the primary. This physical relation ship will probably be destroyed or altered

        • FC

          Agreed, there risks involved in this approach.

          • Alex Fenrick

            I definitely agree there are risks with this approach…probably the highest risk of any approach to take in this context….but I think we may just be at that point where nothing of any substance can be drawn out of this black box short of physical analysis. Just a perspective to consider.

          • FC

            Agreed. We may have reached that point where taking some risks is the only way forward. Personally, I would run a few more discharge tests on this unit (with the right resistors 🙂 ) and then start machining out the controller chip from this unit (the ocube is a lot harder to work on). Then, I would check if the cores work better without the chip, because we may be surprised and may not need to drill anymore after that.

        • Alex Fenrick

          DrD…I must respectfully disagree that disassembly necessarily equates to causing the device to not work as expected…if done with care. I personally have done it many times with very sensitive potted electronics and devices with complete success. As I mentioned earlier this would be a matter of milling off the aluminum case and then strategically removing potting with a precision tool. It would not make sense for the potting itself to be part of the field of course…so you could easily stop before any damage if you noticed you were getting near any dielectric material like the electret. It’s quite an easy process to control as you are obviously starting from the exterior of the potting assembly and whittling your way into the device. I understand your concern if this is not done in a careful meticulous methodical way…but at this point you are performing tests that are based on far too many random interconnected variables…unknown circuit designs and most importantly a device that is not working as it is intended. As mentioned, this of course is ultimately Frank’s decision, but I just do not see at this stage of the game, how the goal of proving claim of operation can be substantiated at all with what you have to work with now. Again, I understand your perspective 200% DrD….and if we were not in the situation we are today with this project of unmanageable variables and across the board non-function of the device…I would be completely with you. I just think its time to take that road since the wheels are spinning. We find ourselves analyzing a blackbox of a blackbox that does not function. An interesting exercise no matter the outcome!!!!

    • Olof

      I agree. Maybe it’s time to dig out the wiring and components of the ocube device.

  • Dave

    So what’s going on with Steorn? Any more discussions with him? Is he sending anything else to test? Nothing new on his website or Facebook in the last month. Are we seeing the end of this?

  • FC

    Frank, just a quick note to remind you that the only time you have used a DC power source before to charge this test device, a substantial difference was observed in the voltage readings with and without the bias. Therefore, it may be a good idea to double check every now and then by taking a reading without the bias. That way, we can find out if the secondary is really above 4.7 or only appears to be.

    • FC

      Wow, 5.59V. I hope we are nor damaging anything.

      Frank, I’m sorry for insisting so much, but I think that we really need to know if that voltage remains without the DC power source connected to O1-O2.

      • DrD

        At last, now we should have our best chance to see if there’s any real life in it (assuming as you say, U1-2 is over 5V with no extrenal bias). I think if it can’t generate serious power now it’s unlikely to ever do so.

        • DrD

          I think it should be ok at 5.59V, you may recal we had this very discussion on Sunday. I was unhappy to suggest using a lower R to give lots of current to “drag” it up to this voltage due to the risk of damage. I’m pleased to see Frank did it but now it’s a waiting game — did it work or was it more damaged?
          BTW what did you mean by “only time you have used a DC power source”? We’ve used 9V batteries and USB charger quite a few times, they’re both DC?

          • FC

            I meant a USB or plug-in-the-wall power source, as opposed to batteries. But you are right, it’s been used before. It’s only that the last time we noticed a voltage difference with and without the bias. Sorry about that.

          • DrD

            No Prob. I suppose the USB charger could be different in some way, like it might have an ac component.

          • Frank Acland

            I’m trying to get the Orbo pack as close to the condition that we are told it is intended to be as possible. With my new 14 V DC power supply and a 220 Ohm resistor I was able to get it above 5.5 Volts yesterday — I think that is higher than the 5.2 Volts that it was originally shipped as. So I replaced the 220 Ohm resistor with a 1 MOhm and left it overnight. This morning it was at 4.96 Volts. So I just put on the 220 Ohm again. If we hit 5.2 again I’ll put on a higher resistance and see if we can reach an equilibrium so we can hold at around 5.2 V with as high a resistance as possible.

            I’m in and out today so may not be able to attend to the orbo as much as I would like.

          • DrD

            That is strange. Why would it fall with 220Ohms instead of 1Meg! when yesterday it pulled it up to 5.59V. Are you sure it’s connected properly, it couldn’t be reversed?

          • Frank Acland

            Certainly it’s not reversed, and I’ve just double checked the connection and it seems fine. It might be one of those instances where the voltage increases step-wise suddenly. I’m just going to leave the 220 Ohm on for the day and see what happens.

          • DrD

            Right, It was worth checking, I agree, such ilogical events seem the norm for Orbo.

          • Ged

            Very interesting, Frank. If this is a new state in the core, it is not stable at all, like supercoiling a phone cord. So bizarre. How could Steorn ever expect these things to hold at 5.2V.

          • DrD

            They said they have a double cell (two in series). That should generate over 5V shouldn’t it?

          • Frank Acland

            The terminology needs to be clarified. Shaun told me this unit has 1 full cell (reference side) and a half cell (primary side), but that in fact each full cell is made up of two “half” cells in series.

          • DrD

            Yes, sorry, I should be careful about the terminolgy. I take it to mean that a full cell is two electrets in series to give >5V? but I agree, it could benefit from clarification. I didnt like they use of “primary” either I think I may have used the wrong terminolgy on that one a few times..

          • Olof

            McCarthy said on his video, that the electret-cell voltage will double if the cell active surface area doubles. So two cells in parallel doubles the voltage?

          • FC

            I think that two cells in parallel output twice the current of one cell. Two cells in series have twice the voltage.

          • FC

            But on second thought, it may be the other way around. That’s a good question to ask Shaun, although it doesn’t affect our tests.

          • Ged

            Depending on what the resting point of a single cell is, but seems so! At least after some major pushing by Frank, yet not so stable.

      • Frank Acland

        No, it started to drop fairly rapidly when I took the circuit off. I left it with a 1M Ohm resistor on overnight and it dropped to just under 5V. Now with 220 Ohm back on it is still dropping a bit.

        • FC

          Thank you, Frank. Yes, I see what you mean. And now it doesn’t seem to want to go up above 5V.

          But immediately after removing the bias, was the reading the same as it was with the bias? Or was there an appreciable drop the very moment you disconnected the bias?

          • Frank Acland

            From the moment I took the circuit off, it started dropping quite rapidly from 5.59 V. I put the 1 M Ohm resistor on right away and left it overnight.

      • Ged

        Wow, it actually broke through! Doesn’t seem happy though. Fascinating.

  • FC

    Frank, just a quick note to remind you that the only time you have used a DC power source before to charge this test device, a substantial difference was observed in the voltage readings with and without the bias. Therefore, it may be a good idea to double check every now and then by taking a reading without the bias. That way, we can find out if the secondary is really above 4.7 or only appears to be.

    • FC

      Wow, 5.59V. I hope we are nor damaging anything.

      Frank, I’m sorry for insisting so much, but I think that we really need to know if that voltage remains without the DC power source connected to O1-O2.

      • DrD

        At last, now we should have our best chance to see if there’s any real life in it (assuming as you say, O1-2 is over 5V with no extrenal bias). I think if it can’t generate serious power now it’s unlikely to ever do so.

        • DrD

          I think it should be ok at 5.59V, you may recal we had this very discussion on Sunday. I was unhappy to suggest using a lower R to give lots of current to “drag” it up to this voltage due to the risk of damage. I’m pleased to see Frank did it but now it’s a waiting game — did it work or was it more damaged?
          BTW what did you mean by “only time you have used a DC power source”? We’ve used 9V batteries and USB charger quite a few times, they’re both DC?

          • FC

            I meant a USB or plug-in-the-wall power source, as opposed to batteries. But you are right, it’s been used before. It’s only that the last time we noticed a voltage difference with and without the bias. Sorry about that.

          • DrD

            No Prob. I suppose the USB charger could be different in some way, like it might have an ac component.

      • Frank Acland

        No, it started to drop fairly rapidly when I took the circuit off. I left it with a 1M Ohm resistor on overnight and it dropped to just under 5V. Now with 220 Ohm back on it is still dropping a bit.

        • FC

          Thank you, Frank. Yes, I see what you mean. And now it doesn’t seem to want to go up above 5V.

          But immediately after removing the bias, was the reading the same as it was with the bias? Or was there an appreciable drop the very moment you disconnected the bias?

          • Frank Acland

            From the moment I took the circuit off, it started dropping quite rapidly from 5.59 V. I put the 1 M Ohm resistor on right away and left it overnight.

      • Ged

        Wow, it actually broke through! Doesn’t seem happy though. Fascinating.

  • FC

    That’s a fair analysis of the situation. And I think that a lot of people around here think just like you do.

    I substantially agree with you as well, except maybe in the hidden battery hypothesis, which to me seems implausible after having observed the ocube undergo several instantaneous shorts to ~0V and two voltage spikes during unassisted recovery. Also, I believe that having a hidden battery would have simplified this device’s behavior and make it work a lot better than it does. But I don’t discard any possibility.

    As to machining out the case and the resin, ultimately it’s Frank’s decision. These test devices are his, and only he has the right to decide what to do with them. Personally, I will support him in whatever decision he makes.

    • DrD

      Once you de-assemble it though, you can say goodbye to expecting it to work as designed, so it’s a last resort. One reason is that it’s proper functionality relies on the main electret being inside the field produced by the primary. This physical relation ship will probably be destroyed or altered

      • FC

        Agreed, there risks involved in this approach.

        • Alex Fenrick

          I definitely agree there are risks with this approach…probably the highest risk of any approach to take in this context….but I think we may just be at that point where nothing of any substance can be drawn out of this black box short of physical analysis. Just a perspective to consider.

          • FC

            Agreed. We may have reached that point where taking some risks is the only way forward. Personally, I would run a few more discharge tests on this unit (with the right resistors 🙂 ) and then start machining out the controller chip from this unit (the ocube is a lot harder to work on). Then, I would check if the cores work better without the chip, because we may be surprised and may not need to drill anymore after that.

  • Frank Acland

    I’m trying to get the Orbo pack as close to the condition that we are told it is intended to be as possible. With my new 14 V DC power supply and a 220 Ohm resistor I was able to get it above 5.5 Volts yesterday — I think that is higher than the 5.2 Volts that it was originally shipped as. So I replaced the 220 Ohm resistor with a 1 MOhm and left it overnight. This morning it was at 4.96 Volts. So I just put on the 220 Ohm again. If we hit 5.2 again I’ll put on a higher resistance and see if we can reach an equilibrium so we can hold at around 5.2 V with as high a resistance as possible.

    I’m in and out today so may not be able to attend to the orbo as much as I would like.

    • DrD

      That is strange (yet again). Why would it fall with 220Ohms instead of 1Meg when yesterday it pulled it up to 5.59V! It couldn’t be reversed or bad connection?

      • Frank Acland

        Certainly it’s not reversed, and I’ve just double checked the connection and it seems fine. It might be one of those instances where the voltage increases step-wise suddenly. I’m just going to leave the 220 Ohm on for the day and see what happens.

        • DrD

          Right, It was worth checking, I agree, such ilogical events seem the norm for Orbo.

    • Ged

      Very interesting, Frank. If this is a new state in the core, it is not stable at all, like supercoiling a phone cord. So bizarre. How could Steorn ever expect these things to hold at 5.2V.

      • DrD

        They said they have a double cell (two in series). That should generate over 5V shouldn’t it?

        • Frank Acland

          The terminology needs to be clarified. Shaun told me this unit has 1 full cell (reference side) and a half cell (primary side), but that in fact each full cell is made up of two “half” cells in series.

          • DrD

            Yes, sorry, I should be more careful about the terminolgy. I took it to mean that a full cell is two electrets in series to give >5V? which is O1-2 (ref cell output). but I agree, it could benefit from clarification. I didnt like they use of “primary” either I think I may have used the wrong terminolgy on that one a few times..

          • Olof

            McCarthy said on his video, that the electret-cell voltage will double if the cell active surface area doubles. So two cells in parallel doubles the voltage?

          • FC

            I think that two cells in parallel output twice the current of one cell. Two cells in series have twice the voltage.

          • FC

            But on second thought, it may be the other way around. That’s a good question to ask Shaun, although it doesn’t affect our tests.

        • Ged

          Depending on what the resting point of a single cell is, but seems so! At least after some major pushing by Frank, yet not so stable.

  • Marcus W

    Keeping my fingers crossed. I appreciate your work and your daily reports. What could be the origin of the voltage drop ?

  • Marcus W

    Keeping my fingers crossed. I appreciate your work and your daily reports. What could be the origin of the voltage drop ?

  • Ged

    The voltage across the cell is the internal resistance of the polymer. But we have already seen that a high voltage, low current bias circuit attached to the core electrodes greatly enhances the core’s recharging and output properties. This is empirical data, and supports at least that part of what Steorn claims about that.

    David is not right, or just doesn’t understand the discussion and is on about something else. And he has no excuse for insulting Frank.

    By the way, the answer to my question is 9 volts. Because if you measure across a circuit element, such as the Orbo core, rather than the circuit end to end, you see that element. No matter how many batteries you string together, each one is individually still 9 V. The internal Orbo core voltage is no different, but the rate it grows in voltage, or stores energy, is greatly affected by the overall bias circuit voltage it is exposed to (even with amps extremely low from high uhm resistors), so we see.

    • davidbyrden

      >> “voltage across the cell is the internal resistance of the polymer”

      Voltage and resistance are two different kinds of physical property. You might as well say that speed is distance. Obviously they are related, but they are not the same kind of thing.

      >> “the rate it grows in voltage, or stores energy, is greatly affected by the overall bias circuit voltage it is exposed to”

      No, no, no. You don’t understand electricity. Let me explain.

      If you conceal an electric circuit behind a wall, and you have only two terminals coming through the wall, then you can measure only:
      – the voltage
      – the current
      You can’t get ANY more information about what’s behind the wall.

      The power cell, INSIDE the Ocube, knows ONLY about the terminals O1-O2. It is NOT exposed to 9V or 36V, it doesn’t “feel” them, even if they are responsible for creating the 4V on the terminals.

      Since the terminal voltage did not change, then the electric field INSIDE THE POWER CELL did not change.

      • Ged

        We do see the voltage of O1-O2 change, much faster than the input from the bias, if you look at the sheet. It doesn’t happen instantaneously as this is an element not a pass through wire, but is slowest when near it’s preferred voltage around 4V, as it becomes highly resistant to change at that point. So you are demonstrateably wrong, unless you are trying to say something completely unrelated?

        The Orbo core isn’t some pass through wire, it’s more akin to a capacitor, though one that grows in capacitance with voltage. The dipoles are affected by voltage applied to the electrode plates which align said dipoles–and the plates most certainly experience the voltage of the bias circuit, unless you claim to be able to touch high voltage circuits without a worry. Frank was repeating Steorn in that quote, and so far on this one point Steorn has been correct in our testing. So I have no idea what you are even going on about any more in relation to the discussion here.

        • davidbyrden

          I am going on about the change that Mr. Acland made on March 13, with the intent of exposing the Orbo to a “high voltage field”.
          As the video shows, he applied four batteries in series with a 1M resistor to the terminals O1-O2. The resistor was intended to limit the current; the batteries were intended to provide the “high voltage field” which would supposedly encourage the Orbo. The Orbo was, I understand, hidden within the device but accessible via the terminals O1-O2.

          Before AND after this change, the voltage on O1-O2 was close to 4 volts.

          Therefore I maintain that the Orbo device did not experience a “high voltage field”. It was exposed to 4 volts only – the spreadsheet says so.

          • Ged

            The core -produces- 4 V, as measured -without any bias circuit- attached. Is that what you misunderstood? That is the core’s output that is being measured. And if you look where the core is under 4 V and a bias is applied, the core is indeed ” reinvigorated”, and this is exactly as Steorn told Frank and he simply paraphrased for the upteenth time. Pushing to Over 4 V output requires higher current input, but under 4 V simply needs the high voltage–and it works for both this and the Ocube.

            You really need to read up on/watch all that has gone on (Google doc!) before you make ignorant judgments and attack Frank. If (and when) you calmly asked questions that is completely fine of course! But I’m really tired of all this presumptuousness.

  • Frank Acland

    Maybe we have equilibrium? With a 470k Ohm resistor, the voltage on o1-2 is holding and has actually risen a bit since I put the resistor on.

    • DrD

      Good thinking and it’s looking good, still appears to be creeping upwards with the 470k

      • Frank Acland

        Yes it still seems to be climbing.

  • Frank Acland

    Maybe we have equilibrium? With a 470k Ohm resistor, the voltage on o1-2 is holding and has actually risen a bit since I put the resistor on.

    • DrD

      Good thinking and it’s looking good, still appears to be creeping upwards with the 470k

      • Frank Acland

        Yes it still seems to be climbing.

  • Frank Acland

    I put a load on o3-o4 about half an hour ago — no drop in the o1-o2 voltage so far.

    • Frank Acland

      There’s been a load of 220 k Ohms on o3-4 for over an hour and a half now, and actually an increase in voltage on o1-2

      • Sanjeev

        Great!

        • DrD

          Secondthat, goodnews indeed.

      • Sanjeev

        0.13 mW in and 122 mW out.
        If you ignore the energy pumped in previously, this is how it should work ideally.

        • Frank Acland

          Yes. I’ve put a lot of energy in to get it up to these levels. But now we are at the operating levels where it was intended to be from the beginning.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like giving the reference a kick beyond 5.5V did the job.

      • Sanjeev

        Can you confirm if its 220k or only 220?
        I did the calc below with 220.

        • Frank Acland

          Good suggestion, Sanjeev — I checked and I had put in a 220 k Ohm resistor! Not my intention, but I will correct that on the spreadsheet

          • Sanjeev

            Ok, now it is
            0.13 mW in and 0.12 mW out.
            Now we know why O1O2 is rising. The net power is going in not out.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok, that makes sense. Now it’s time to change the resistance.

          • DrD

            Oh, what a shame, i was getting excited, just calculated a COP of 93,which of course is now <1. Oh well, lets see what we get with the new resisistors.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I’m sorry about that. We should get some data pretty soon with the 100 Ohm resistor though.

          • Sanjeev

            Luckily Frank wrote 220k in his comment, a discrepancy…

          • DrD

            Sanjeev,can you check that, I get 1.3mW in, 0.12mW out.

          • Sanjeev

            (13.06-5.19)^2/470 = 0.13 mW
            Its 470 k.

          • DrD

            a, right, sorry, my mistake, i read 47k. hmmm so easy to get it wrong. Well 0.13 is lot better than 1.3.

          • Sanjeev

            No problem. Yes, not bad, but its going up fast as O1O2 is dropping.
            Now the correlation of O1O2 to load can be clearly seen. The load is also draining the reference…. and there lies the root of all problems.

          • Frank Acland

            I think some drop on the reference is expected during a time of load, even under normal operations. From what Shaun has said I would not expect the 5.15 Volts to last for an hour with 100 Ohms on o3-4

          • DrD

            i think the big question must be “can it output the same as the input WITHOUT the ref cell depleting”

          • Frank Acland

            Ok the test is done for now with the loss of the 5.16 Volts on o3-4

            But there is a BIG correction I need to make. I just double checked the resistor on the input circuit and it was 470 Ohms — not 470k Ohms!!

            Yes I should be fired, but I’ve made the correction in the spreadsheet

          • DrD

            haaaaha, Never mind Frank, I’m sure we all agree your doing a great job.

          • DrD

            Just for the record
            The break point is 206 kOhm load with 470 kOhm bias (If my maths is
            correct)
            So if O1-2 is stable for a load = 206k or less we have a
            COP>1
            BUT if it was 470 not 470k, it’s not looking good.

          • Sanjeev

            Good that you checked.
            Anyway, the situation is not so good. We need a situation where the input is almost nil with output of at least few hundred mW. It may drop to 0 from time to time, but no issues if it jumps back in a reasonable duration.
            Without this, the test is a negative. We don’t really know if the device is faulty or this is its normal behavior. There is no way to check without access to a “working” device.

          • Omega Z

            I don’t know about being fired,

            I do think a raise is definitely out of the question tho.
            Perhaps even a pay cut…

          • Sanjeev

            What did he say exactly about the reference dropping under load?

          • DrD

            Yes, definitey it can’t sustain 98Ohms.

          • FC

            The current going through the bias circuit is:

            I = (13.06-5.19)/470 = 16.7 mA

            This current is the same at all points, because everything is in series.

            But the power (P = V*I) is different either side of the 470 Ohm resistor, because the voltage is different either side of the resistor (13.06V upstream versus 5.19V downstream).

            Therefore, I think that the power input is actually:

            P = 5.19*(13.06-5.19)/470 = 86.9 mW

          • Sanjeev

            For 470Ω it should be 132mW.
            I think only the voltage difference matters. Else I^2R will give a different value.

          • DrD

            Agree, (or V^2/R)

          • FC

            The power output from the DC source is:

            P1 = 13.06*(13.06-5.19)/470 = 218.7 mW

            The power dissipation across the resistor is:

            P2 = (13.06-5.19)^2/470 = 131.8 mW

            The power input to the seconday is:

            P3 = 5.19*(13.06-5.19)/470 = 86.9 mW

            As you can see P1 = P2 + P3, or:

            218.7 = 131.8 + 86.9

          • DrD

            Yes, definitely and for us, it is P3 (86.9mW) that matters.
            Apologies if my previous “agree” was missleading.
            Do we all agree?
            Output power is easier, just (5.17)^2/R.
            It’s so easy to get it wrong, especially doing it all in your head.
            It would be very helpful if Frank could add this to the spreadsheet. That is (Cols) as an auto calc of both input power and output power but I think we burdened Frank too much already. Does some one else have write access?

          • Sanjeev

            The power output of the source is simply the power consumed by the R + secondary (or reference) + internal R of the source.
            Reference cell is not a simple R, it has capacitance, so it has impedance not simple resistance. This is unknown. We assume that it simply stores the energy, does not consume it.
            Internal R of the power supply/battery is unknown, we simply assume it to be 0.

            For the purpose of energy accounting its best to assume the power source as a part of the device. If its a battery simply add its weight to the weight of the device. If its DC power supply then it must be metered at mains outlet because it will consume a lot of power itself (not practical for test, its only for troubleshooting).

          • FC

            “The power output of the source is simply the power consumed by the R + secondary (or reference) + internal R of the source.”

            I disagree. That’s the power consumption of the source, not its output. Its output can easily be calculated in this case from the voltage readings that we have and the known resistance of the resistor, as I did above.

            Regardless of whether the secondary is resistive of capacitive, do we agree that this circuit is in series? Do we agree that in a circuit in series the current is constant? Do we agree that the current can be calculated as the voltage drop across the resistor divided by the resistance? And do we agree that power equals voltage delta times current?

          • DrD

            Yes, that’s definitely correct. The only input power that’s relevant for our purposes is the power input to the ORBO itself and it is easy to calculate (Vo*I) where Vo is the voltage cross the ORBO input and I is known from I=Vr/R where Vr is the voltage across the resistor and R is its value. Just as you calculated.
            Yes the power from the source is not relevant since a large part of it is wasted as heat in the resistor it’s not stored at all, never gets any where near the orbo, well not within 5 cm.
            It’s irrelevant if its a capacitor, inductor or anything else as we must assume the worst case which is that it is ALL stored which I suppose means we have to assume it’s a perfect capacitor or battery or similar unknow storage device.

          • Sanjeev

            I can see that you are trying to isolate the power actually being fed into the reference cell. For the purpose of test its best to be conservative and assume the worst case scenario.
            Same reply to DrD, IMHO of course.

          • DrD

            Sorry to disagree Sanjeev.
            If the battery and resistor were hidden within and we had no access or proof of what they are then I would agree. However, in this case they are external and we have complete access so we don’t have to include the resistor losses in the audit. They are 100% wasted as heat and very clearly are not available to the ORBO for rejeneration of any kind. And as regards the capacitiance assumption, see my note below. We have to assume 100% efficient storage of that element of the bias power.

          • St. Patrick’s day is almost gone… did he appear to kick the Orbo or ???

        • JW

          🙂

  • Frank Acland

    I put a load on o3-o4 about half an hour ago — no drop in the o1-o2 voltage so far.

    • Frank Acland

      There’s been a load of 220 k Ohms on o3-4 for over an hour and a half now, and actually an increase in voltage on o1-2

      • Sanjeev

        Great!

        • DrD

          Second that, good news indeed.

      • Sanjeev

        0.13 mW in and 122 mW out.
        If you ignore the energy pumped in previously, this is how it should work ideally.
        Edit: corrected above. Only a small error of 1000 😀

        • Frank Acland

          Yes. I’ve put a lot of energy in to get it up to these levels. But now we are at the operating levels where it was intended to be from the beginning.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like giving the reference a kick beyond 5.5V did the job.

      • Sanjeev

        Can you confirm if its 220k or only 220?
        I did the calc below with 220.

        • Frank Acland

          Good suggestion, Sanjeev — I checked and I had put in a 220 k Ohm resistor! Not my intention, but I will correct that on the spreadsheet

          • Sanjeev

            Ok, now it is
            0.13 mW in and 0.12 mW out.
            Now we know why O1O2 is rising. The net power is going in not out.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok, that makes sense. Now it’s time to change the resistance.

          • DrD

            Oh, what a shame, i was getting excited, just calculated a COP of 93,which of course is now <1. Oh well, lets see what we get with the new resisistors.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I’m sorry about that. We should get some data pretty soon with the 100 Ohm resistor though.

          • Sanjeev

            Luckily Frank wrote 220k in his comment, a discrepancy…

          • DrD

            Sanjeev,can you check that, I get 1.3mW in, 0.12mW out.

          • Sanjeev

            (13.06-5.19)^2/470 = 0.13 mW
            Its 470 k.

          • DrD

            a, right, sorry, my mistake, i read 47k. hmmm so easy to get it wrong. Well 0.13 is lot better than 1.3.

          • Sanjeev

            No problem. Yes, not bad, but its going up fast as O1O2 is dropping.
            Now the correlation of O1O2 to load can be clearly seen. The load is also draining the reference…. and there lies the root of all problems.

          • Frank Acland

            I think some drop on the reference is expected during a time of load, even under normal operations. From what Shaun has said I would not expect the 5.15 Volts to last for an hour with 100 Ohms on o3-4

          • DrD

            i think the big question must be “can it output the same as the input WITHOUT the ref cell depleting”

          • Frank Acland

            Ok the test is done for now with the loss of the 5.16 Volts on o3-4

            But there is a BIG correction I need to make. I just double checked the resistor on the input circuit and it was 470 Ohms — not 470k Ohms!!

            Yes I should be fired, but I’ve made the correction in the spreadsheet

          • DrD

            haaaaha, Never mind Frank, I’m sure we all agree your doing a great job.

          • DrD

            Just for the record
            The break point is 206 kOhm load with 470 kOhm bias (If my maths is
            correct)
            So if O1-2 is stable for a load = 206k or less we have a
            COP>1
            BUT if it was 470 not 470k, it’s not looking good.

          • Sanjeev

            Good that you checked.
            Anyway, the situation is not so good. We need a situation where the input is almost nil with output of at least few hundred mW. It may drop to 0 from time to time, but no issues if it jumps back in a reasonable duration.
            Without this, the test is a negative. We don’t really know if the device is faulty or this is its normal behavior. There is no way to check without access to a “working” device.

          • Omega Z

            I don’t know about being fired,

            I do think a raise is definitely out of the question tho.
            Perhaps even a pay cut…

          • Sanjeev

            What did he say exactly about the reference dropping under load?

          • DrD

            Yes, definitey it can’t sustain 98Ohms.

          • FC

            The current going through the bias circuit is:

            I = (13.06-5.19)/470 = 16.7 mA

            This current is the same at all points, because everything is in series.

            But the power (P = V*I) is different either side of the 470 Ohm resistor, because the voltage is different either side of the resistor (13.06V upstream versus 5.19V downstream).

            Therefore, I think that the power input is actually:

            P = 5.19*(13.06-5.19)/470 = 86.9 mW

          • Sanjeev

            For 470Ω it should be 132mW.
            I think only the voltage difference matters. Else I^2R will give a different value.

          • DrD

            Agree, ( V^2/R)

          • FC

            The power output from the DC source is:

            P1 = 13.06*(13.06-5.19)/470 = 218.7 mW

            The power dissipation across the resistor is:

            P2 = (13.06-5.19)^2/470 = 131.8 mW

            The power input to the seconday is:

            P3 = 5.19*(13.06-5.19)/470 = 86.9 mW

            As you can see P1 = P2 + P3, or:

            218.7 = 131.8 + 86.9

          • DrD

            Yes, definitely and for us, it is P3 (86.9mW) that matters.
            Apologies if my previous “agree” was missleading.
            Do we all agree?
            Output power is easier, just (5.17)^2/R.
            It’s so easy to get it wrong, especially doing it all in your head.
            It would be very helpful if Frank could add this to the spreadsheet. That is (Cols) as an auto calc of both input power and output power but I think we burdened Frank too much already. Does some one else have write access?

          • Sanjeev

            The power output of the source is simply the power consumed by the R + secondary (or reference) + internal R of the source.
            Reference cell is not a simple R, it has capacitance, so it has impedance not simple resistance. This is unknown. We assume that it simply stores the energy, does not consume it.
            Internal R of the power supply/battery is unknown, we simply assume it to be 0.

            For the purpose of energy accounting its best to assume the power source as a part of the device. If its a battery simply add its weight to the weight of the device. If its DC power supply then it must be metered at mains outlet because it will consume a lot of power itself (not practical for test, its only for troubleshooting).

          • FC

            “The power output of the source is simply the power consumed by the R + secondary (or reference) + internal R of the source.”

            I disagree. That’s the power consumption of the source, not its output. Its output can easily be calculated in this case from the voltage readings that we have and the known resistance of the resistor, as I did above.

            Regardless of whether the secondary is resistive of capacitive, do we agree that this circuit is in series? Do we agree that in a circuit in series the current is constant? Do we agree that the current can be calculated as the voltage drop across the resistor divided by the resistance? And do we agree that power equals voltage delta times current?

          • DrD

            Yes, that’s definitely correct. The only input power that’s relevant for our purposes is the power input to the ORBO itself and it is easy to calculate (Vo*I) where Vo is the voltage cross the ORBO input and I is known from I=Vr/R where Vr is the voltage across the resistor and R is its value. Just as you calculated.
            Yes the power from the source is not relevant since a large part of it is wasted as heat in the resistor it’s not stored at all, never gets any where near the orbo, well not within 5 cm.
            It’s irrelevant if its a capacitor, inductor or anything else as we must assume the worst case which is that it is ALL stored which I suppose means we have to assume it’s a perfect capacitor or battery or similar unknow storage device.

          • Sanjeev

            I can see that you are trying to isolate the power actually being fed into the reference cell. For the purpose of test its best to be conservative and assume the worst case scenario.
            Same reply to DrD, IMHO of course.

          • DrD

            Sorry to disagree Sanjeev.
            If the battery and resistor were hidden within and we had no access or proof of what they are then I would agree. However, in this case they are external and we have complete access so we don’t have to include the resistor losses in the audit. They are 100% wasted as heat and very clearly are not available to the ORBO for rejeneration of any kind. And as regards the capacitiance assumption, see my note below. We have to assume 100% efficient storage of that element of the bias power.

  • JW

    🙂

  • I want to say thank you to Frank and everybody else who keeps trying with this, despite the remarkable level of incompetence shown by the dudes working at Steorn. They should be HARSHLY criticized for their TERRIBLE handling of things, but many don’t seem to realize that that is a separate question from the question of whether or not the Steorn clowns really have stumbled upon a real effect that really does work the way that they say that it works. Once again, thanks for continuing to try.

    • georgehants

      Wonderful genuine scientific work unlike the halfwits that deny and debunk on opinion alone, 95% of science does not have the wits to Research anything beyond Dogma.
      As said, the onus now lies entirely with Mr. Steorn to take action to allow ECW to again further scientifically test his device.
      Still an open-mind is essential to any further devices he passes to ECW for testing.
      Science never ends, a failure is just one step on a path to the Truth
      ——–
      I imagined in the beginning, that a few experiments would determine the
      problem; but experience soon convinced me, that a very great number
      indeed were necessary before such an art could be brought to any
      tolerable degree of perfection.”
      — Elizabeth Fulhame

  • I want to say thank you to Frank and everybody else who keeps trying with this, despite the remarkable level of incompetence shown by the dudes working at Steorn. They should be HARSHLY criticized for their TERRIBLE handling of things, but many don’t seem to realize that that is a separate question from the question of whether or not the Steorn clowns really have stumbled upon a real effect that really does work the way that they say that it works. Once again, thanks for continuing to try.

    • Alex Fenrick

      Great perspective Mark…the only thing I would add is that thus far (unless I am missing something in all data) we are pretty much seeing a resounding NO to the answer as to whether Steorn has stumbled upon a real effect that does work the way they say that it works. We have some brilliant guys working here to make completely sure that is the case…but so far I do not see anything hopeful anymore. That being said…I do fully support Frank and team in continuing this quest as long as they see fit. It has been an interesting study no matter what we are seeing now….should be interesting to see how Steorn navigates the waters this time…..

      • Mats002

        Agree 100% !

      • Thanks, but I don’t agree. I do not think that this is a case where absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We may be able to prove that a lot of the devices that Steorn has put onto the market don’t work as intended, but I do not believe that that proves that The Orbo Effect is not real. Some of their other phones and Ocubes may still work.

        • Alex Fenrick

          Mark…I am curious then what it would take for you to come to the conclusion that the effect does not work as we have zero proof of even a single Orbo or Ocube working to date. I understand your logic there but it seems like you have created a logic loop that never allows you to come to a conclusion of effect failure. I think at some point we MUST take the complete failure of the tests, fact of zero documented known working devices and combine it with the track record of 20+ years of non-evidence and test and trial failures by Steorn into consideration. I am just curious if you have a mental benchmark on both sides. Please do take that as an attack on your view….just would love to get your perspective.

          • Hmm…I don’t really agree with some of the points that you made, but I won’t focus on that. I will say that I do agree with the point about how we have to take their failures into account, and I am. I don’t really know what, exactly, the rules are in my mind as to exactly what the sets of possible circumstances must be for me to disbelieve, and even if I did know what they were, it would probably be too complicated for me to explain on a comments section like this. Let me say this, though: I wish we would all stop using absolute-sounding words like “proof.” I know of no way to get absolute proof of anything. For me to believe that The Orbo Effect is probably not real would require me to believe that it is more likely than not that The Orbo Effect is not real. Sounds kinda tautological, right? Well, right now I think that the most likely possibility that I can think of is that of incompetence compounded by a lack of understanding of The Orbo Effect. Failures – even with a ton of them – don’t make it a whole lot more likely, in my mind, that the effect is not real. I have seen a lot of times, in history, when there have been bazillions of failures – and then success, in the end.

          • Alex Fenrick

            I absolutely respect your perspective there while it still completely baffles me from a logic stand point. In all aspects of life there has to be a point where a logical mind does in fact have a switch that says….”okay this is not fact”. I am not claiming to know 100% that the Orbo effect is not real…but I do point out there so far all we do have is 100% evidence and observation of failure. When you look at this from a macro perspective…you have 20 years of work surrounded in questionable business handlings and tactics compounded by the core issue of not having a single shred of evidence of operation in that 20 years. I understand your quest for an open mind…in fact I applaud it….I just think there has to be a high water mark where we all “call a spade a spade”. I have been following Steorn since the absolute day one like others here and got excited for the prospect of operation when I heard they were releasing products. I just feel after reading all this great work here…I am almost at that water mark…very very close in fact. Again please don’t take this as an attack on your perspective…..I just think its good for us to discuss this side of Steorn/Orbo in a fair respectful way.

          • Well, I do believe that it is possible, at least theoretically, to get me to the point that I would say that The Orbo Effect is PROBABLY not real. That would be as high as my water-mark would go.

            Anyway, I’m with you on the respectful discussion thing. Too often internet discussions are anything but respectful. Let me give you some advice: it can come across as disrespectful to say things like, “there is no evidence.” I think that, in a discussion like this, whether or not there is evidence or reasoning in favor of a claim, what should and should not count as reasoning or evidence, how strong that reasoning or evidence is, how strong the reasoning or evidence should be before it auses a reasonable person to change his mind – these are all things that should be up for discussion. Though you may not have intended any harm, I can’t say that I like it when I see people saying things like, “there is no evidence.” Perhaps, in the future, you could try asking the other side something like, “Do you agree that there is no evidence in favor of statement A?”

          • Alex Fenrick

            Ahh yes it is almost impossible to find a respectful discussion online in 2016…oh how I miss the days of BBSes before the Web haha!! I absolutely will take your suggestion to heart…I am always looking for ways to hone my discussion skills..and that is a good suggestion.

            I will however offer you some relative advice in return that I feel is just as important in this context. When one holds a long-term or worse yet permanent “soft high water mark” after exhaustive research and consideration of a decade of analysis (for example), as I think we could both agree by your emphatic addition of PROBABLY..one is often left open to the fair criticism of staying in the convenient safe middle lane. I believe it can be VERY difficult to obtain rock solid science living in that middle lane. I feel that while keeping an open mind during research…a balanced research methodology also must include closure and finding when applicable, especially after exhaustive logical analysis. I feel this type of perspective is not much different than the following: <<<>>> By the same logic you have applied to Orbo…one could say that even though ALL signs point to the fact that Santa does not fly a sleigh…there is a possibility he is real and flies. I know this is a bit of a silly comparison, but the logic is the same. For genuine science, there has to be a point where one does finally make a judgement when they are left with nothing to dispute that judgement other than hope and base a solid view on the presented research and evidence or lack thereof. Just a friendly perspective I have built over years of research.

          • I hear what you’re saying about the difficulty of getting rock solid evidence being in the middle lane that I’m in. I also understand how that, and other things, can make this middle lane of mine unattractive. Most of us, I think, like absolute certainty if we can get it. However, I have come to the conclusion that I know of no way that absolute certainty is possible – perhaps that also means that rock solid evidence is not possible, or, at least, difficult. For me it is about levels of confidence, and I’ve gotten used to being here, in the middle. I am more confident that Santa does not exist than I am about Steorn, though. I’m at, like, 99.9999999999%, or somewhere around there, with Santa. Still, even that is PROBABLY for me. There’s always that microscopic chance that he’s out there, somewhere…

            Anyway, I’ll think more about what you said.

    • georgehants

      Wonderful genuine scientific work unlike the halfwits that deny and debunk on opinion alone, 95% of science does not have the wits to Research anything beyond Dogma.
      As said, the onus now lies entirely with Mr. Steorn to take action to allow ECW to again further scientifically test his device.
      Still an open-mind is essential to any further devices he passes to ECW for testing.
      Science never ends, a failure is just one step on a path to the Truth
      ——–
      I imagined in the beginning, that a few experiments would determine the
      problem; but experience soon convinced me, that a very great number
      indeed were necessary before such an art could be brought to any
      tolerable degree of perfection.”
      — Elizabeth Fulhame

  • Mats002

    Agree 100% !

  • davidbyrden

    There are lessons to be learned here.
    Take the Orbo Facebook page, for example. After asking a single, polite but awkward question there, I was banned from it. But I can still read it.
    It claims that 400,000 people “like” the page, and 26 thousand people are “talking about” it.
    We can learn lessons about the possibility of “gaming” Facebook, the reliability of statistics collected by Facebook, and indeed the wisdom of holding shares in Facebook.

    • Matt

      As I wrote before, more than 95% of the likes are bought from Pakistan, India and so on. And the curve keeps climbing steeply, about 20.000 likes more every month. Do they think the number of likes helps their credibility? I would say the opposite is the case, it just looks ridiculous. Besides from that, they dont update the page anymore and the OGirls seem to be history.

    • Alex Fenrick

      You guys are also aware that Facebook “likes” can essentially be cheaply purchased too. Super shady tactic…but there are many companies that do it….and its cheap. I have seen rates of about $5.00 per 1000 likes. It is mostly done in underdeveloped countries in computer cafes…but even a 9yr old kid can do it if they have a way to bump around IP addresses. The whole “likes” situation over ALL of social media is out of hand…especially with things like Youtube where people actually get paid large sums of money for large “like” numbers.

  • FC

    First of all, Happy St Patrick’s day to the Irish among us.

    The ophone test device doesn’t seem to like it very much being above 5V, even after spending the night plugged to a ~18 mW input. Looking forward to seeing some discharge tests today.

    It would be nice to get a reading from the ocube as well, since by now, it has probably output more energy than it received in the previous charge cycle.

    • Frank Acland

      I just put a 220 Ohm resistor on 03-4, and I measured the ocube still with the 4.7 resistor on — now it’s reading 1.051 V

      • FC

        Thanks, Frank.

        I’m surprised by the ocube. It is performing much worse than a battery.

  • FC

    First of all, Happy St Patrick’s day to the Irish among us.

    The ophone test device doesn’t seem to like it very much being above 5V, even after spending the night plugged to a ~18 mW input. Looking forward to seeing some discharge tests today.

    It would be nice to get a reading from the ocube as well, since by now, it has probably output more energy than it received in the previous charge cycle.

    • Frank Acland

      I just put a 220 Ohm resistor on 03-4, and I measured the ocube still with the 4.7 resistor on — now it’s reading 1.051 V

      • FC

        Thanks, Frank.

        I’m surprised by the ocube. It is performing much worse than a battery.

  • DrD

    Right now, it’s outputting 120mW
    Input going into the ORBO is 20mW
    It’s not clear yet whether the input ref V is stable but it did fall initially.
    Including the power wasted in the resistor we are consuming 53mW but the extra 33 mW is not going into the OCUBe and that loss could in theory be eliminated.

    • FC

      The primary is starting to falter now. It has output in the order of 100 mWh. Not very impressive, but not too bad either.

      • DrD

        Yes, so it is — quite noticeably.
        I would have favoured using 1.3K on the load. That way,
        output power = input power (COP=1)
        If it can’t maintain stable ref voltage at those setting for say 24 hours then were wasting our time (unless further conditioning can help).

        • FC

          Good idea.

          I would also be tempted to let O1-O2 recuperate to around 5.15V, which it seems to like, and then feed it from O3-O4 (5.16V) through a 2.5 Ohm resistor so that the input power is about the same as now. But this feedback loop is dangerous. We may blow something inside the device if it goes into resonance.

          • DrD

            I also took it forgranted we need O1-2 back upto about 5.2V before starting a new test.

            hmmm yes, a very interesting idea you have there. Very interesting indeed.
            I wonder if Frank followed that.

          • FC

            Sorry, the resistor would have to be 0.005 Ohm, if I’m not mistaken again.

            Yes, let’s see what Frank thinks.

          • DrD

            Yes, that would be the tricky bit, your trying to bias something at almost the same potential. you don’t want to sink too much current OR not enough.
            Have to leave now.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I follow. I’ll have to think on it.

          • davidbyrden

            Resonance? Seriously? In a DC circuit?

            Did you use the wrong word there?

          • FC

            The DC current in this circuit is highly transient due to the fact that, apparently, it has a two orbo cores interacting with each other by means of their variable electric fields. Furthermore, the output from one of them is converted through a controller chip that has a cutoff voltage. Our data supports this transient behavior.

            Therefore, it is possible that oscillations in the current and/or the cores’ electric fields may end up being reinforced by the feedback loop through resonance.

          • DrD

            Yes, youre correct FC, it’s a classic feedback loop with possible oscillation. I wouldn’t worry though. In anycase the time constant is so large it probably can’t achieve the required phase shift.

  • DrD

    Right now, it’s outputting 120mW
    Input going into the ORBO is 20mW
    It’s not clear yet whether the input ref V is stable but it did fall initially.
    Including the power wasted in the resistor we are consuming 53mW but the extra 33 mW is not going into the OCUBe and that loss could in theory be eliminated.

    • FC

      The primary is starting to falter now. It has output in the order of 100 mWh. Not very impressive, but not too bad either.

      • DrD

        Yes, so it is — quite noticeably.
        I would have favoured using 1.3K on the load. That way,
        output power = input power (COP=1)
        If it can’t maintain stable ref voltage at those setting for say 24 hours then were wasting our time (unless further conditioning can help).

        • FC

          Good idea.

          I would also be tempted to let O1-O2 recuperate to around 5.15V, which it seems to like, and then feed it from O3-O4 (5.16V) through a 2.5 Ohm resistor so that the input power is about the same as now. But this feedback loop is dangerous. We may blow something inside the device if it goes into resonance.

          • DrD

            I also took it forgranted we need O1-2 back upto about 5.2V before starting a new test.

            hmmm yes, a very interesting idea you have there. Very interesting indeed.
            I wonder if Frank followed that.

          • FC

            Sorry, the resistor would have to be 0.005 Ohm, if I’m not mistaken again.

            Yes, let’s see what Frank thinks.

          • DrD

            Yes, that would be the tricky bit, your trying to bias something at almost the same potential. you don’t want to sink too much current OR not enough.
            Have to leave now.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I follow. I’ll have to think on it.

          • davidbyrden

            Resonance? Seriously? In a DC circuit?

            Did you use the wrong word there?

          • FC

            The DC current in this circuit is highly transient due to the fact that, apparently, it has a two orbo cores interacting with each other by means of their variable electric fields. Furthermore, the output from one of them is converted through a controller chip that has a cutoff voltage. Our data supports this transient behavior.

            Therefore, it is possible that oscillations in the current and/or the cores’ electric fields may end up being reinforced by the feedback loop through resonance.

          • DrD

            Yes, you’re quite correct FC, it’s a classic feedback loop with possible oscillation. I wouldn’t worry though. In anycase the time constant is so large it probably can’t achieve the phase shift.

        • Alex Fenrick

          I agree DrD….you are dancing on the razor edge there with no real reference. I think the bias window is too small.

  • Ged

    You didn’t read a single thing. How can we communicate with you or have you participate when you fail to engage with even the basic points of the work?

    Regardless of the voltage of the bias, the core can only physically rise to output a certain voltage, no different than those 9V batteries or a capacitor in that regard. Once at 4 V, the core cannot physically change much more as to rise in voltage, not without increased current. But below 4 V it can and does. All your points are immaterial and pointless.

    • davidbyrden

      Ged; do you believe that the core was exposed to a significantly higher electric field, when the extra batteries were added on March 13?

      • Ged

        Let’s do this exactingly.

        When Frank attaches a bias circuit with four serial 9 volt batteries, this means that the difference between terminals is now 36V based on that circuit alone. As the Orbo core is basically two parallel plate conductors (with a dipole polymer acting almost, but not exactly, like a dialectric sandwiched bewteen), where one plate is now 36V different than the other due to the bias circuit alone, the equation for the electric field is Ed = Fd/q = W/q = delta V, where E is the field strength (units: N/C), d is the distance between the plates (units: m), F is force (units: N), q is charge (units: C), W is energy (units: Joules), delta is difference (unitless), and V is volts (units: volts). Delta we know to be 36 V +- the internal voltage difference between the plates caused by the polymer depending on polarity and the degree of alignment of dipoles in the polymer.

        So yes, by mathematical definition, the core must have experienced a higher field.

        When Frank measures the core by taking the circuit off and inserting his multimeter electrodes, and records that value, we see it is around 4 V during the event period in question, which is a measure of the charge separation caused by the aligned polymer. That gives us 40 V experienced between the two plates if the polarity is correct, while the bias circuit is attached. As we don’t know distance between the plates, we can’t directly calculate the field strength, unfortunately, though reasonable guesses could be made.

        Once the polymer is aligned, it’s hard to align it -more-, though we don’t know it’s true 100% alignment point (saturation point), but approaching the point would cause an increasing resistance of the polymer to continued positive alignment change, according to the mechanistic model, which we would see as the internal voltage not increasing measurably when exposed to the same level of bias voltage, and indeed much more work/force would have to be applied to push it to a higher charge value between the plates, and thus voltage, near that threshold.

  • Thanks, but I don’t agree. I do not think that this is a case where absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We may be able to prove that a lot of the devices that Steorn has put onto the market don’t work as intended, but I do not believe that that proves that The Orbo Effect is not real. Some of their other phones and Ocubes may still work.

    • Alex Fenrick

      Mark…I am curious then what it would take for you to come to the conclusion that the effect does not work as we have zero proof of even a single Orbo or Ocube working to date. I understand your logic there but it seems like you have created a logic loop that never allows you to come to a conclusion of effect failure. I think at some point we MUST take the complete failure of the tests, fact of zero documented known working devices and combine it with the track record of 20+ years of non-evidence and test and trial failures by Steorn into consideration. I am just curious if you have a mental benchmark on both sides. Please do take that as an attack on your view….just would love to get your perspective.

      • Hmm…I don’t really agree with some of the points that you made, but I won’t focus on that. I will say that I do agree with the point about how we have to take their failures into account, and I am. I don’t really know what, exactly, the rules are in my mind as to exactly what the sets of possible circumstances must be for me to disbelieve, and even if I did know what they were, it would probably be too complicated for me to explain on a comments section like this. Let me say this, though: I wish we would all stop using absolute-sounding words like “proof.” I know of no way to get absolute proof of anything. For me to believe that The Orbo Effect is probably not real would require me to believe that it is more likely than not that The Orbo Effect is not real. Sounds kinda tautological, right? Well, right now I think that the most likely possibility that I can think of is that of incompetence compounded by a lack of understanding of The Orbo Effect. Failures – even with a ton of them – don’t make it a whole lot more likely, in my mind, that the effect is not real. I have seen a lot of times, in history, when there have been bazillions of failures – and then success, in the end.

  • For a fraction of the cost of the Orbo Frank could buy an e-cat from ‘lookingforheat’ and create a new channel of test results 🙂

  • For a fraction of the cost of the Orbo Frank could buy an e-cat from ‘lookingforheat’ and create a new channel of test results 🙂

  • St. Patrick’s day is almost gone… did he appear to kick the Orbo or ???

  • Frank Acland

    Obove is a video that shows an experiment to see what happens if you feed the Orbo into itself.

    • FC

      Thank you, Frank.

      Basically, the secondary loses charge very quickly when fed by the primary through the controller chip, and bounces back when disconnected.

      The power input seems reasonable, highly variable, but in the order of 40 mW. So that shouldn’t be the problem. What may be a problem is the power output from the primary necessary to feed the controller chip and the secondary through a 100 Ohm resistor. That power demand on the primary may be discharging it and, in turn, dragging down the secondary via field interaction.

      It would be interesting to see at what O1-O2 voltage the controller chip cuts off.

      • FC

        Going back to the power demand on the primary, it is well within the limits of prior tests, where we have been extracting 100 mW net continuously for more than an hour. So there must some other interaction going on to explain the rapid drop in voltage of the secondary.

        We need to think about this some more. 🙂

        • Frank Acland

          Before I did the video, I noticed that when I put the wire between o1 and o4 that the voltage dropped rapidly on o1-2, even without the resistor attached to o2-3

          • FC

            Hmm, ok.

            Can you try the opposite? I mean, can you connect the resistor across O2-O3 without the wire between O1-O4 and see what happens?

          • Frank Acland

            Starting voltage was 4.68, after about 5 minutes it is 4.61

          • FC

            Hmm, ok.

            Can you carefully try the other cross options with the resistor (just in case)? That is, O1-O3 and O2-O4?

          • Ged

            Crossing the streams? I thought Ghostbusters taught you better ;).

          • FC

            We have done it before, feeding the bias with the wrong polarity. I’m just curious what will happen in this case, since there seems to be a connection between the cores. 🙂

          • FC

            Frank, are you still alive?
            I hope you didn’t suffer an accident following my suggestion.

          • Frank Acland

            No I’m fine. What did you want me to do next?

          • FC

            Glad to know.
            And I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to monopolize your time.
            I thought it would be interesting to see what happens if you carefully try the other cross options with a resistor (just in case). That is, O1-O3 and O2-O4.

          • Frank Acland

            No, it’s no problem, FC. I have the orbo right here. I put a 100 Ohm resistor on o1-o3. Starting voltage was about 4.1 and within about a minute it was at 2.9 V

          • FC

            Not surprisingly. 🙂
            Time for a charge? Or is O3-O4 still 5.17?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes it’s still at 5.17

          • Frank Acland

            And o1-2 has recovered to 3.85 so far.

          • FC

            Hmm. Interesting.
            So maybe you can try O2-O4 and get rid of me for a while. 😉

          • Frank Acland

            Sure. Starting voltages: o1-2=3.94; o3-4=5.17

            After 5 minutes: o1-2=3.56 (climbing); o3-4=0.057 V (falling)

          • FC

            Nothing strange there. We tripped the cutoff.
            Now we can give the device a good rest. It deserves it. 🙂

            Thank you very much, Frank.

          • Frank Acland

            No problem at all. I

            BTW now it’s o1-2 3.95; o3-4 5.17

          • Ged

            These are some really cool tests. Thank you FC for proposing them. Hm. What are they telling us… Where is all this energy going? Related to the mysterious leak?

          • FC

            I don’t know yet. 🙂

            But at least, now we now have more data to analyze and try to solve the puzzle.

          • DrD

            I think that suggest there is a connection between primary and secondary, despite what Shaun told us. In other words, you just completed a circuit by making a single connection, I think?
            Could this be by design or is it the fault?

          • DrD

            It might only be a single, GND (or common), connection in which case I think Shaun might justifiably say no connection though strictly speaking there is one — Just theorising.

          • Ged

            Hmm. It could explain alot.

        • DrD

          Yes, as I said last night before rushing away, it’s very tricky trying to bias one cell from an output which is at slightly above or even below the required potential and even worse because it will appear to be very low resistance (almost a short) if you overbias it even slightly. Now if we had a higher output V from the regulator, say 8V it would have been easier.
          You see O1-2 has a zener type characteristic such that if you try to force it’s voltage above it’s existing potential, all that happens in the short term is it just draws lots more current as if it’s a short circuit, refusing to let the voltage rise except very slowly, exactly as weve seen.
          Hope you followed that, I know what I meant Hehe.

          • FC

            Agreed.

            I suspect that Steorn can’t afford to hire anyone now. We will have to continue doing this pro bono. 🙂

          • georgehants

            Without loosing faith in anything, everything to do with Cold Fusion, new energy devices etc. seems to be jinxed with continual problems and obstacles.
            Please Mr. Rossi, lets soon have a clear proof that basic Cold Fusion is a resounding success.
            That I think will give everybody that enthusiasm to believe in anything and really reach for the stars regarding new energy.

          • R V

            Take a look at Brilliant Light Power also. You may be pleasantly surprised.

          • georgehants

            R V, yes thanks, potential is everywhere but In Mr. Rossi’s case the delay is by design, not as with MFMP for example, where they are struggling still to copy the secrets hidden like the crazy useless tons of gold in Fort Knox etc.

          • Alex Fenrick

            George, your first statement resonates so deeply with me. I have been striving my whole life, probably like almost everyone here, to find evidence or a shred of proof to support “new energy devices” or whatever contextual blanket we want to use for a moment…unfortunately with no success as of yet. The imaginative child in me wants so badly to believe…but that pesky logical science minded voice always yells “not so fast there kid”! lol There is a huge psychological aspect to all of these technologies that is fascinating in its own right. In my view, not one single alternate or “new” energy device has ever been outright proven to work in a controlled environment free of ridiculous obscure test conditions, questionable methodology and/or obvious failure. There is ALWAYS some magical reason the device works on the lab bench…but of course always fails when put to the test outside the lab. I think this genre of science or pseudo-science is the ultimate proverbial carrot-on-a-stick. Now I am not saying that is completely a bad thing as we MUST dream and continue to test science as we know it…but it is just that nonetheless. I haven’t lost faith yet, but I must admit that the track record for these such devices and concepts is really running out of runway. One can only cry wolf so many times before all cries fall upon deaf ears…especially the ears of brilliant minds. Just something to think about….

          • georgehants

            Alex, many thanks for such an honest and understandable reply.
            I can with equal honesty say, that if you wish the magic and wonder to be there then Research with the usual Honest, Unbiased, Open-Mind, subjects that reductionist science has through the strangeness of history avoided at all costs.
            Telepathy, Remote Viewing, UFO’s, The Placebo Effect, Savants, Hypnotism. NDE, OOBE, The Mind in General, Crop Circles, Etc. Etc. Etc.
            I will give one logical, rational example, look up the incredible complexity of a major crop circle, try and work out how it was made, answer why no abandoned attempts, where things have as always gone wrong and one is left with a half crop circle mess have been found, answer why a group of clever scientists do not prove their case by getting together and in a few hours on a dark night copy one of these amazing constructions.
            Research why Remote Viewers where awarded medals from the CIA.
            I now wait with you, for Mr. Rossi’s report, that for all our frustration I am willing, just like with Mr. Storns Orbo, to follow to the death in case an horrific mistake is made as with P&F.
            Best to you and many apologies to Frank and others if I have pulled this string away from it’s purpose.

          • FC

            Totally agreed, George.

    • Sanjeev

      To me it looks like from the rapid discharge of o1o2 that the black wire shorted a high resistance path through which the two cells are connected. This also explains why the reference cell discharges via load slowly but surely.
      I wonder how steorn failed to check that.

  • Frank Acland

    Above is a video that shows an experiment to see what happens if you feed the Orbo into itself.

    • FC

      Thank you, Frank.

      Basically, the secondary loses charge very quickly when fed by the primary through the controller chip, and bounces back when disconnected.

      The power input seems reasonable, highly variable, but in the order of 40 mW. So that shouldn’t be the problem. What may be a problem is the power output from the primary necessary to feed the controller chip and the secondary through a 100 Ohm resistor. That power demand on the primary may be discharging it and, in turn, dragging down the secondary via field interaction.

      It would be interesting to see at what O1-O2 voltage the controller chip cuts off.

      • FC

        Going back to the power demand on the primary, it is well within the limits of prior tests, where we have been extracting 100 mW net continuously for more than an hour. So there must some other interaction going on to explain the rapid drop in voltage of the secondary.

        We need to think about this some more. 🙂

        • Frank Acland

          Before I did the video, I noticed that when I put the wire between o1 and o4 that the voltage dropped rapidly on o1-2, even without the resistor attached to o2-3

          • FC

            Hmm, ok.

            Can you try the opposite? I mean, can you connect the resistor across O2-O3 without the wire between O1-O4 and see what happens?

          • Frank Acland

            Starting voltage was 4.68, after about 5 minutes it is 4.61

          • FC

            Hmm, ok.

            Can you carefully try the other cross options with the resistor (just in case)? That is, O1-O3 and O2-O4?

          • Ged

            Crossing the streams? I thought Ghostbusters taught you better ;).

          • FC

            We have done it before, feeding the bias with the wrong polarity. I’m just curious what will happen in this case, since there seems to be a connection between the cores. 🙂

          • FC

            Frank, are you still alive?
            I hope you didn’t suffer an accident following my suggestion.

          • Frank Acland

            No I’m fine. What did you want me to do next?

          • FC

            Glad to know.
            And I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to monopolize your time.
            I thought it would be interesting to see what happens if you carefully try the other cross options with a resistor (just in case). That is, O1-O3 and O2-O4.

          • Frank Acland

            No, it’s no problem, FC. I have the orbo right here. I put a 100 Ohm resistor on o1-o3. Starting voltage was about 4.1 and within about a minute it was at 2.9 V

          • FC

            Not surprisingly. 🙂
            Time for a charge? Or is O3-O4 still 5.17?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes it’s still at 5.17

          • Frank Acland

            And o1-2 has recovered to 3.85 so far.

          • FC

            Hmm. Interesting.
            So maybe you can try O2-O4 and get rid of me for a while. 😉

          • Frank Acland

            Sure. Starting voltages: o1-2=3.94; o3-4=5.17

            After 5 minutes: o1-2=3.56 (climbing); o3-4=0.057 V (falling)

          • FC

            Nothing strange there. We tripped the cutoff.
            Now we can give the device a good rest. It deserves it. 🙂

            Thank you very much, Frank.

          • Frank Acland

            No problem at all. I

            BTW now it’s o1-2 3.95; o3-4 5.17

          • Ged

            These are some really cool tests. Thank you FC for proposing them. Hm. What are they telling us… Where is all this energy going? Related to the mysterious leak?

          • FC

            I don’t know yet. 🙂

            But at least, now we now have more data to analyze and try to solve the puzzle.

          • DrD

            I think that suggest there is a connection between primary and secondary, despite what Shaun told us. In other words, you just completed a circuit by making a single connection, I think?
            Could this be by design or is it the fault?

          • DrD

            It might only be a single, GND (or common), connection in which case I think Shaun might justifiably say no connection though strictly speaking there is one — Just theorising.

          • Ged

            Hmm. It could explain alot.

          • cashmemorz

            If a ground, to the casing, then removing the case by machining may change the character of the circuit. Removing the case then becomes tricky. If grounded that way would have to find exact point in circuit the ground point(s) start.

        • DrD

          Yes, as I said last night before rushing away, it’s very tricky trying to bias one cell from an output which is at slightly above or even below the required potential and even worse because it will appear to be very low resistance (almost a short) if you overbias it even slightly.
          You see O1-2 has a zener type characteristic such that if you try to force it’s voltage above it’s existing potential, all that happens in the short term is it just draws lots more current as if it’s a short circuit, refusing to let the voltage rise except very slowly, exactly as weve seen.
          Hope you followed that, I know what I meant Hehe.
          Now if we had a higher output V from the regulator, say 8V it would have been easier, we could include a sensibly sized series resistor, to limit the current drain.
          Steorn should offer us all a contract lol.

          • FC

            Agreed.

            I suspect that Steorn can’t afford to hire anyone now. We will have to continue doing this pro bono. 🙂

    • Sanjeev

      To me it looks like from the rapid discharge of o1o2 that the black wire shorted a high resistance path through which the two cells are connected. This also explains why the reference cell discharges via load slowly but surely.
      I wonder how steorn failed to check that.

  • DrD

    I notice the Orbo didn’t stabilise.
    However, it did survive at least 7 days (possibly upto 12) whilst delivering a fairly constant 4.7mW with a mere 60uW coming from the ref batteries.
    A long way short of the 400mW claim though.
    I wonder if this more than was put into it previously.

    • FC

      I once calculated that we input around 0.9 Wh. And probably it has output no more than 0.7 Wh. So considering that we started charging it at an already high charge level (4.68V, if I remember correctly), and that it ended being depleted, this thing is definitely not a battery. 🙂

      I think that much of the energy that we input was dissipated on the spot, as the pack was already at its maximum order level and it couldn’t possibly accept any more charge.

      • DrD

        Agree completely. It’s not the scientific proof were looking for but it really does look as though somethings happening at a very low level (I mean nowhere near what a undamaged unit should should be).

      • DrD

        Actually, if it lasted 10 days (we don’t know exactly when it began to fall) it gave out over a kWhr

        • FC

          I suppose you mean a Wh, not kWh. (Remember it is outputting mW, not W).

          Yes, true. But we’ll never know for sure. 🙂

          • DrD

            aaaah I did it gain! I was driving home and suddenly realised my goof. I’ve edited it before any one else sees it I hope

  • DrD

    I notice the Ocube didn’t stabilise.
    However, it did survive at least 7 days (possibly upto 12) whilst delivering a fairly constant 4.7mW with a mere 60uW coming from the ref batteries.
    A long way short of the 400mW claim though.
    I wonder if this is more than was put into it previously.
    Edit:at least 6 days not 7days.

    • FC

      I once calculated that we input around 0.9 Wh. And probably it has output no more than 0.7 Wh. So considering that we started charging it at an already high charge level (4.68V, if I remember correctly), and that it ended being depleted, this thing is definitely not a battery. 🙂

      I think that much of the energy that we input was dissipated on the spot, as the pack was already at its maximum order level and it couldn’t possibly accept any more charge.

      • DrD

        Agree completely. It’s not the scientific proof were looking for but it really does look as though somethings happening at a very low level (I mean nowhere near what a undamaged unit should should be).

      • DrD

        Actually, if it lasted 10 days (we don’t know exactly when it began to fall) it gave out over a Wh

        • FC

          I suppose you mean a Wh, not kWh. (Remember it is outputting mW, not W).

          Yes, true. But we’ll never know for sure. 🙂

          • DrD

            aaaah I did it gain! I was driving home and suddenly realised my goof. I’ve edited it before any one else sees it I hope

  • FC

    I still think we should test DrD’s idea of setting the output power equal to the input power from a DC source, and see if this unit can at least sustain COP = 1.

    • FC

      For example, if the ~13V source is used with a 2.2k Ohm resistor in series, then a ~1.3k Ohm resistor across O3-O4 would pretty much do the trick. That number can be fine tuned before starting the test by making some readings on the bias circuit first.

      • FC

        And if that doesn’t work either, then it may be necessary to get the unit X-rayed and then machine some resin out, starting from the controller chip.

        • FC

          I think Stefan Hartmann may have been right after all when he suggested two days ago that the attached schematic is the configuration of this unit. (Note that the red layers of insulator should in fact be grey layers of polar polymer).

          That would explain the common ground and the susceptibility of the secondary to any change in the primary, as they would be connected through the relatively low resistivity of the polymer.

          • DrD

            Yes, it does seem to be something like that.
            We could build our own isolated drive circuit taking power from the output similar to our original discussion, weeks ago. That’s not really an option for Frank though.
            Since this interesting idea of yours doesn’t look like its straight forward then I agree that making iout=Iin is a good starting point with a fully recharged orbo and if it works, trying to increase Iout until it doesnt work. That will give us a COP figure.

          • FC

            Hopefully we can get Frank onboard. He seems to have lost interest in these tests, like many others. And who can blame them, anyway. 🙂

          • DrD

            No, I think he is just giving it a well deserved rest. I’m sure he has plenty more to do in the rest time.

          • Frank Acland

            I am here, don’t worry. I have the orbo pack charging at the moment, hoping to get it above 5 V before we start another test. We’re at about 4.85 V at the moment.

          • FC

            Thanks for the news, Frank. 🙂

          • Ged

            Definitely have to second this idea. It seems our best bet now for getting any answers.

  • FC

    I still think we should test DrD’s idea of setting the output power equal to the input power from a DC source, and see if this unit can at least sustain COP = 1.

    • FC

      For example, if the ~13V source is used with a 2.2k Ohm resistor in series, then a ~1.3k Ohm resistor across O3-O4 would pretty much do the trick. That number can be fine tuned before starting the test by making some readings on the bias circuit first.

      • FC

        And if that doesn’t work either, then it may be necessary to get the unit X-rayed and then machine some resin out, starting from the controller chip.

        • FC

          I think Stefan Hartmann may have been right after all when he suggested two days ago that the attached schematic is the configuration of this unit. (Note that the red layers of insulator should in fact be grey layers of polar polymer).

          That would explain the common ground and the susceptibility of the secondary to any change in the primary, as they would be connected through the relatively low resistivity of the polymer.

          • DrD

            Yes, it does seem to be something like that.
            We could build our own isolated drive circuit taking power from the output similar to our original discussion, weeks ago. That’s not really an option for Frank though.
            Since this interesting idea of yours doesn’t look like its straight forward then I agree that making Pout=Pin is a good starting point with a fully recharged orbo and if it works, trying to increase Iout until it doesnt work. That will give us a COP figure.

          • FC

            Hopefully we can get Frank onboard. He seems to have lost interest in these tests, like many others. And who can blame them, anyway. 🙂

          • DrD

            No, I think he is just giving it a well deserved rest. I’m sure he has plenty more to do in the rest time.

          • Frank Acland

            I am here, don’t worry. I have the orbo pack charging at the moment, hoping to get it above 5 V before we start another test. We’re at about 4.85 V at the moment.

          • FC

            Thanks for the news, Frank. 🙂

          • Ged

            Definitely have to second this idea. It seems our best bet now for getting any answers.

  • Alex Fenrick

    Ahh yes it is almost impossible to find a respectful discussion online in 2016…oh how I miss the days of BBSes before the Web haha!! I absolutely will take your suggestion to heart…I am always looking for ways to hone my discussion skills..and that is a good suggestion.

    I will however offer you some relative advice in return that I feel is just as important in this context. When one holds a long-term or worse yet permanent “soft high water mark” after exhaustive research and consideration of a decade of analysis (for example), as I think we could both agree by your emphatic addition of PROBABLY..one is often left open to the fair criticism of staying in the convenient safe middle lane. I believe it can be VERY difficult to obtain rock solid science living in that middle lane. I feel that while keeping an open mind during research…a balanced research methodology also must include closure and finding when applicable, especially after exhaustive logical analysis. I feel this type of perspective is not much different than the following: <<<>>> By the same logic you have applied to Orbo…one could say that even though ALL signs point to the fact that Santa does not fly a sleigh…there is a possibility he is real and flies. I know this is a bit of a silly comparison, but the logic is the same. For genuine science, there has to be a point where one does finally make a judgement when they are left with nothing to dispute that judgement other than hope and base a solid view on the presented research and evidence or lack thereof. Just a friendly perspective I have built over years of research.

  • Sanjeev

    Two weeks ago Steorn offered an option to either refund or have a compensatory OPhone, which they said will be shipped within 10 days. I wonder who got it…any news, anyone?

    • Frank Acland

      No, I’m expecting an ophone myself but no news yet.

      • Frank Acland

        But I’d rather wait longer for one that works, rather than have to deal with the kinds of things we’re going through now. I hope they test them thoroughly potted before shipping.

        • Sanjeev

          Exactly my thoughts. It’d be fair to give them a chance to mend their products rather than causing an inadvertent harm to a potentially useful technology by declaring it a total fail based on a faulty product.

          • davidbyrden

            If the technology DOES work (which I don’t believe for one second) then I think that the best thing FOR THE TECHNOLOGY would be the complete collapse of Steorn, followed by the exodus of their employees to other tech firms where they could bring their no-longer-proprietary knowledge.

            I don’t believe a technology can succeed if it’s patented and controlled by the corporate equivalent of Mr. Bean.

  • Sanjeev

    Two weeks ago Steorn offered an option to either refund or have a compensatory OPhone, which they said will be shipped within 10 days. I wonder who got it…any news, anyone?

    • Frank Acland

      No, I’m expecting an ophone myself but no news yet.

      • Frank Acland

        But I’d rather wait longer for one that works, rather than have to deal with the kinds of things we’re going through now. I hope they test them thoroughly potted before shipping.

        • Sanjeev

          Exactly my thoughts. It’d be fair to give them a chance to mend their products rather than causing an inadvertent harm to a potentially useful technology by declaring it a total fail based on a faulty product.

          • davidbyrden

            If the technology DOES work (which I don’t believe for one second) then I think that the best thing FOR THE TECHNOLOGY would be the complete collapse of Steorn, followed by the exodus of their employees to other tech firms where they could bring their no-longer-proprietary knowledge.

            I don’t believe a technology can succeed if it’s patented and controlled by the corporate equivalent of Mr. Bean.

  • Frank Acland

    I will start a new test in the morning. I have the 13 V input with a 3.2k Ohms of resistance on o1-2, and will let that sit overnight to establish a stable starting voltage. I then plan on putting a 1k Ohm resistor on o3-4 and watch what happens.

    • DrD

      Goodmorning Frank,
      Here’s hoping for success.
      I make that
      12.6mW IN
      26.7mW OUT
      (I assumed O1-2 & O3-4 both = 5.17V)
      That’s a COP of 2.11 if it works (Both V’s stable).

      • Frank Acland

        Hi, with the 3.2 kOhm on o1-2 overnight it dropped too far, so I have only 2.2 kOhms now. Test has started. I can adjust the load as needed.

        • FC

          Hi Frank. Thanks for the info.

          I can see that you are now recording the O1-O2 readings in column B and the O3-O4 readings in column D (which seems like a great idea, btw, to have the most important reading right next to the date & time column). But given the inconsistency with the current column headings, it’s probably clearer for other people if you revert to the previous order and then insert column D between columns A and B.

          It would also be necessary to make B1-B2 readings in order to calculate the power input. If you don’t mind my suggestion, inserting that column in fourth position (column D) could also be helpful, so as to have all the readings next to each other. And then, all the comments could be added in the last column or two.

          Finally, if we really want to get fancy, the power input, power output, and COP could be formulated and calculated automatically from these readings in two extra columns.

          The secondary seems to be relaxing back from quite an extreme 5.86V. Let’s see where it ends up stabilizing, if it does stabilize at all.

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks FC, I realized I had switched the columns inadvertently. Now it’s back to normal. BTW would you like write access to this spreadsheet?

          • FC

            I just emailed you an example of what I think would be a complete display of all the information we can gather during discharge tests. It’s a pretty basic spreadsheet, but it will still allow us to draw some interesting charts.

            I have used blue fonts for the cells that contain formulas. You would only need to fill in the voltage readings as usual, and the resistances once. After that, apart from the voltages, everything else you can just fill down for each new row (unless you change the resistances). Let me know how you like it, if you want to make any changes, or if you have any questions or comments.

            If anybody else wants to make comments, corrections or changes, please feel free to do so. You can find the spreadsheet here:
            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-2UGAg5hTyxbKMIjslIdhSLmEA0U1pgUqkrY14lSvgs/edit?usp=docslist_api

          • FC

            I can’t insert the (best guess) schematic in the spreadsheet from my phone app. You may want to insert it. Here it is.

        • DrD

          It looks good so far.
          Nice summary about the ERV report. I was wondering all that as I’m sure most of us are.

        • DrD

          I make that:-
          Pin=18.9mW; Pout=26.7mW; COP=1.41
          assumtions are B1/2=13V; Vo1/2=5.7V; Vo3/4=5.17V;
          Rin=3.2k; Rload=1k

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks, DrD — Voltage across the resistor is 7.04 V

          • DrD

            Thanks Frank, I’ve edited the above estimate by adjusting B1/2 to give 7.04V across the bias resistor.
            O1/2 seems to be a bit unstable (Slowly Oscillating?) so I assumed 5.7V. It’s a reasonable approximation.

          • Frank Acland

            I agree, its a good average

          • Frank Acland

            Everything seems reasonably happy at these levels. O1-2 is not steadily dropping as in previous load tests (cycling up and down within a range), and so far o3-4 is maintaining its voltage

          • DrD

            Agree, It’s looking very promising (famous last words?)

          • Frank Acland

            You’ve done it now!

          • DrD

            Oh,No, fingers crossed then and I’ll say no more.

          • Frank Acland

            🙂

          • DrD

            I must admit, it seems so temperamental that it feels like anything will upset it, ssssh.

          • Frank Acland

            The o1-o2 voltage was creeping up towards 5.9 Volts so I put an extra 100 Ohms on the input resistance to calm it down.

          • Frank Acland

            Well I think this test is done for. Another error on my part.

            I put a 220 Ohm resistor on instead of the 2.2k Ohm resisitor!!

          • Frank Acland

            I don’t think we will be able to get a balance now.

          • Frank Acland

            My apologies for this!

          • DrD

            Sorry Frank, I was away.
            Oh well, not to worry, we all make mistakes, I’ve made my share on here. It will live to fight another day. I suppose it is not surprising it was doing so well, apart from that, the readings I see in the SS don’t look too bad, are they up to date?

          • DrD

            BTW it is true:
            Andrea Rossi
            March 19, 2016 at 2:37 PM
            Ron Stringer:
            He,he,he…by the way, I am not an engineer too, and I too make many errors: only they who do not work do not make errors.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • FC

            We engineers make errors too. Remember the Titanic? Let alone Steorn. 🙂

          • davidbyrden

            I am not aware of an engineering error in the Titanic. Are you? The description “unsinkable” was an invention of the newspapers, not a design criterion. I seem to remember that the shortage of lifeboats was perfectly legal at the time.

          • FC

            The watertight compartments not really being watertight from each other seems like a terrible engineering mistake to me.

          • DrD

            Calculations corrected for the 220 Ohm “discovery”

  • Frank Acland

    I will start a new test in the morning. I have the 13 V input with a 3.2k Ohms of resistance on o1-2, and will let that sit overnight to establish a stable starting voltage. I then plan on putting a 1k Ohm resistor on o3-4 and watch what happens.

    • DrD

      Goodmorning Frank,
      Here’s hoping for success.
      I make that
      12.6mW IN
      26.7mW OUT
      (I assumed O1-2 & O3-4 both = 5.17V)
      That’s a COP of 2.11 if it works (i.e. Both V’s stable).

      • Frank Acland

        Hi, with the 3.2 kOhm on o1-2 overnight it dropped too far, so I have only 2.2 kOhms now. Test has started. I can adjust the load as needed.

        • FC

          Hi Frank. Thanks for the info.

          I can see that you are now recording the O1-O2 readings in column B and the O3-O4 readings in column D (which seems like a great idea, btw, to have the most important reading right next to the date & time column). But given the inconsistency with the current column headings, it’s probably clearer for other people if you revert to the previous order and then insert column D between columns A and B.

          It would also be necessary to make B1-B2 readings in order to calculate the power input. If you don’t mind my suggestion, inserting that column in fourth position (column D) could also be helpful, so as to have all the readings next to each other. And then, all the comments could be added in the last column or two.

          Finally, if we really want to get fancy, the power input, power output, and COP could be formulated and calculated automatically from these readings in two extra columns.

          The secondary seems to be relaxing back from quite an extreme 5.86V. Let’s see where it ends up stabilizing, if it does stabilize at all.

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks FC, I realized I had switched the columns inadvertently. Now it’s back to normal. BTW would you like write access to this spreadsheet?

          • FC

            I just emailed you an example of what I think would be a complete display of all the information we can gather during discharge tests. It’s a pretty basic spreadsheet, but it will still allow us to draw some interesting charts.

            I have used blue fonts for the cells that contain formulas. You would only need to fill in the voltage readings as usual, and the resistances once. After that, apart from the voltages, everything else you can just fill down for each new row (unless you change the resistances). Let me know how you like it, if you want to make any changes, or if you have any questions or comments.

            If anybody else wants to make comments, corrections or changes, please feel free to do so. You can find the spreadsheet here:
            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-2UGAg5hTyxbKMIjslIdhSLmEA0U1pgUqkrY14lSvgs/edit?usp=docslist_api

          • FC

            I can’t insert the (best guess) schematic in the spreadsheet from my phone app. You may want to insert it. Here it is.

        • DrD

          It looks good so far.
          Nice summary about the ERV report. I was wondering all that as I’m sure most of us are.

        • DrD

          I make that:-
          Pin=18.24mW; Pout=26.7mW; COP=1.465
          assumptions are B1/2=12.74V; Vo1/2=5.7V; Vo3/4=5.17V;
          Rin=2.2k; Rload=1k

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks, DrD — Voltage across the resistor is 7.04 V

          • DrD

            Thanks Frank, I’ve edited the above estimate by adjusting B1/2 to give 7.04V across the bias resistor.
            O1/2 seems to be a bit unstable (Slowly Oscillating?) so I assumed 5.7V. It’s a reasonable approximation.

          • Frank Acland

            I agree, its a good average

          • Frank Acland

            Everything seems reasonably happy at these levels. O1-2 is not steadily dropping as in previous load tests (cycling up and down within a range), and so far o3-4 is maintaining its voltage

          • DrD

            Agree, It’s looking very promising (famous last words?)

          • Frank Acland

            You’ve done it now!

          • DrD

            Oh,No, fingers crossed then and I’ll say no more.

          • Frank Acland

            🙂

          • DrD

            I must admit, it seems so temperamental that it feels like anything will upset it, ssssh.

          • Frank Acland

            The o1-o2 voltage was creeping up towards 5.9 Volts so I put an extra 100 Ohms on the input resistance to calm it down.

          • Frank Acland

            Well I think this test is done for. Another error on my part.

            I put a 220 Ohm resistor on instead of the 2.2k Ohm resisitor!!

          • Frank Acland

            I don’t think we will be able to get a balance now.

          • Frank Acland

            My apologies for this!

          • DrD

            Sorry Frank, I was away.
            Oh well, not to worry, we all make mistakes, I’ve made my share on here. It will live to fight another day. I suppose it is not surprising it was doing so well, apart from that, the readings I see in the SS don’t look too bad, are they up to date?

          • DrD

            BTW it is true:
            Andrea Rossi
            March 19, 2016 at 2:37 PM
            Ron Stringer:
            He,he,he…by the way, I am not an engineer too, and I too make many errors: only they who do not work do not make errors.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • FC

            We engineers make errors too. Remember the Titanic? Let alone Steorn. 🙂

          • davidbyrden

            I am not aware of an engineering error in the Titanic. Are you? The description “unsinkable” was an invention of the newspapers, not a design criterion. I seem to remember that the shortage of lifeboats was perfectly legal at the time.

          • FC

            The watertight compartments not really being watertight from each other seems like a terrible engineering mistake to me.

          • cashmemorz

            The point about design being bad was the type of steel. It was low quality in what was required. Very hard at that time was considered strong. What seemed to be missed then was that very hard steel was almost like iron, meaning brittle. Easy to crack. One blow by an iceberg at the wrong angle did it. A similar error may be what Steorn is doing. Not enough info currently to know what exactly is required to design a proper circuit for the new technology.

          • DrD

            Calculations corrected for the 220 Ohm “discovery”

  • georgehants

    Without loosing faith in anything, everything to do with Cold Fusion, new energy devices etc. seems to be jinxed with continual problems and obstacles.
    Please Mr. Rossi, lets soon have a clear proof that basic Cold Fusion is a resounding success.
    That I think will give everybody that enthusiasm to believe in anything and really reach for the stars regarding new energy.

    • R V

      Take a look at Brilliant Light Power also. You may be pleasantly surprised.

      • georgehants

        R V, yes thanks, potential is everywhere but In Mr. Rossi’s case the delay is by design, not as with MFMP for example, where they are struggling still to copy the secrets hidden like the crazy useless tons of gold in Fort Knox etc.

    • Alex Fenrick

      George, your first statement resonates so deeply with me. I have been striving my whole life, probably like almost everyone here, to find evidence or a shred of proof to support “new energy devices” or whatever contextual blanket we want to use for a moment…unfortunately with no success as of yet. The imaginative child in me wants so badly to believe…but that pesky logical science minded voice always yells “not so fast there kid”! lol There is a huge psychological aspect to all of these technologies that is fascinating in its own right. In my view, not one single alternate or “new” energy device has ever been outright proven to work in a controlled environment free of ridiculous obscure test conditions, questionable methodology and/or obvious failure. There is ALWAYS some magical reason the device works on the lab bench…but of course always fails when put to the test outside the lab. I think this genre of science or pseudo-science is the ultimate proverbial carrot-on-a-stick. Now I am not saying that is completely a bad thing as we MUST dream and continue to test science as we know it…but it is just that nonetheless. I haven’t lost faith yet, but I must admit that the track record for these such devices and concepts is really running out of runway. One can only cry wolf so many times before all cries fall upon deaf ears…especially the ears of brilliant minds. Just something to think about….

      • georgehants

        Alex, many thanks for such an honest and understandable reply.
        I can with equal honesty say, that if you wish the magic and wonder to be there then Research with the usual Honest, Unbiased, Open-Mind, subjects that reductionist science has through the strangeness of history avoided at all costs.
        Telepathy, Remote Viewing, UFO’s, The Placebo Effect, Savants, Hypnotism. NDE, OOBE, The Mind in General, Crop Circles, Etc. Etc. Etc.
        I will give one logical, rational example, look up the incredible complexity of a major crop circle, try and work out how it was made, answer why no abandoned attempts, where things have as always gone wrong and one is left with a half crop circle mess, have been found, answer why a group of clever scientists do not prove their case by getting together and in a few hours on a dark night copy one of these amazing constructions with the media recording.
        Research why Remote Viewers where awarded medals from the CIA. etc. etc.
        I now wait with you, for Mr. Rossi’s report, that for all our frustration I am willing, just like with Mr. Storns Orbo, to follow to the death in case a horrific mistake is made as with P&F.
        Best to you and many apologies to Frank and others if I have pulled this string away from it’s purpose.

        • FC

          Totally agreed, George.

        • BillH

          A very hollow apology, when you continue to hijack a totally unrelated thread to follow your own agenda.

  • Frank are you sure that O1 and O4 are the ground connectors and not O1and O3 ? otherwise this selffeeding Experiment makes no sense to me….and something must be broken inside the Ophone circuit..O1and O2 should have definitely been rising and not going down…

    • FC

      Hi Stefan. It turns out that you are most probably right about the internal architecture of this second test device. I have attached a revised version of your proposed layout. A couple days ago, Frank made some experiments (see last video above) whose results seem to fit this model very well.

      Regarding your question to Frank, I think O3 has always a higher voltage than O4. So apparently O4 is connected through the chip to the second electrode from the bottom. And given the polymer’s relatively low resistivity, O4 and O1 are quasi-connected to each other.

      • OM
        • FC

          Not quite. In this one, the electric fields are decoupled. According to Shaun, the primary and secondary are not physically connected, but their fields are coupled. That’s why I think that other version may be closer to the truth, and the partial connection is established through the low resistivity of the polymer. But who knows.

          • OM

            It is difficult for me to formulate in English.

            The potential of the conductor is the same along the conductor.

          • FC

            When you say “the conductor”, are you referring to the wire between the electrodes? Or are you referring to the elctrodes themselves?

          • OM

            If the electrodes (Metal) connected with a wire, then the potentials of electrodes and wire are the same.
            Next, remember what is the electric field .

          • FC

            Right. But remember that the electric field in these cores is a product of the polymer’s internal dipole structure being massively oriented in one particular direction, not of the electrodes having a potential across them. That’s why stacking several layers of polar polymer on top of each other strengthens the field, providing the bias that the dipoles of the primary’s polymer need to realign after being scrambled (or discharged).

          • OM

            Polymer plates are in the equivalent conditions in the both circuit. The electric fields are the same.

          • FC

            Ok OM, I understand your point. And maybe you are right and they are equivalent. I suppose both models would have to be tested side by side in order to see if they behave similarly when the primary is scrambled (or discharged) and its field is gone, killing the potential across the primary’s electrodes. But in any case, the first option seems to match Shaun’s explanations to Frank better than the second option.

            And given the results, I don’t think this experimental architecture will ever be used again anyway. At least not with polar polymers. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            I feel like we’re running out of options with the leaky o1-o2, so I have decided to try a different tactic which is to put a bias circuit directly on o3-4. Starting out with a 9V battery and 1M Ohm resistor on o3-4 with an 1000 Ohm resistor across o3-4.

          • OM

            It is better to o1-4 or o2-4.

          • OM

            9V battery and 1M Ohm resistor on o2-4.
            And check the voltage on o1-2, o1-4, o2-4.

          • FC

            I like the idea of forgetting about O1. In fact, as long as O3-O4 is reading around 5.17V, O3 should have a higher voltage than O2 (it would be worth double checking, though). Therefore, simply connecting O3 and O2 with a 1M Ohm resistor might do the trick.

          • OM

            o1-2 = o1-4 + o4-2
            o1-2 +3.659
            o1-4 +2.17
            o4-2 +1.48

            Possible that o4-2 is the separate cell.

          • DrD

            What a good idea !
            I suppose one thing at a time though (poor Frank).
            His 10k/1Meg to just O3 seems to be working surprisingly well, it’s generating about 2.7mW excess power and seems to actually be recovering very slightly at the same time.
            Did we ever check to see if there is a direct leakage path by measuring the internal resistance between O3 & O2?
            Who knows, it might be a few 1Meg any way.
            It should be infinite (very high) according to Shaun.

          • FC

            No, we never checked for resistances. We definitely should. But I believe that polymers don’t have a very high resistivity. So if the attached schematic is a good approximation of reality (which is a big if), maybe Shaun wouldn’t claim an infinite resistance between the different electrodes.

          • OM

            Frank, stop the experiment.
            You just discharge the Orbo.

          • Frank Acland

            I think it’s okay if we discharge it. What has been discharged can be charged again.

          • DrD

            I tend to agree with you about running out of options Frank.
            In my opinion you were doing the right think previously but it wasn’t looking promising, at best you might have achieved a COP of about one by chosing a higher load resisitor. I think like you, it’s too damaged. It will surprise me if the new test (or any other combination) proves positive (I should have said F9 lol).
            I’m also surprised you’ve heard no more from Steorn. It’s looking like what ever is wrong (in general – not just with yours) must be serious and either they don’t understand it or it’s proving very difficult ot fix.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, nothing recently from Steorn, although I haven’t bugged them too much. From what we have seen, if o1-2 drains too far (and it’s hard to keep it from draining without pumping lots of energy in) then o3-4 becomes unusable. Thus my latest idea to put the bias directly into o3-4. I have no idea if it will be effective, but it’s an option we haven’t tried yet and I thought it worth a try.

          • Frank Acland

            Interesting that in this new setup o1-2 is now creeping upward with no input voltage at all.

          • Frank Acland

            Now it’s creeping down again.

          • DrD

            Frank, you get an A* for tenacity.
            Ingenuity is coming through as well.
            I see last nights results and they are surprising, not what I would have predicted.
            You have produced a potential divider across that 9V battery with a ratio of 1/0.01.
            If we assume the orbo is doing nothing at all, that would mean 9(0.01/1.01)V = 8.9mV on O3, the junction of the two resistors.
            Under that condition the current through the 10k would have been 8.9uA.
            However, the Orbo is working well enough to over ride the potential divider by supplying extra current to pull O3 up to it’s design potential of 5.17V.
            To do that it has to be supplying extra current which is given by [(5.17V/10k)ma – ((9V – 5.17V)/1M)uA] = 0.51mA (=2.7mW).
            Two questions:
            Can this continue indefinitely?
            Could it also supply 0.51mA without the battery?
            (I predict No,No)

          • Frank Acland

            I took the first reading of the day, and o3-4 had lost the 5.17 V sometime overnight. So I took the resistor off to give the orbos the chance to recover. I may put on a lighter load next and see if we can get to a level where the “recharge” can keep up with the output.

          • DrD

            Good move.
            Interesting how quickly it went sprang to 5.17V.
            It’s also encouraging that O1,2 was still at 4.17V

          • Frank Acland

            It’s acting how Shaun said it should with a load on — he said it will get to a point where it will go into a recharge cycle.

          • Frank Acland

            However he was talking about lower resistances (200-100 Ohms) — I don’t know if they have ever tested the ophone long term with a very light load on to see if it can stay producing a constant current enough to keep the controller from shutting down.

          • DrD

            I get that.
            Given enough time we could try a variety of combinations.
            An undamged one ought to work better of course.

          • DrD

            Have you abandoned the Ocube Frank? I noticed it generated at a fairly decent power level for quite a few days before dying. We couldn’t tell if it was more than was input since the previous discharge.

          • Frank Acland

            No, certainly haven’t abandoned it, but have run out of ideas for now.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok, I’ve taken the battery bias circuit off o3-4, and put 14.66 Ohms resistance on o3-4

          • Frank Acland

            That didn’t last long. No voltage to speak of on o3-4 without the bias.

          • DrD

            That’s amazing, hard to believe the bias made so much difference (it’s only suppplying a few uA). the only other explanation I can think of is that weve seriously discharged something internal that was keeping O3 supplied via the regulator.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, it seems that the bias makes a big difference to the primary orbo (Shaun said it was needed to help the orbo recharge). It’s interesting that o1-2 does not leak as much with the bias on o3-4.

          • Frank Acland

            At 8:57 I haven’t put a load back on o3-4 yet. I just tested those terminals and now the steady 5.17 is not there. It was there about 5 minutes ago, I’ll wait and see if it comes back.

          • Frank Acland

            One minute later and it’s back. Maybe the orbo cell needs more time to recharge.

          • DrD

            Not sure what you think Frank but it now looks to me as though my “alternative” explanation above was the correct one.
            Namely, that we have discharged something internal.
            That earlier long period where it maintained 5.17V with bias and 10k wasn’t because of the bias but because the cells were holding enough charge to feed to converter.
            The 14.66K that you just added with bias present collapsed O4 in less than two minutes. I guess we have a long wait now, while it recharges, like you say Shaun caimed it would.
            So now it’s case of auditing input and ouput over extended time.
            Or you might find a higher load resistor that will not drag O4 down — I suppose that’s a quicker result.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I agree about internal discharge, and now we have to wait to see if it recharges, and how much.

          • Frank Acland

            BTW got this email from Steorn today in response to an inquiry about the ophone order:

            Dear Customer,

            First of all we would like to again thank you for your order and your interest in Orbo technology. We are contacting you to provide you with an update on the current situation with respect to product design, production and shipment.

            As you may know we have been investigating a charging issue with the initial batch of products we shipped, specifically the charge controller board used and consequent under/over charging.

            We believe that we have now developed a solution to the issues caused by the charge controller board failure. Testing is underway on the redesigned system, and assuming that the new approach meets our test parameters, we will then move on to the production stage of the process.

            While we are eager to get your order to you as soon as possible, we have to establish that the work we have done to address the issues we encountered is capable of delivering the high-quality product you are entitled to expect. As such, it is currently not possible to say exactly when your order will ship but please rest assured we are doing everything we can to minimise the delay.

            We will be in touch again shortly with further updates as work progresses.

            Best regards
            The Orbo Team

          • DrD

            do you think the wider community would like to see it, it’s not so prominent down here?

          • DrD

            Pity they won’t give details but I suppose they can’t.

          • FC

            Agreed. I missed it completely until now.

          • DrD

            Do you know when the battery connection broke? Just wondering if it affected the earlier collapses.

          • FC

            Hi Frank. I think that a 14.66 Ohm resistor is more demanding (1.82 W) than a 10k Ohm resistor (2.7 mW). Resistance and discharge power seem to be inversely proportional.

          • Frank Acland

            Sorry, I meant k Ohm!

          • FC

            Lol, ok.

          • FC

            Hi DrD.
            Isn’t 9*(0.01/1.01) = 0.089?
            And isn’t that 89 mV instead of 8.9 mV?

          • DrD

            aaaah , thanks FC, I did it again didn’t I, must be old age.
            I’ll check the rest of it and edit it if that’s ok.

          • FC

            No worries at all. 🙂

          • OM

            E = V/d

            V – The voltage difference between the two plates (Electric Potential difference)

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/imgele/ppcap4.gif

          • FC

            In orbo cores, the potential across the electrodes is a consequence of the polar polymer’s electric field, not the cause of the electric field.

          • OM

            No meter what comes first.
            E=V/d.

          • FC

            Granted.

          • Frank Acland

            Do you mean the potting polymer? I doubt that it plays any intended role in the process.

          • FC

            No, not the epoxy resin, but the polar polymers between the electrodes.

    • OM

      ———————————–
      Frank Acland ECW Admin OM • ? days ago

      o1-2 +3.659
      o1-3 +2.14
      o1-4 +2.17
      o2-3 -1.46
      o2-4 -1.48
      o3-4 -.0.004
      ———————————–

      So, O1,O4 are not the ground connectors.
      Connecting O1+O4 produces some sort of short circuit inside.

      I have asked Frank measure some thing to clarify the schematic. But no answer from him.

    • Frank Acland

      No I am not sure. But when I measure o1-o2 I get a positive reading when the red lead is on o2, and when I measure o3-o4 I get a positive reading when the red lead is on o3.

  • Frank are you sure that O1 and O4 are the ground connectors and not O1and O3 ? otherwise this selffeeding Experiment makes no sense to me….and something must be broken inside the Ophone circuit..O1and O2 should have definitely been rising and not going down…

    • FC

      Hi Stefan. It turns out that you are most probably right about the internal architecture of this second test device. I have attached a revised version of your proposed layout. A couple days ago, Frank made some experiments (see last video above) whose results seem to fit this model very well.

      Regarding your question to Frank, I think O3 has always a higher voltage than O4. So apparently O4 is connected through the chip to the second electrode from the bottom. And given the polymer’s relatively low resistivity, O4 and O1 are quasi-connected to each other.

      • OM
        • FC

          Not quite. In this one, the electric fields are decoupled. According to Shaun, the primary and secondary are not physically connected, but their fields are coupled. That’s why I think that other version may be closer to the truth, and the partial connection is established through the low resistivity of the polymer. But who knows.

          • OM

            It is difficult for me to formulate in English.

            The potential of the conductor is the same along the conductor.

          • FC

            When you say “the conductor”, are you referring to the wire between the electrodes? Or are you referring to the elctrodes themselves?

          • OM

            If the electrodes (Metal) connected with a wire, then the potentials of electrodes and wire are the same.
            Next, remember what is the electric field .

          • FC

            Right. But remember that the electric field in these cores is a product of the polymer’s internal dipole structure being massively oriented in one particular direction, not of the electrodes having a potential across them. That’s why stacking several layers of polar polymer on top of each other strengthens the field, providing the bias that the dipoles of the primary’s polymer need to realign after being scrambled (or discharged).

          • OM

            Polymer plates are in the equivalent conditions in the both circuit. The electric fields are the same.

          • FC

            Ok OM, I understand your point. And maybe you are right and they are equivalent. I suppose both models would have to be tested side by side in order to see if they behave similarly when the primary is scrambled (or discharged) and its field is gone, killing the potential across the primary’s electrodes. But in any case, the first option seems to match Shaun’s explanations to Frank better than the second option.

            And given the results, I don’t think this experimental architecture will ever be used again anyway. At least not with polar polymers. 🙂

          • OM

            E = V/d

            V – The voltage difference between the two plates (Electric Potential difference)

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/imgele/ppcap4.gif

          • FC

            In orbo cores, the potential across the electrodes is a consequence of the polar polymer’s electric field, not the cause of the electric field.

          • OM

            No meter what comes first.
            E=V/d.

          • FC

            Granted.

          • Frank Acland

            Do you mean the potting polymer? I doubt that it plays any intended role in the process.

          • FC

            No, not the epoxy resin, but the polar polymers between the electrodes.

    • OM

      ———————————–
      Frank Acland ECW Admin OM • ? days ago

      o1-2 +3.659
      o1-3 +2.14
      o1-4 +2.17
      o2-3 -1.46
      o2-4 -1.48
      o3-4 -.0.004
      ———————————–

      So, O1,O4 are not the ground connectors.
      Connecting O1+O4 produces some sort of short circuit inside.

      I have asked Frank measure some thing to clarify the schematic. But no answer from him.

    • Frank Acland

      No I am not sure. But when I measure o1-o2 I get a positive reading when the red lead is on o2, and when I measure o3-o4 I get a positive reading when the red lead is on o3.

  • Frank Acland

    I feel like we’re running out of options with the leaky o1-o2, so I have decided to try a different tactic which is to put a bias circuit directly on o3-4. Starting out with a 9V battery and 1M Ohm resistor on o3-4 with an 1000 Ohm resistor across o3-4.

    • OM

      It is better to o1-4 or o2-4.

    • OM

      9V battery and 1M Ohm resistor on o2-4.
      And check the voltage on o1-2, o1-4, o2-4.

      • FC

        I like the idea of forgetting about O1. In fact, as long as O3-O4 is reading around 5.17V, O3 should have a higher voltage than O2 (it would be worth double checking, though). Therefore, simply connecting O3 and O2 with a 1M Ohm resistor might do the trick.

        • OM

          o1-2 = o1-4 + o4-2
          o1-2 +3.659
          o1-4 +2.17
          o4-2 +1.48

          Possible that o4-2 is the separate cell.

        • DrD

          What a good idea !
          I suppose one thing at a time though (poor Frank).
          His 10k/1Meg to just O3 seems to be working surprisingly well, it’s generating about 2.7mW excess power and seems to actually be recovering very slightly at the same time.
          Did we ever check to see if there is a direct leakage path by measuring the internal resistance between O3 & O2?
          Who knows, it might be a few 1Meg any way.
          It should be infinite (very high) according to Shaun.

          • FC

            No, we never checked for resistances. We definitely should. But I believe that polymers don’t have a very high resistivity. So if the attached schematic is a good approximation of reality (which is a big if), maybe Shaun wouldn’t claim an infinite resistance between the different electrodes.

    • OM

      Frank, stop the experiment.
      You just discharge the Orbo.

      • Frank Acland

        I think it’s okay if we discharge it. What has been discharged can be charged again.

    • DrD

      I tend to agree with you about running out of options Frank.
      In my opinion you were doing the right think previously but it wasn’t looking promising, at best you might have achieved a COP of about one by chosing a higher load resisitor. I think like you, it’s too damaged. It will surprise me if the new test (or any other combination) proves positive (I should have said F9 lol).
      I’m also surprised you’ve heard no more from Steorn. It’s looking like what ever is wrong (in general – not just with yours) must be serious and either they don’t understand it or it’s proving very difficult ot fix.

      • Frank Acland

        Yes, nothing recently from Steorn, although I haven’t bugged them too much. From what we have seen, if o1-2 drains too far (and it’s hard to keep it from draining without pumping lots of energy in) then o3-4 becomes unusable. Thus my latest idea to put the bias directly into o3-4. I have no idea if it will be effective, but it’s an option we haven’t tried yet and I thought it worth a try.

        • Frank Acland

          Interesting that in this new setup o1-2 is now creeping upward with no input voltage at all on that side of the pack.

          • Frank Acland

            Now it’s creeping down again.

          • DrD

            Frank, you get an A* for tenacity.
            Ingenuity is coming through as well.
            I see last nights results and they are surprising, not what I would have predicted.
            You have produced a potential divider across that 9V battery with a ratio of 1/0.01.
            If we assume the orbo is doing nothing at all, that would mean 9(0.01/1.01)V = 89mV on O3, the junction of the two resistors.
            Under that condition the current through the 10k would have been 8.9uA.
            However, the Orbo is working well enough to over ride the potential divider by supplying extra current to pull O3 up to it’s design potential of 5.17V.
            To do that it has to be supplying extra current which is given by [(5.17V/10k)ma – ((9V – 5.17V)/1M)uA] = 0.51mA (=2.7mW).
            Two questions:
            Can this continue indefinitely?
            Could it also supply 0.51mA without the battery?
            (I predict No,No)
            PS, You demonstrated that it can’t manage 1k (5mA).

          • Frank Acland

            I took the first reading of the day, and o3-4 had lost the 5.17 V sometime overnight. So I took the resistor off to give the orbos the chance to recover. I may put on a lighter load next and see if we can get to a level where the “recharge” can keep up with the output.

          • DrD

            Good move.
            Interesting how quickly it sprang to 5.17V.
            It’s also encouraging that O1,2 was still at 4.17V

          • Frank Acland

            It’s acting how Shaun said it should with a load on — he said it will get to a point where it will go into a recharge cycle.

          • Frank Acland

            However he was talking about lower resistances (200-100 Ohms) — I don’t know if they have ever tested the ophone long term with a very light load on to see if it can stay producing a constant current enough to keep the controller from shutting down.

          • DrD

            I get that.
            Given enough time we could try a variety of combinations.
            An undamged one ought to work better of course.

          • DrD

            Have you abandoned the Ocube Frank? I noticed it generated at a fairly decent power level for quite a few days before dying. We couldn’t tell if it was more than was input since the previous discharge.

          • Frank Acland

            No, certainly haven’t abandoned it, but have run out of ideas for now.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok, I’ve taken the battery bias circuit off o3-4, and put 14.66 Ohms resistance on o3-4

          • Frank Acland

            That didn’t last long. No voltage to speak of on o3-4 without the bias.

          • DrD

            That’s amazing, hard to believe the bias made so much difference (it’s only suppplying a few uA). the only other explanation I can think of is that weve seriously discharged something internal that was keeping O3 supplied via the regulator.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, it seems that the bias makes a big difference to the primary orbo (Shaun said it was needed to help the orbo recharge). It’s interesting that o1-2 does not leak as much with the bias on o3-4.

          • Frank Acland

            At 8:57 I haven’t put a load back on o3-4 yet. I just tested those terminals and now the steady 5.17 is not there. It was there about 5 minutes ago, I’ll wait and see if it comes back.

          • Frank Acland

            One minute later and it’s back. Maybe the orbo cell needs more time to recharge.

          • DrD

            Not sure what you think Frank but it now looks to me as though my “alternative” explanation above was the correct one.
            Namely, that we have discharged something internal.
            That earlier long period where it maintained 5.17V with bias and 10k wasn’t because of the bias but because the cells were holding enough charge to feed to converter.
            The 14.66K that you just added with bias present collapsed O4 in less than two minutes. I guess we have a long wait now, while it recharges, just like you say Shaun claimed it would.
            So now it’s a case of auditing input and ouput over extended time.
            Or you might find a higher load resistor that will not drag O4 down — I suppose that will a quicker result.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I agree about internal discharge, and now we have to wait to see if it recharges, and how much.

          • Frank Acland

            BTW got this email from Steorn today in response to an inquiry about the ophone order:

            Dear Customer,

            First of all we would like to again thank you for your order and your interest in Orbo technology. We are contacting you to provide you with an update on the current situation with respect to product design, production and shipment.

            As you may know we have been investigating a charging issue with the initial batch of products we shipped, specifically the charge controller board used and consequent under/over charging.

            We believe that we have now developed a solution to the issues caused by the charge controller board failure. Testing is underway on the redesigned system, and assuming that the new approach meets our test parameters, we will then move on to the production stage of the process.

            While we are eager to get your order to you as soon as possible, we have to establish that the work we have done to address the issues we encountered is capable of delivering the high-quality product you are entitled to expect. As such, it is currently not possible to say exactly when your order will ship but please rest assured we are doing everything we can to minimise the delay.

            We will be in touch again shortly with further updates as work progresses.

            Best regards
            The Orbo Team

          • DrD

            do you think the wider community would like to see it, it’s not so prominent down here?

          • DrD

            Pity they won’t give details but I suppose they can’t.

          • FC

            Agreed. I missed it completely until now.

          • DrD

            Do you know when the battery connection broke? Just wondering if it affected the earlier collapses.

          • FC

            Hi Frank. I think that a 14.66 Ohm resistor is more demanding (1.82 W) than a 10k Ohm resistor (2.7 mW). Resistance and discharge power seem to be inversely proportional.

          • Frank Acland

            Sorry, I meant k Ohm!

          • FC

            Lol, ok.

          • FC

            Hi DrD.
            Isn’t 9*(0.01/1.01) = 0.089?
            And isn’t that 89 mV instead of 8.9 mV?

          • DrD

            aaaah , thanks FC, I did it again didn’t I, must be old age.
            I’ll check the rest of it and edit it if that’s ok.

          • FC

            No worries at all. 🙂

  • JW

    ;(

  • Mats002

    If I had invented a product (I have) and if I had a few customer’s paid for it, using it (I have) then I would care to be in contact with them to see it really works (I do).

    To me all my experiences says Steorn is not a serious company. What they NOT do speaks.

  • Mats002

    If I had invented a product (I have) and if I had a few customer’s paid for it, using it (I have) then I would care to be in contact with them to see it really works (I do).

    To me all my experiences says Steorn is not a serious company. What they NOT do speaks.

  • Maybe an option for Steorn? Well, no, of course. But it is a nice invention!

    ‘The electronic components required in order for an electrical appliance to carry out its function are enclosed in clear acrylic.

    The electronic components, without requiring a circuit board, are held in place by being enclosed.

    The electronic components are connected with each other by special ultra-fine electrical wire, and actually function as an electrical appliance.

    Features implemented include wireless charging and ON · OFF switching through inclination sensing, and it can be used normally as is.’

  • Maybe an option for Steorn? Well, no, of course. But it is a nice invention!

    ‘The electronic components required in order for an electrical appliance to carry out its function are enclosed in clear acrylic.

    The electronic components, without requiring a circuit board, are held in place by being enclosed.

    The electronic components are connected with each other by special ultra-fine electrical wire, and actually function as an electrical appliance.

    Features implemented include wireless charging and ON · OFF switching through inclination sensing, and it can be used normally as is.’

    • BillH

      This is only really practical when none of the component doesn’t dissipate any serious amounts of heat. A resistor for example will often be rated at 0.5W or more.
      Imagine what would happen if this heat had no where to go, cracked perspex broken resistor, faulty circuit. Maybe this is what happened inside the epoxy filled Ocube, but I’m much more inclined to think it’s working exactly as designed i.e. badly.

    • davidbyrden

      That’s very pretty but how do you test it and repair it?

  • davidbyrden

    Is there a CE mark on the Ocube, and if so, can somebody check its validity? I believe that one is required to prove “electromagnetic compatibility”.
    If Steorn haven’t gone through the procedures for certifying and obtaining this mark, it would be a clear indication that they never intended these products to sell. Actions speak louder than words.

    • Frank Acland

      Yes, there’s a CE mark on the ocube.

      • davidbyrden

        Thank you. Is there a 4 digit number beside it? That would indicate that an outside agency evaluated the Ocube.

        • Frank Acland

          No, just the CE mark.

  • davidbyrden

    Is there a CE mark on the Ocube, and if so, can somebody check its validity? I believe that one is required to prove “electromagnetic compatibility”.
    If Steorn haven’t gone through the procedures for certifying and obtaining this mark, it would be a clear indication that they never intended these products to sell. Actions speak louder than words.

    • Frank Acland

      Yes, there’s a CE mark on the ocube.

      • davidbyrden

        Thank you. Is there a 4 digit number beside it? That would indicate that an outside agency evaluated the Ocube.

        • Frank Acland

          No, just the CE mark.

    • BillH

      I mentioned this several weeks ago, I even tried to establish any CE validations under the name Steorn with no success. There should also be something called a DoC, a declaration of conformity, which spells out exactly how Steorn complies with the relevant rules for their particular type of equipment. This should all be completed before a product goes on the market. Unless this has been done a CE sticker is invalid.

  • So, Frank, when you finally get your Orbo Phone, are you going to use it? If you are going to use it, will you post about how well it is working? I’d be interested in hearing about your experiences with it, if you’re willing to post about it. Some other dude with another blog said that he is going to use his Orbo Phone that the Steorn dudes gave him to call up the Steorn dudes and complain about the delays. LOL!!!

    • Frank Acland

      Yes, of course I’ll use it and report. I hope it’s a simpler device that what we have received so far!

  • OM

    Frank, why don’t you want to measure o1-3, o1-4, o2-3, o2-4?
    It is very useful to make these measurements in different conditions with different loads.
    I have the impression you are afraid that we will learn something that we are not supposed to know. 🙂

    • Do you not read the responses to your questions? Frank appears to have done just the measurement you asked for and reported same here a day or so ago… the edgy snipe you make here requires that you be asked – are you a troll? See cut and paste below to save you the simple intelligent/courteous task of scrolling down in this comment file.

      Frank Acland ECW Admin OM • ? days ago

      o1-2 +3.659

      o1-3 +2.14

      o1-4 +2.17

      o2-3 -1.46

      o2-4 -1.48

      o3-4 -.0.004

      —————————-

      • OM

        You gave me my own cut&paste of the very old post.
        This is the only measurements of all ox-oy we have.
        No more data. Do you understand?
        I am not a troll.

      • OM

        I said: “I It is very useful to make these measurements in different conditions with different loads.”
        Do you think that one single measurement is enough?

      • OM

        You can apologize, among other things.
        But I do not insist.

    • Frank Acland

      No, I’m sorry. I was just doing one experiment at a time. Here are the measurements you seek (black lead on first terminal listed):

      o1-3 +7.32
      o1-4 +2.43
      o2-3 +3.35
      o2-4 -1.70

      • FC

        Unfortunately, we don’t have O1-O2 and O3-O4 readings at that time. But from these other readings we can guess that they were 3.97 and 4.89 respectively, which seems fairly reasonable readings under the current circumstances. If I’m not mistaken, this means that:

        O1 = ground
        O4 = 2.34V above ground
        O2 = 3.97V above ground
        O3 = 7.32V above ground

        Which seem to confirm the attached schematic.

        If that’s the case, once the cores are recovered, it would be interesting to put a 1M Ohm resistor between O3 and O2, so as to bias the device from its own output. We’ve tried this once before, but with a 100 Ohm resistor, which is too low for this purpose. Not surprisingly, the result was a slow 0.04V
        decline over a 5 minute period.

        • FC

          Attached is a revised schematic that shows in a more graphical way the potential of the different electrodes and terminals above ground (O1).

          Every now and then, it would be nice to have readings of O4 and O3 with respect to O1 (ground), together with the typical readings (O1-O2 and O3-O4).

          Another thought: the losses of the controller chip may cause some of these readings to not quite add up.

      • OM

        OK. I’m sorry.

        Thank you!

  • OM

    Frank, why don’t you want to measure o1-3, o1-4, o2-3, o2-4?
    It is very useful to make these measurements in different conditions with different loads.
    I have the impression you are afraid that we will learn something that we are not supposed to know. 🙂

    • Do you not read the responses to your questions? Frank appears to have done just the measurement you asked for and reported same here a day or so ago… the edgy snipe you make here requires that you be asked – are you a troll? See cut and paste below to save you the simple intelligent/courteous task of scrolling down in this comment file.

      Frank Acland ECW Admin OM • ? days ago

      o1-2 +3.659

      o1-3 +2.14

      o1-4 +2.17

      o2-3 -1.46

      o2-4 -1.48

      o3-4 -.0.004

      —————————-

      • OM

        You gave me my own cut&paste of the very old post.
        This is the only measurements of all ox-oy we have.
        No more data. Do you understand?
        I am not a troll.

      • OM

        I said: “I It is very useful to make these measurements in different conditions with different loads.”
        Do you think that one single measurement is enough?

      • OM

        You can apologize, among other things.
        But I do not insist.

    • Frank Acland

      No, I’m sorry. I was just doing one experiment at a time. Here are the measurements you seek (black lead on first terminal listed):

      o1-3 +7.32
      o1-4 +2.43
      o2-3 +3.35
      o2-4 -1.70

      • FC

        Unfortunately, we don’t have O1-O2 and O3-O4 readings at that time. But from these other readings we can guess that they were 3.97 and 4.89 respectively, which seems fairly reasonable readings under the current circumstances. If I’m not mistaken, this means that:

        O1 = ground
        O4 = 2.34V above ground
        O2 = 3.97V above ground
        O3 = 7.32V above ground

        Which seem to confirm the attached schematic.

        If that’s the case, once the cores are recovered, it would be interesting to put a 1M Ohm resistor between O3 and O2, so as to bias the device from its own output. We’ve tried this once before, but with a 100 Ohm resistor, which is too low for this purpose. Not surprisingly, the result was a slow 0.04V
        decline over a 5 minute period.

        • FC

          Attached is a revised schematic that shows in a more graphical way the potential of the different electrodes and terminals above ground (O1).

          Every now and then, it would be nice to have readings of O4 and O3 with respect to O1 (ground), together with the typical readings (O1-O2 and O3-O4).

          Another thought: the losses of the controller chip may cause some of these readings to not quite add up.

      • OM

        OK. I’m sorry.

        Thank you!

  • Frank Acland

    Yes, of course I’ll use it and report. I hope it’s a simpler device that what we have received so far!

  • Frank Acland

    I posted a new video above showing charging behaviour on o3-4

    • FC

      Thanks, Frank.

      Regarding the video’s heading, I’m sure there are many reasons why you want this month to be over ASAP, but I’m afraid that today is still March 21.

    • DrD

      Good morning Frank. I think your last video makes sense and I believe your explanation is correct. The regulator no longer “kicks in” because we have discharged the internal cell which supplies it with charge. This was one of my Q (&A) earlier (“can it continue indefinitely to supply the 0.51 mA”).
      The reason that O3,4 creeps up to that voltage, which as you say, depends on the number of batteries, is because the battery voltage is being split between the 1Meg Ohm resistor and the regulators output “resistance”. The latter isn’t actually a pure resistance, we can guess at what it is and it seems to include capacitance, explaining the slow rate of change.
      We could test this by measuring it (when stabilised) with different bias resistors and even estimate the internal R if you wished.

      More importantly, I think FC had a good idea to try internal charging from it’s own output via a bias resistor ( 1 MEG seems a bit high given that you only have a pd of a few volts (no-where near 9v). I agree 100 Ohm was much too small.
      Maybe an initial boost from the batteries and a low value (<<1 Meg) bias resistor will get it started quicker since it seems to be completely depleted now.

      • FC

        I agree that using a 1M Ohm resistor between O3 and O2 is a bit on the high side. But since the intention of my suggestion was to prove a concept (i.e. self-charging stability, or COP>1), I thought it might do the trick nicely, without even trying to optimize the resistance.

      • FC

        In response to your last question (did it self-charge overnight?), unfortunately the answer is no. It is still depleted. I don’t see any option now other than charging O1-O2 back up above 5V.

        • Frank Acland

          Yes, I think this is going to be necessary.

          • FC

            That’s good, though. It will give us a chance to make some interesting readings and to do some more interesting tests, like the one you did yesterday.

  • Frank Acland

    I posted a new video above showing charging behaviour on o3-4

    • FC

      Thanks, Frank.

      Regarding the video’s heading, I’m sure there are many reasons why you want this month to be over ASAP, but I’m afraid that today is still March 21.

    • DrD

      Good morning Frank. I think your last video makes sense and I believe your explanation is correct. The regulator no longer “kicks in” because we have discharged the internal cell which supplies it with charge. This was one of my Q (&A) earlier (“can it continue indefinitely to supply the 0.51 mA”).
      The reason that O3,4 creeps up to that voltage, which as you say, depends on the number of batteries, is because the battery voltage is being split between the 1Meg Ohm resistor and the regulators output “resistance”. The latter isn’t actually a pure resistance, we can guess at what it is and it seems to include capacitance, explaining the slow rate of change.
      We could test this by measuring it (when stabilised) with different bias resistors and even estimate the internal R if you wished.

      More importantly, I think FC had a good idea to try internal charging from it’s own output via a bias resistor ( 1 MEG seems a bit high given that you only have a pd of a few volts (no-where near 9v). I agree 100 Ohm seemed too small.
      Maybe an initial boost from the batteries with a low value (<<1 Meg) bias resistor will be needed to get it started since it seems to be completely depleted now.
      OR, an interesting question: did it self charge a little bit overnight?

      • FC

        I agree that using a 1M Ohm resistor between O3 and O2 is a bit on the high side. But since the intention of my suggestion was to prove a concept (i.e. self-charging stability, or COP>1), I thought it might do the trick nicely, without even trying to optimize the resistance.

      • FC

        In response to your last question (did it self-charge overnight?), unfortunately the answer is no. It is still depleted. I don’t see any option now other than charging O1-O2 back up above 5V.

        • Frank Acland

          Yes, I think this is going to be necessary.

          • FC

            That’s good, though. It will give us a chance to make some interesting readings and to do some more interesting tests, like the one you did yesterday.

  • FC

    Now that you are charging the device, Frank, here’s a thought on the inner workings of this device and two tests that we can still try after the device is back in optimum operating conditions.

    I think that the controller chip of this device consumes more energy than normal on standby just to keep O3-O4 at 5.18V, even if nothing is connected to those terminals. And I think that this is the unidentified leak; there’s nothing more to it.

    The energy consumed by the chip is supplied by the primary, which means that its polar polymer (the one in the middle in the attached schematic) becomes progressively scrambled and its electric field loses strength. This results in a lower voltage across that polymer, which in turn translates into a lower O1-O2 reading, since the voltage across the whole stack is the sum of the partial voltages.

    Now, I think that the first thing we should do is find out how much energy is needed to create a bias across the top and bottom electrodes (O1-O2) strong enough to “charge” (or order) the middle polymer quicker than the controller chip is “discharging” (or scrambling) it. This can be done without a load across O3-O4, but would require a very long time and a lot of patience. It may be quicker (and more fun) to try to find the power output that matches a given power input, just like you were trying two days ago but gave up after realizing that you were unintentionally using too small a resistance. This approach has the advantage of giving us a COP as well, which may prove or disprove the device’s ability to harvest more energy than it consumes.

    The other test that I think we can try is basically the same, but feeding the input straight from the output by connecting different resistors at O3-O2 until a balance is found. This test too can be done with or without a load across O3-O4, but the advantage of this setup is that such a load is not necessary to get a COP, which simplifies things a lot.

    Any comments, corrections, additions or suggestions are most welcome.

    • Frank Acland

      Interesting: “I think that the controller chip of this device consumes more energy than normal on standby just to keep O3-O4 at 5.18V, even if nothing is connected to those terminals. And I think that this is the unidentified leak; there’s nothing more to it.”

      It could be that simple. Right now the standby voltage is not showing up, maybe because the primary is still in recharge mode, or maybe because I’ve killed it.

      • FC

        Yes, I see what you mean. I hope it is only depleted and it will come back in a while. 🙂

        But if something is damaged after yesterday’s test, I would be more inclined to think it’s the controller chip.

        • Frank Acland

          Yes, I meant killed the controller chip, not the orbo cell.

          • FC

            I just realized you are charging it through O3-O4. I agree with DrD, it’s much better through O1-O2.

        • Frank Acland

          Well all of a sudden the 5.17 has shown back up again. So I guess the chip is fine.

          • FC

            Nice. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            But if the chip is the cause of the leak, maybe we need to kill it!

          • FC

            Lol. The problem then is that if it is open circuit we may not be able to get a reading from the primary. And in that case, we wouldn’t be able to test anything.

          • DrD

            And it might go short circuit, to GND (not open)

          • Frank Acland

            Yes that would not be good. But when we did have the bias on o3-4 it seemed to prevent and even reverse the leak.

          • DrD

            I have doubts about that now, I think it was only because we were drawing on internal charge, not charge on the O1,2 ref cells but on the actual output cell to which we have no direct access. Could be wrong of course, i often am.

          • Frank Acland

            So if the chip is the cause of all our problems, can we neutralize it (not mechanically)?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            How about disassembling one of the devices? Then you could measure without having to guess.

          • DrD

            That’s a last resort. In fact I think zapping it is one step short of a last resort.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I wasn’t even thinking of zapping — I am trying to think of a way to either bypass it, or counteract the drain.

          • DrD

            That would be great but how? It’s hidden inside the dreaded potting compound. Disturbing that could be terminal.

          • Frank Acland

            One way to neutralize it temporarily is to drain the primary orbo cell.

          • FC

            How are the readings going, Frank? Can we get an update, please?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes

          • FC

            Looking good. Thanks. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            back in a while

          • FC

            No worries. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            What if we kept a high load resistor on o3-4? Would that neutralize the control chip, since the primary cell would not be able to recharge it. Then we could do our discharge testing on o1-o2 without having to fight the drain from the controller (if that really is the source of the drain)

          • DrD

            Hi Frank, I’m not sure why that would work, I wouldn’t expect to do what youre expecting, maybe FC or some one else can comment?.

          • Frank Acland

            You may well be right, it is a bit of a shot in the dark.

          • FC

            I must admit that at first I didn’t understand the purpose of your suggestion to neutralize the controller chip by triggering its cutoff. But now that you mention that you would then discharge test O1-O2, it makes a lot of sense. I applaud your thinking outside the box, Frank.

            I also think that the tests I summarized above should still be tried. As well as making O1-O3 and O1-O4 readings with the unit at full charge. But of course, you are the boss. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            I tried to keep the primary fully discharged in a test this afternoon, but it wasn’t so easy as it kept recharging itself — you’ll see in the ss. I think o1-2 needs to drop below a certain level before we can put the controller to sleep.

            Anyway now I have 220k Ohms over o2-3. But I need to cut the input as we’re approaching 7V!

          • FC

            I was just writing a comment saying exactly that. Unless O3-O4 stays at 0.000V, there will still be some energy consumption at the primary, which will inevitably feed on the secondary.

            And if O1-O2 is driven below a certain level (in order to keep the chip in sleep mode), the chances of making good discharge tests diminish. So it’s a tricky situation.

            By the way, I am perplexed by the behavior of O1-O2 today. Voltage spikes to 7V, readings above 6V with a depleted primary… Maybe OM will have something to say when he wakes up in a few hours.

            Which just reminded me, could you please make an O1-O3 and an O1-O4 reading? Thank you.

          • DrD

            I would say it’s dangerous as we can’t know for sure if “zapping it” will cause it to fail open or short. i know from experience that identical components when zapped can fail in deifferent ways so you risk making it worse and even if it works (fails open) how will you then test the output capability?

          • DrD

            How about a quark?

          • Close…but no cigar. The quark will still need refilled. Maybe if Rossi can get a quark to go for fifty years without refilling, or something like that, it would be close enough for me.

          • FC

            Totally agreed.

          • DrD

            Yehey as they say in Asia but I still think what FC and I just said is more reliable to O2

          • FC

            I think it was a typo in the spreadsheet. It’s now corrected. O1-O2.

          • DrD

            ah, good

      • DrD

        I think it is because you are trying to charge through O3,O4.
        This means you are trying to push charge backwards through the controller chip which I think will not work at all or will not work very well.
        I know we thought it was working on (Sunday?) but I now believe we were mistaken and that it only appeared to work because there was a charged cell inside which eventually discharged completely and the only way to recharge it is as FC just suggested, either battery to O2 or self feed
        from O4 to O2 but I think the former is needed to “kick start”..

        • FC

          By the way, the self feed would be from O3, not O4.

  • FC

    Now that you are charging the device, Frank, here’s a thought on the inner workings of this device and two tests that we can still try after the device is back in optimum operating conditions.

    I think that the controller chip of this device consumes more energy than normal on standby just to keep O3-O4 at 5.18V, even if nothing is connected to those terminals. And I think that this is the unidentified leak; there’s nothing more to it.

    The energy consumed by the chip is supplied by the primary, which means that its polar polymer (the one in the middle in the attached schematic) becomes progressively scrambled and its electric field loses strength. This results in a lower voltage across that polymer, which in turn translates into a lower O1-O2 reading, since the voltage across the whole stack is the sum of the partial voltages.

    Now, I think that the first thing we should do is find out how much energy is needed to create a bias across the top and bottom electrodes (O1-O2) strong enough to “charge” (or order) the middle polymer quicker than the controller chip is “discharging” (or scrambling) it. This can be done without a load across O3-O4, but would require a very long time and a lot of patience. It may be quicker (and more fun) to try to find the power output that matches a given power input, just like you were trying two days ago but gave up after realizing that you were unintentionally using too small a resistance. This approach has the advantage of giving us a COP as well, which may prove or disprove the device’s ability to harvest more energy than it consumes.

    The other test that I think we can try is basically the same, but feeding the input straight from the output by connecting different resistors at O3-O2 until a balance is found. This test too can be done with or without a load across O3-O4, but the advantage of this setup is that such a load is not necessary to get a COP, which simplifies things a lot.

    Any comments, corrections, additions or suggestions are most welcome.

    • Frank Acland

      Interesting: “I think that the controller chip of this device consumes more energy than normal on standby just to keep O3-O4 at 5.18V, even if nothing is connected to those terminals. And I think that this is the unidentified leak; there’s nothing more to it.”

      It could be that simple. Right now the standby voltage is not showing up, maybe because the primary is still in recharge mode, or maybe because I’ve killed it.

      • FC

        Yes, I see what you mean. I hope it is only depleted and it will come back in a while. 🙂

        But if something is damaged after yesterday’s test, I would be more inclined to think it’s the controller chip.

        • Frank Acland

          Yes, I meant killed the controller chip, not the orbo cell.

          • FC

            I just realized you are charging it through O3-O4. I agree with DrD, it’s much better through O1-O2.

        • Frank Acland

          Well all of a sudden the 5.17 has shown back up again. So I guess the chip is fine.

          • FC

            Nice. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            But if the chip is the cause of the leak, maybe we need to kill it!

          • FC

            Lol. The problem then is that if it is open circuit we may not be able to get a reading from the primary. And in that case, we wouldn’t be able to test anything.

          • DrD

            And it might go short circuit, to GND (not open)

          • Frank Acland

            Yes that would not be good. But when we did have the bias on o3-4 it seemed to prevent and even reverse the leak.

          • DrD

            I have doubts about that now, I think it was only because we were drawing on internal charge, not charge on the O1,2 ref cells but on the actual output cell to which we have no direct access. Could be wrong of course, i often am.

          • Frank Acland

            So if the chip is the cause of all our problems, can we neutralize it (not mechanically)?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            How about disassembling one of the devices? Then you could measure without having to guess.

          • DrD

            That’s a last resort. In fact I think zapping it is one step short of a last resort.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I wasn’t even thinking of zapping — I am trying to think of a way to either bypass it, or counteract the drain.

          • DrD

            That would be great but how? It’s hidden inside the dreaded potting compound. Disturbing that could be terminal.

          • Frank Acland

            One way to neutralize it temporarily is to drain the primary orbo cell — maybe.

          • FC

            How are the readings going, Frank? Can we get an update, please?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes

          • FC

            Looking good. Thanks. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            back in a while

          • FC

            No worries. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            What if we kept a high load resistor on o3-4? Would that neutralize the control chip, since the primary cell would not be able to recharge it. Then we could do our discharge testing on o1-o2 without having to fight the drain from the controller (if that really is the source of the drain)

          • DrD

            Hi Frank, I’m not sure why that would work, I wouldn’t expect to do what youre expecting, maybe FC or some one else can comment?.

          • Frank Acland

            You may well be right, it is a bit of a shot in the dark.

          • FC

            I must admit that at first I didn’t understand the purpose of your suggestion to neutralize the controller chip by triggering its cutoff. But now that you mention that you would then discharge test O1-O2, it makes a lot of sense. I applaud your thinking outside the box, Frank.

            I also think that the tests I summarized above should still be tried. As well as making O1-O3 and O1-O4 readings with the unit at full charge. But of course, you are the boss. 🙂

          • Frank Acland

            I tried to keep the primary fully discharged in a test this afternoon, but it wasn’t so easy as it kept recharging itself — you’ll see in the ss. I think o1-2 needs to drop below a certain level before we can put the controller to sleep.

            Anyway now I have 220k Ohms over o2-3. But I need to cut the input as we’re approaching 7V!

          • FC

            I was just writing a comment saying exactly that. Unless O3-O4 stays at 0.000V, there will still be some energy consumption at the primary, which will inevitably feed on the secondary.

            And if O1-O2 is driven below a certain level (in order to keep the chip in sleep mode), the chances of making good discharge tests diminish. So it’s a tricky situation.

            By the way, I am perplexed by the behavior of O1-O2 today. Voltage spikes to 7V, readings above 6V with a depleted primary… Maybe OM will have something to say when he wakes up in a few hours.

            Which just reminded me, could you please make an O1-O3 and an O1-O4 reading? Thank you.

          • DrD

            I would say it’s dangerous as we can’t know for sure if “zapping it” will cause it to fail open or short. i know from experience that identical components when zapped can fail in deifferent ways so you risk making it worse and even if it works (fails open) how will you then test the output capability?

          • DrD

            Yehey as they say in Asia but I still think what FC and I just said is more reliable to O2

          • FC

            I think it was a typo in the spreadsheet. It’s now corrected. O1-O2.

          • DrD

            ah, good

      • DrD

        I think it is because you are trying to charge through O3,O4.
        This means you are trying to push charge backwards through the controller chip which I think will not work at all or will not work very well.
        I know we thought it was working on (Sunday?) but I now believe we were mistaken and that it only appeared to work because there was a charged cell inside which eventually discharged completely and the only way to recharge it is as FC just suggested, either battery to O2 or self feed
        from O4 to O2 but I think the former is needed to “kick start”..

        • FC

          By the way, the self feed would be from O3, not O4.

  • Mats002

    I think this new discovery can be the base to build an orbo-like device upon:

    http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/ee/c6ee00121a#!divAbstract.

    A supercondensator made of light and heavy ions that is charged by temp differences from environment or the sun. If sufficient to charge a smartphone I do not know.

  • Mats002

    I think this new discovery can be the base to build an orbo-like device upon:

    http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/ee/c6ee00121a#!divAbstract.

    A supercondensator made of light and heavy ions that is charged by temp differences from environment or the sun. If sufficient to charge a smartphone I do not know.

  • Matt

    Some news. On the Orbo facebook page the father of OGirl Jen was asked what happened to the updates, he writes “It (the OPhone) developed problems”. This is I think a new statement from Steorn:

    “Email Update received from Steorn

    Dear Customer,

    First of all we would like to again thank you for your order and your interest in Orbo technology. We are contacting you to provide you with an update on the current situation with respect to product design, production and shipment.

    As you may know we have been investigating a charging issue with the initial batch of products we shipped, specifically the charge controller board used and consequent under/over charging.

    We believe that we have now developed a solution to the issues caused by the charge controller board failure. Testing is underway on the redesigned system, and assuming that the new approach meets our test parameters, we will then move on to the production stage of the process.

    While we are eager to get your order to you as soon as possible, we have to establish that the work we have done to address the issues we encountered is capable of delivering the high-quality product you are entitled to expect.

    As such, it is currently not possible to say exactly when your order will ship but please rest assured we are doing everything we can to minimise the delay.We will be in touch again shortly with further updates as work progresses.

    Best regards The Orbo Team”

    https://www.facebook.com/FreeEnergyTruth

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, Matt. Yes I got the same email yesterday and posted it in here somewhere. It’s interesting that they sey undercharging as well as overcharging, as that is what we have been seeing. Let’s hope the testing is thorough and they can ship working products!

  • Frank Acland

    Thanks, Matt. Yes I got the same email yesterday and posted it in here somewhere. It’s interesting that they sey undercharging as well as overcharging, as that is what we have been seeing. Let’s hope the testing is thorough and they can ship working products!

  • OM

    Here is your schematic diagram.

    http://s30.postimg.org/voiw9t8yp/Untitled11.png

    • OM

      You can charge P1&P2 via O1-O2.
      You can directly charge P3 via O1-O4.

    • OM

      O1-O4 directly connected to the internal Orbo Pack P3.

    • OM

      Frank, please report O1-O4 voltage along with O1-O2 in the datasheet. We can find cut-off voltage for DC-DC converter.

    • OM

      That is all, I am going to sleep.

      • Ged

        Beautiful work. Thank you.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Nice. So the capacitor is possibly not in parallel to the cells. Steorn said that the output of the cells is not plain DC, but fluctuating. Maybe Frank could borrow an oscilloscope to check this. A fluctuating voltage at O1-O2 would at least indicate that the cells are not completely dead.

      • DrD

        One problem is that Shaun told Frank that there is not meant to be a connection between the primary and secondary cells so R1 is not (intentionally) there (open) and strictly speaking, nor should O1 be a common.
        It’s very easy to check that.
        We could even tell whether it’s pure resistance or something else.
        Is the diode meant to be a zener?
        i think we need more tests to verify it.

    • DrD

      One problem is that Shaun told Frank that there is not meant to be a connection between the primary and secondary cells so R1 is not (intentionally) there (open) and strictly speaking, nor should O1 be a common.
      It’s very easy to check that.
      We could even tell whether it’s pure resistance or something else.
      Is the diode meant to be a zener?
      i think we need more tests to verify it.

      • FC

        Agreed.

        A resistor across O4-O1 would be another interesting test. It should discharge (or scramble) the lower polymer, so we should see a voltage drop across that pair of terminals, as well as across O1-O2.

  • OM

    Here is your schematic diagram.

    http://s30.postimg.org/voiw9t8yp/Untitled11.png

    • OM

      You can charge P1&P2 via O1-O2.
      You can directly charge P3 via O1-O4.

    • OM

      O1-O4 directly connected to the internal Orbo Pack P3.

    • OM

      Frank, please report O1-O4 voltage along with O1-O2 in the datasheet. We can find cut-off voltage for DC-DC converter.

    • OM

      That is all, I am going to sleep.

      • Ged

        Beautiful work. Thank you.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Nice. So the capacitor is possibly not in parallel to the cells. Steorn said that the output of the cells is not plain DC, but fluctuating. Maybe Frank could borrow an oscilloscope to check this. A fluctuating voltage at O1-O2 would at least indicate that the cells are not completely dead.

    • DrD

      One problem is that Shaun told Frank that there is not meant to be a connection between the primary and secondary cells so R1 is not (intentionally) there (open) and strictly speaking, nor should O1 be a common.
      It’s very easy to check those.
      We could even tell whether it’s pure resistance or something else.
      Is the diode meant to be a zener?
      i think we need more tests to verify it.

      • FC

        Agreed.

        A resistor across O4-O1 would be another interesting test. It should discharge (or scramble) the lower polymer, so we should see a voltage drop across that pair of terminals, as well as across O1-O2.

  • Okay, so, I have a question for anyone who wants to answer it. I’m becoming increasingly angry at the incompetence of the Steorn dudes. I am also becoming worried that said incompetence is going to get them into a “boy who cried wolf” situation where not enough people will believe them even if they are the real deal because their incompetence has caused them to stumble so many times, and that this tech will be self-torpedoed because of that. Supposedly, according to the newest Steorn letter, these dudes THINK that they have figured out a way to sidestep the problems that they were having, but I’m not sure how much we should trust that which they THINK. Add to that the fact that they, now, are backing off and saying that they cannot give an estimate as to how long it will be until their products ship, and it feels like one step forward, two steps back. I’m beginning to think that a reverse engineering project might be the way to go. So, with all of that in mind, my question is: do you guys think that we could build our own electrets that would work, or is there something special about Steorn’s “electret gel” that causes it to work when other kinds of electrets would not work?

    • Frank Acland

      I am not sure that the orbo is a normal electret, but making one’s own might be interesting to test. It does sound like quite a complex undertaking, however.

      Regarding Steorn’s competence, I understand where you are coming from, but I’m willing to wait and see.

      • For the record, I’m willing to wait and see, as well, but I would also like to have a backup plan in case the increasingly likely possibility that the whole thing goes south happens.

        • DrD

          How about a quark?

          • Close…but no cigar. The quark will still need refilled. Maybe if Rossi can get a quark to go for fifty years without refilling, or something like that, it would be close enough for me.

          • FC

            Totally agreed.

    • Ged

      Hmm. To build our own we need to chemically analyze what their polymer is made of, as well as analyze the surface deposition method that attaches it to the electrodes. Definitely both possible to do with the right equipment!

      After that, it’s a matter of how the first charging and prep of the core is done.

      • Great! I meant trying to use an electret that we already know how to make and trying to cause an Orbo Effect with that kind of electret, but if we could figure out this “electret gel” that they are using, then that would be cool, too!

    • davidbyrden

      I can’t imagine why you are still interpreting this as “incompetence” rather than “investment fraud”. How many times will you believe the dog ate their homework?

      Here’s something to think about: I asked on their Facebook account, politely, why they didn’t license the technology rather than risk the company on commercial products. Rather than answer me, they banned my account. Is that mere incompetence?

      Well, believe what you like, but they have reportedly taken 20 million of other people’s money without breaking any laws or giving anything in return. I call that supreme competence.

      • I really wish that Frank would not allow people to post that kind of crap.

        • Alex Fenrick

          While the point David is making might not be completely productive in a technical sense to the project, I think at some point we do need to consider this stuff more seriously in the overall scope of Steorn/Orbo. When a tiny unknown company takes in over $20 million dollars…yes lets read that again…$20 million of investor money without even a single shred legitimate proof of concept for almost 20 years…an intelligent mind has to at some point call shennigans. Like many others, I have been following Steorn since day one and had pretty much written off Steorn until the announcement of actual products shipping. This renewed my interest as I figured it would either finally reveal the magic we all are so deeply hoping for…..or it would finally end a 20 year long scam. An interesting exercise is to find one of your most intelligent friends who does not know of Steorn/Orbo and tell them the story making sure to include every promise, failure, business decision, webinar and detail you know….and see their reaction. It is always funny to hear intelligent people’s reaction to how phony that bar scene webcast with the scripted bartender and completely fabricated exchange between Sean and Pat. Did ANYONE believe that was genuine? My point being that most of us here have admittedly been following the Steorn carrot-on-a-stick for many years…some of us almost 20… so we forget how important it is to see this whole situation from the outside. And when looked at from outside….the whole situation is beyond ludicrous…it really is. The latest email from Steorn is pretty much what many of us predicted would happen…even though products should have been tested when shipped…there is a major design flaw that magically is only seen after it leaves the lab even though we saw rows and rows of units in the video which Sean says are in the final testing phase. Yet not one has been shown to work after shipping these tested units. Now the solution must be tested, tests analyzed and assuming all is okay, go BACK into manufacturing. We all know this could easily turn into another year of delay at a minimum.

          I know some will look at this comment as just another attempt to derail the discussion, but that is NOT my intention. While I think its time to physically cut into the box and I think we are being railroaded again by Steorn…I am still 100% in support of continuing the path Frank is on for as long as he sees fit. I watch every post to see if I can interject any technical help and believe good methodology is being used. With that being said, I think at the end of the day if we have run out of logical tests to make on the device it may be time to start considering some of the things surrounding the whole situation as Steorn continues to be unable to provide any technology of any sort to test. One sure would think they would have SOMETHING they could send to Frank after seeing all the component supply in Steorn labs even if it is just a little test rig….SOMETHING!! At some point there has to be a high water mark for everything in this world…..

          • Well, I could point out how not everyone agrees with you, Mr. Fenrick, that there is no proof of concept, but you probably already know that, at this point – and if you don’t, you should know it, given that you and I had a discussion about it not too long ago. This, and other things, make me suspicious that you are a garden variety pseudoskeptic who is a little different in one way: politeness…though even that may be breaking down, slowly but surely. Even with the politeness, though, these kinds of pseudoskeptic aspects of argumentation are not okay, in my opinion, so I think that I’ll have to ignore the rest of your comments.

            I also want to clarify that I have no problem with considering, but to throw out a serious charge like fraud is, in my opinion, not okay given what we have, now. I think that there are other possibilities.

          • Alex Fenrick

            Mark, that is quite presumptuous that I am a pseudoskeptic especially as I have shown my knowledge and understanding of Steorn/Orbo since day one. I would watch to curb that type of behavior…not a impressive nor wise trait. Anyways….as a very simple request in response to your rather tacky accusation…please provide me the proof of concept. Thanks.

  • Frank Acland

    I am not sure that the orbo is a normal electret, but making one’s own might be interesting to test. It does sound like quite a complex undertaking, however.

    Regarding Steorn’s competence, I understand where you are coming from, but I’m willing to wait and see.

  • Ged

    Hmm. To build our own we need to chemically analyze what their polymer is made of, as well as analyze the surface deposition method that attaches it to the electrodes. Definitely both possible to do with the right equipment!

    After that, it’s a matter of how the first charging and prep of the core is done.

  • davidbyrden

    I can’t imagine why you are still interpreting this as “incompetence” rather than “investment fraud”. How many times will you believe the dog ate their homework?

    Here’s something to think about: I asked on their Facebook account, politely, why they didn’t license the technology rather than risk the company on commercial products. Rather than answer me, they banned my account. Is that mere incompetence?

    Well, believe what you like, but they have reportedly taken 20 million of other people’s money without breaking any laws or giving anything in return. I call that supreme competence.

  • FC

    Thank you for today’s first readings, Frank. They are very very interesting.

    Under the attached model, the voltage across the lower polymer has shrunk by about 1V, bringing down O4 and O3 by the same amount (as would be expected).

    But the voltage across the whole stack has only dropped by about 0.4V, which means that the voltage across the two upper polymers has increased by 0.6V.

    I’m inclined to think that the middle polymer (the primary) has charged overnight by 0.6V at the expense of the lower polymer, and maybe even some more at the expense of the upper polymer (both of which form the secondary). And the remaining 0.4V up to the 1V lost by the lower polymer (which is the voltage drop across the whole stack) has been consumed by the inefficient controller chip.

    Unfortunately, this guess can’t be tested, since the device doesn’t have a terminal directly connected to the second electrode from the top.

    • FC

      Some more thoughts.

      All this has happened while inputting 40 mW (a far from negligible power) to the secondary. This energy would also have been dissipated by the chip.

      Or perhaps the overnight losses of the lower polymer are a telltale sign of where the leak is (rather than the problem being the chip). But I still need to think about this some more to even venture a guess. I can only say that forgetting about the lower polymer completely by using O4 instead of O1 as our new ground, may confirm or falsify this possibility.

      • FC

        I still think that the easiest way to proceed is by removing the bias circuit, connecting a high resistance resistor to O2-O3 and watching O2-O4 for any signs of stabilization, regardless of what O1-O4 might do.

        • Frank Acland

          Ok that’s no problem to do. What R value do you suggest?

          • FC

            I would start at the high end with 1M Ohm.

        • Frank Acland

          Actually, I currently have 200k Ohms on O2-3

          I can just take off the bias and see what happens.

          • FC

            Yes, you can do that too. It will be interesting to see the readings move.

            But in the long run, without a bias on O2, the chip (even if it is on standby) will end up discharging the primary.

          • FC

            Sorry, I misread your comment. Do you really mean O2-O3? Or is the resistor across O3-O4?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, o2-3 — I put the 200k Ohm on there yesterday evening.

          • FC

            Lol, ok. No wonder O1-O4 dropped 1V overnight. We were pushing it down. 🙂

            So maybe there’s no leak related to the lower polymer. But still, I think that removing the bias, putting (or keeping) a resistor across O2-O3, and recording as many readings as possible will give us a lot of interesting information.

          • FC

            I’m sorry for being so picky, but would it be too much to ask you to read O2-O4 as well, Frank?

          • Frank Acland

            Sure, no problem

          • FC

            Thank you very much.

          • OM

            Frank, probably the 334F & 334G cells were swapped.

            The O1-4 voltage is 2.175V. The converter is near shutdown now.

          • OM

            I can’t understand, what do you, guys, mean, when you say “no connection”. In your schematic 3 cells have 2 common metal planes. Each plane belongs to two cells. Is this “no connection” between the cells?

          • FC

            Hi OM.

            I believe that what Shaun means by “no connection” is that the 3 cores (or half cores) are not connected by wires, but rather, they are rolled together into one big cylinder, which effectively separates them only by means of the polar polymer layers, as shown in the schematic that I’m using. It’s true that this is actually a connection, since there are common electrodes. Furthermore, the polymers allow for a current to flow through them, albeit at a lower rate than a conductive material.

            It’s also possible that there is a layer of insulator between each core, but that insulator has failed, effectively putting adjacent electrodes in contact with each other.

            We have no way of knowing if these assumptions are valid or not. But we can definitely test the model based on those assumptions, which is what we are currently doing. And honestly, I think that so far, the results are pointing to the validity of this model over yours. Although it’s still too early to reach a conclusion.

          • Frank Acland

            Shaun did say that there was no electrical connection between the reference (secondary) and primary cores, just that they were coupled somehow. However I don’t think they are all rolled together in one big cylinder. In one Skype discussion I had before the unit was potted, Shaun showed me two separate cells, one larger than the other.

          • FC

            Thank you for the correction, Frank. In that case, I don’t understand how two radial fields can be coupled. There must be a way to bypass the geometry, then. Some more thinking is necessary in this area.

            Regarding the current test, I think that the 220k Ohm has proved a little too low, as the upper polymer is being slowly charged up, which means that we are overtaxing the primary. What other resistors do you have?

          • Frank Acland

            I have 470k and 1M Ohms

          • FC

            Ok, I would go for the 470K. What do you think?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, good idea.

          • FC

            One more comment. As pointed out by OM, I also think since the start of this test that the values of cells F334 and G334 in the spreadsheet are swapped by mistake.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I agree. Fixed now.

          • FC

            Thanks, Frank.

          • DrD

            Thanks Frank, I already answered along these lines before I saw this comment. We simply don’t know the nature of the coupling, I think it could be magnetic or electrostatic or some thing else, maybe even thermal. The only thing we know is “we don’t know” and given that we suspect a fault anyway, we could waste a lot of time imagining it is one thing when it’s completely different.
            I suggest making the least number of assumptions, using only what Shaun has told us plus ant unambiguous readings and testing as best we can. Please note, voltage readings alone are not all that helpful when trying to determine an unknown internal circuit and can misslead.

          • DrD

            NO Connection can only mean the top one, Except they are two seperate “units” and the primary is two cells (electrets) connected and the secondary is one cell (electret) but no electrical connection to the primary. That’s what Shaun stated. Frank please correct me if I’m wrong.
            I think there are many ways in which to interpret Shauns information and your voltage readings. I wouldn’t be surprised if none of the guesses is correct.
            My guess is that what Shaun means is that the secondary sits within a field created by the primary. That may be a magnetic field or electrostatic field or some thing else.

          • DrD

            If the readings suggest a connection, either it’s a fault OR Shaun was wrong (or innacurate) OR your not measuring where you think you are.

          • FC

            Hi DrD. I think that you and I are using the names “primary” and “secondary” in opposite ways. Maybe it’s just better to use the terms “reference” and “power” cores to avoid confusion. 🙂

          • DrD

            Oh yes, I agree, i keep getting confused, I think Frank corrected me then I couldn’t remember which way was correct. I hate the terms primary and secondary as they are so ambiguous.My sincere apologies to all.
            So primary is the power core?

          • FC

            No worries. 🙂
            Yes, I believe so.

  • FC

    Thank you for today’s first readings, Frank. They are very very interesting.

    Under the attached model, the voltage across the lower polymer has shrunk by about 1V, bringing down O4 and O3 by the same amount (as would be expected).

    But the voltage across the whole stack has only dropped by about 0.4V, which means that the voltage across the two upper polymers has increased by 0.6V.

    I’m inclined to think that the middle polymer (the primary) has charged overnight by 0.6V at the expense of the lower polymer, and maybe even some more at the expense of the upper polymer (both of which form the secondary). And the remaining 0.4V up to the 1V lost by the lower polymer (which is the voltage drop across the whole stack) has been consumed by the inefficient controller chip.

    Unfortunately, this guess can’t be tested, since the device doesn’t have a terminal directly connected to the second electrode from the top.

    • FC

      Some more thoughts.

      All this has happened while inputting 40 mW (a far from negligible power) to the secondary. This energy would also have been dissipated by the chip.

      Or perhaps the overnight losses of the lower polymer are a telltale sign of where the leak is (rather than the problem being the chip). But I still need to think about this some more to even venture a guess. I can only say that forgetting about the lower polymer completely by using O4 instead of O1 as our new ground, may confirm or falsify this possibility.

      • FC

        I still think that the easiest way to proceed is by removing the bias circuit, connecting a high resistance resistor to O2-O3 and watching O2-O4 for any signs of stabilization, regardless of what O1-O4 might do.

        • Frank Acland

          Ok that’s no problem to do. What R value do you suggest?

          • FC

            I would start at the high end with 1M Ohm.

        • Frank Acland

          Actually, I currently have 200k Ohms on O2-3

          I can just take off the bias and see what happens.

          • FC

            Yes, you can do that too. It will be interesting to see the readings move.

            But in the long run, without a bias on O2, the chip (even if it is on standby) will end up discharging the primary.

          • FC

            Sorry, I misread your comment. Do you really mean O2-O3? Or is the resistor across O3-O4?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, o2-3 — I put the 200k Ohm on there yesterday evening.

          • FC

            Lol, ok. No wonder O1-O4 dropped 1V overnight. We were pushing it down. 🙂

            So maybe there’s no leak related to the lower polymer. But still, I think that removing the bias, putting (or keeping) a resistor across O2-O3, and recording as many readings as possible will give us a lot of interesting information.

          • FC

            I’m sorry for being so picky, but would it be too much to ask you to read O2-O4 as well, Frank?

          • Frank Acland

            Sure, no problem

          • FC

            Thank you very much.

  • OM

    DrD,
    the diode is Schottky, not Zener.
    This is ordinary schematic of dc-dc step-up converter with Vin (O4), Vout (O3) and Ground (O1) pins. Typically, the step-up converter passes Vin to Vout when in shutdown mode: o1-4 = o1-3. If we need zero-output in shutdown mode, we must get the output from Vout relative to Vin, not relative to Ground (o3-4 = 0V). This is less common, but well known. Of course, there are other implementations.

    Sample 1 (dc-dc in shutdown mode):
    o1-2 +3.659
    o1-3 +2.14
    o1-4 +2.17
    o2-3 -1.46
    o2-4 -1.48
    o3-4 -.0.004

    • DrD

      USB DC-DC converters chips are available “off the shelf”.
      The ones we make are buck converters (needing external inductor), have a reference voltage for the 5V, have a darlington output, and as usual, the feedback varies the mark space ratio to maintain the 5V. Other than that I don’t know much about them, they’re not my designs. However, it sounds like Steorn has designed their own given that they are altering it. You can’t do that for an ic. Franks is clearly working but apart from delivering the correct output voltage we don’t know if has some others fault.

  • OM

    DrD,
    the diode is Schottky, not Zener.
    This is ordinary schematic of dc-dc step-up converter with Vin (O4), Vout (O3) and Ground (O1) pins. Typically, the step-up converter passes Vin to Vout when in shutdown mode: o1-4 = o1-3. If we need zero-output in shutdown mode, we must get the output from Vout relative to Vin, not relative to Ground (o3-4 = 0V). This is less common, but well known. Of course, there are other implementations.

    Sample 1 (dc-dc in shutdown mode):
    o1-2 +3.659
    o1-3 +2.14
    o1-4 +2.17
    o2-3 -1.46
    o2-4 -1.48
    o3-4 -.0.004

    • DrD

      USB DC-DC converters chips are available “off the shelf”.
      The ones we make are buck converters (needing external inductor), have a reference voltage for the 5V, have a darlington output, and as usual, the feedback varies the mark space ratio to maintain the 5V. Other than that I don’t know much about them, they’re not my designs. However, it sounds like Steorn has designed their own given that they are altering it. You can’t do that for an ic. Franks is clearly working but apart from delivering the correct output voltage we don’t know if has some others fault.

  • OM

    FC,
    I think, there is no leakage at all.
    The device intended to provide power for Ophone continuously. It generates power while it can, then turns off and should recharge itself. So, the dc-dc converter works and consumes energy even without a load. But the recharging does not happen. This is not a leakage, but the broken mechanism, if it worked at all ever.

    • OM

      However, I have one objection. Maybe I’m wrong.

    • FC

      I understand your point, OM. That is definitely a very probable scenario.

  • OM

    FC,
    I think, there is no leakage at all.
    The device intended to provide power for Ophone continuously. It generates power while it can, then turns off and should recharge itself. So, the dc-dc converter works and consumes energy even without a load. But the recharging does not happen. This is not a leakage, but the broken mechanism, if it worked at all ever.

    • OM

      However, I have one objection. Maybe I’m wrong.

    • FC

      I understand your point, OM. That is definitely a very probable scenario.

  • OM

    I can’t understand, what do you, guys, mean, when you say “no connection”. In your schematic 3 cells have 2 common metal planes. Each plane belongs to two cells. Is this “no connection” between the cells?

    • FC

      Hi OM.

      I believe that what Shaun means by “no connection” is that the 3 cores (or half cores) are not connected by wires, but rather, they are rolled together into one big cylinder, which effectively separates them only by means of the polar polymer layers, as shown in the schematic that I’m using. It’s true that this is actually a connection, since there are common electrodes. Furthermore, the polymers allow for a current to flow through them, albeit at a lower rate than a conductive material.

      It’s also possible that there is a layer of insulator between each core, but that insulator has failed, effectively putting adjacent electrodes in contact with each other.

      We have no way of knowing if these assumptions are valid or not. But we can definitely test the model based on those assumptions, which is what we are currently doing. And honestly, I think that so far, the results are pointing to the validity of this model over yours. Although it’s still too early to reach a conclusion.

      • Frank Acland

        Shaun did say that there was no electrical connection between the reference (secondary) and primary cores, just that they were coupled somehow. However I don’t think they are all rolled together in one big cylinder. In one Skype discussion I had before the unit was potted, Shaun showed me two separate cells, one larger than the other.

        • FC

          Thank you for the correction, Frank. In that case, I don’t understand how two radial fields can be coupled. There must be a way to bypass the geometry, then. Some more thinking is necessary in this area.

          Regarding the current test, I think that the 220k Ohm has proved a little too low, as the upper polymer is being slowly charged up, which means that we are overtaxing the primary. What other resistors do you have?

          • Frank Acland

            I have 470k and 1M Ohms

          • FC

            Ok, I would go for the 470K. What do you think?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, good idea.

          • FC

            One more comment. As pointed out by OM, I also think since the start of this test that the values of cells F334 and G334 in the spreadsheet are swapped by mistake.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I agree. Fixed now.

          • FC

            Thanks, Frank.

        • DrD

          Thanks Frank, I already answered along these lines before I saw this comment. We simply don’t know the nature of the coupling, I think it could be magnetic or electrostatic or some thing else, maybe even thermal. The only thing we know is “we don’t know” and given that we suspect a fault anyway, we could waste a lot of time imagining it is one thing when it’s completely different.
          I suggest making the least number of assumptions, using only what Shaun has told us plus any completely unambiguous readings and testing as best we can. Please note, voltage readings alone (especially DC only) are not all that helpful when trying to determine an unknown internal circuit and can misslead.

    • DrD

      NO Connection can only mean the top one, Except they are two seperate “units” and the secondary(ref) is two connected cells (electrets) and the primary(power) is one cell (electret) but no electrical connection between primary and secondary. That’s what Shaun stated. Frank please correct me if I’m wrong.
      I think there are many ways in which to interpret Shauns information and your voltage readings. I wouldn’t be surprised if none of the guesses is correct.
      My guess is that what Shaun means is that the secondary sits within a field created by the primary. That may be a magnetic field or electrostatic field or some thing else.
      Edit, attempted to correct my primary, secondary terminology error

      • DrD

        If the readings suggest a connection, either it’s a fault OR Shaun was wrong (or innacurate) OR your not measuring where you think you are.

      • FC

        Hi DrD. I think that you and I are using the names “primary” and “secondary” in opposite ways. Maybe it’s just better to use the terms “reference” and “power” cores to avoid confusion. 🙂

        • DrD

          Oh yes, I agree, i keep getting confused, I think Frank corrected me then I couldn’t remember which way was correct. I hate the terms primary and secondary as they are so ambiguous.My sincere apologies to all.
          So primary is the power core?

          • FC

            No worries. 🙂
            Yes, I believe so.

  • OM
  • OM
  • OM
  • OM
  • Frank Acland
    • FC

      Thank you, Frank. Looks pretty depleted. And apparently it can’t self-charge unassisted beyond 1V. A conventional bias circuit (18V, 1M Ohm) may bring it up over 3V again, as has happened before. This would give us the chance to make some discharge tests from there and compare energy in versus energy out, at least proving for once some energy “generation.”

      • Frank Acland

        I think it will get above 1V eventually. Prior to this (sorry I did not record it on the sheet) it went from around .9 to 1.3 unassisted over a period of days.

        • FC

          Ok, let’s wait, then.

  • Frank Acland
    • FC

      Thank you, Frank. Looks pretty depleted. And apparently it can’t self-charge unassisted beyond 1V. A conventional bias circuit (18V, 1M Ohm) may bring it up over 3V again, as has happened before. This would give us the chance to make some discharge tests from there and compare energy in versus energy out, at least proving for once some energy “generation.”

      • Frank Acland

        I think it will get above 1V eventually. Prior to this (sorry I did not record it on the sheet) it went from around .9 to 1.3 unassisted over a period of days.

        • FC

          Ok, let’s wait, then.

  • OM

    Frank, probably the 334F & 334G cells were swapped.

    The O1-4 voltage is 2.175V. The converter is near shutdown now.

  • OM

    Hysteresis. The “turn off” and “turn on” voltages may be different.

  • OM

    Hysteresis. The “turn off” and “turn on” voltages may be different.

  • I have been trying to follow this testing for the last few months and at this point I am very confused.

    Does anyone think there is evidence that either of these devices show signs of working? Has there been anything anomalous that would suggest further testing?

    At this point it seems like more testing is a waste of time and all that can be done is to wait on Steorn to send out actual products.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It seems pretty clear that both devices don’t work, and IMO nothing unexplainable has been observed. So what’s the point of further testing? Maybe it’s just curiosity. Find out what is hidden in the box.

  • I have been trying to follow this testing for the last few months and at this point I am very confused.

    Does anyone think there is evidence that either of these devices show signs of working? Has there been anything anomalous that would suggest further testing?

    At this point it seems like more testing is a waste of time and all that can be done is to wait on Steorn to send out actual products.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It seems pretty clear that both devices don’t work, and IMO nothing unexplainable has been observed. So what’s the point of further testing? Maybe it’s just curiosity. Find out what is hidden in the box.

      • rocky172534

        i think they’re having fun andreas

  • FC

    Changing the resistor across O2-O3 from 220k to 470k has had an interesting effect. While the voltage across the stack (O1-O2) has stabilized, the rate at which the lower polymer (O1-O4) is being pushed down, has roughly doubled (as could be expected, in a way). I would guess that since the upper polymer is receiving a lower input, the middle polymer (the primary) is now feeding twice as much from the lower polymer in order to continue delivering a current to the uppermost electrode (O2) while covering for the controller chip’s losses.

    My biggest concern in this situation is that the lower polymer may become scrambled beyond recovery, come tomorrow morning. So, unless we don’t mind losing that polymer forever, I would consider the option of charging it at some point in time by removing the resistor across O2-O3 and putting a bias across O1-O2 for a while before proceeding with this test.

    • FC

      Another thought. The voltage across the stack (O1-O2) is 4.74V according to the last reading. And the voltage across the lower polymer (O1-O4) is 2.085V. That means that the upper and middle polymers only supply 2.66V between the two of them (as confirmed by O2-O4). But since the middle polymer (the primary) is still strong enough to keep the controller chip (O3-O4) at 5.17V, that means that probably, the upper polymer only has in the order of 1V or less? And that is in spite of being the only polymer of the secondary that is being biased at the moment.

      I’m afraid that I have more questions than answers, so far.

      • FC

        Here’s another one.

        Since the voltage of the lower polymer has dropped 0.22V since the test started but the voltage across the stack has only dropped 0.15V, where have the remaining 0.07V gone? To the upper polymer? Or to the middle one?

        One would think that, since the middle polymer is the one doing the work and the upper polymer is the beneficiary of that work, it is the upper polymer that is being ordered at the expense of the lower one. But again, there’s no way to know as far as I can tell.

        • FC

          I’m starting to think that O1-O2 is only the voltage across the two reference cores, and that the power core is not stacked between them, as shown in the schematic above. The O1-O2 reading (~5V) is too low to fit three cores, especially when one of them was over 3V a few hours ago.

          So maybe we should go back to our first schematic (attached – but note that O1 and O2 are inverted), which is based only on Shaun’s words. And we should refrain from trying to double guess how the reference and power cores are coupled or anything else, as wisely suggested by DrD in a comment further down.

          • FC

            So working under this premise (the simplified schematic just above), what can we tell from the only unambiguous readings that we’ve got?

            We can tell that the reference core (O1-O2) is relaxing back down towards 4.7V, which historically is sort of an equilibrium point for that core.

            And we can tell that the controller chip (O3-O4) is at 5.17V, which means that the power core is above the chip’s cutoff level.

            Everything else is pure guesswork not necessarily connected with reality.

          • FC

            The first readings of the morning confirm the observations above.

            So now the question is, where is this test leading us? Is it going to prove anything useful (such as COP>1) sometime in the not too distant future?

            Personally, I think that it won’t. Because I believe (and this is a pure guess based on the cross readings) that this setup is effectively transferring charge from the bottom half to the top half of the reference core. So eventually, the bottom half will be depleted while the top half will reach its maximum order, preventing it from making up for the lost electric field of the bottom half. This will result in a weaker bias on the power core, which will eventually fall below the controller chip’s cutoff level.

            Do we want to continue with this test and wait for this theory to be confirmed or falsified? Or do we prefer to start another test that may give us some conclusive results quicker?

          • DrD

            I’m not 100% convinced the layout is as above ( 2 diag above), not saying it isn’t but it doesn’t fit with what i think shaun told Frank.

          • FC

            I’m sorry, DrD, which layout? This one?

          • DrD

            No, the 2nd up, I realised I was being ambiguous. Am very happy with this one. It’s Dave btw, I just chose DRD in a rush lol.
            Where is your aero space experience?
            Edit: I meant company/industry.

          • FC

            Right, Dave. I am happier with this layout too. But I still think that O4 may be connected somehow to the cathode of the lower polymer in the reference core.

            Hypersonic aerodynamics. But unfortunately, I spent most of my life working in the construction industry.

          • FC

            Construction industry. Prefer not to name the company’s name in public, but it’s one of the world’s ten largest construction conglomerates.

          • DrD

            Right, I thought so, so didnt ask. Same here.

  • FC

    Changing the resistor across O2-O3 from 220k to 470k has had an interesting effect. While the voltage across the stack (O1-O2) has stabilized, the rate at which the lower polymer (O1-O4) is being pushed down, has roughly doubled (as could be expected, in a way). I would guess that since the upper polymer is receiving a lower input, the middle polymer (the primary) is now feeding twice as much from the lower polymer in order to continue delivering a current to the uppermost electrode (O2) while covering for the controller chip’s losses.

    My biggest concern in this situation is that the lower polymer may become scrambled beyond recovery, come tomorrow morning. So, unless we don’t mind losing that polymer forever, I would consider the option of charging it at some point in time by removing the resistor across O2-O3 and putting a bias across O1-O2 for a while before proceeding with this test.

    • FC

      Another thought. The voltage across the stack (O1-O2) is 4.74V according to the last reading. And the voltage across the lower polymer (O1-O4) is 2.085V. That means that the upper and middle polymers only supply 2.66V between the two of them (as confirmed by O2-O4). But since the middle polymer (the primary) is still strong enough to keep the controller chip (O3-O4) at 5.17V, that means that probably, the upper polymer only has in the order of 1V or less? And that is in spite of being the only polymer of the secondary that is being biased at the moment.

      I’m afraid that I have more questions than answers, so far.

      • FC

        Here’s another one.

        Since the voltage of the lower polymer has dropped 0.22V since the test started but the voltage across the stack has only dropped 0.15V, where have the remaining 0.07V gone? To the upper polymer? Or to the middle one?

        One would think that, since the middle polymer is the one doing the work and the upper polymer is the beneficiary of that work, it is the upper polymer that is being ordered at the expense of the lower one. But again, there’s no way to know as far as I can tell.

        • FC

          I’m starting to think that O1-O2 is only the voltage across the two reference cores, and that the power core is not stacked between them, as shown in the schematic above. The O1-O2 reading (~5V) is too low to fit three cores, especially when one of them was over 3V a few hours ago.

          So maybe we should go back to our first schematic (attached – but note that O1 and O2 are inverted), which is based only on Shaun’s words. And we should refrain from trying to double guess how the reference and power cores are coupled or anything else, as wisely suggested by DrD in a comment further down.

          • FC

            So working under this premise (the simplified schematic just above), what can we tell from the only unambiguous readings that we’ve got?

            We can tell that the reference core (O1-O2) is relaxing back down towards 4.7V, which historically is sort of an equilibrium point for that core.

            And we can tell that the controller chip (O3-O4) is at 5.17V, which means that the power core is above the chip’s cutoff level.

            Everything else is pure guesswork not necessarily connected with reality.

          • FC

            The first readings of the morning confirm the observations above.

            So now the question is, where is this test leading us? Is it going to prove anything useful (such as COP>1) sometime in the not too distant future?

            Personally, I think that it won’t. Because I believe (and this is a pure guess based on the cross readings) that this setup is effectively transferring charge from the bottom half to the top half of the reference core. So eventually, the bottom half will be depleted while the top half will reach its maximum order, preventing it from making up for the lost electric field of the bottom half. This will result in a weaker bias on the power core, which will eventually fall below the controller chip’s cutoff level.

            Do we want to continue with this test and wait for this theory to be confirmed or falsified? Or do we prefer to start another test that may give us some conclusive results quicker?

          • DrD

            I’m not 100% convinced the layout is as above ( 2 diag above), not saying it isn’t but it doesn’t fit with what i think shaun told Frank.

          • FC

            I’m sorry, DrD, which layout? This one?

          • DrD

            No, the 2nd up, I realised I was being ambiguous. Am very happy with this one. It’s Dave btw, I just chose DRD in a rush lol.
            Where is your aero space experience?
            Edit: I meant company/industry.

          • FC

            Right, Dave. I am happier with this layout too. But I still think that O4 may be connected somehow to the cathode of the lower polymer in the reference core.

            Hypersonic aerodynamics. But unfortunately, I spent most of my life working in the construction industry.

          • FC

            Construction industry. Prefer not to name the company’s name in public, but it’s one of the world’s ten largest construction conglomerates.

          • DrD

            Right, I thought so, so didnt ask. Same here.

  • DrD

    I note that, the overnight charging of the ref cell via the 470k from O3 to O2 hasn’t had any success.
    It’s perhaps not surprising as it only has 2.38V across it. That’s equivalent to charging from the 18V bias with a 5.46 M Ohm resistor. We know from experience that even 1 M is very slow.

    • FC

      Agreed DrD. We were just looking for equilibrium with the minimum energy expense from the power core.

      As I wrote below a moment ago, I think that we are better off trying something different, such as searching for COP>1 with a traditional bias on O1-O2, as you suggested some time ago.

      • DrD

        Yes, I agree absolutely with that.
        Just pointing out that 470K might indeed be expected to be too big.

      • Frank Acland

        I don’t think we’ll get COP >1 while the controller is active. So maybe time to drain o1-2 to a point where it is not giving enough charge to activate it.

        • FC

          We haven’t really tried. Well, we did, but with the wrong resistors. And then you gave up. 🙂

          It won’t take long. Let’s give it a chance.

          • DrD

            Agree but recognise Franks in charge. Actually, if it works (the internal charging), even a tiny curent would be a COP>>1 because there is no external input so Output/input = infinite.

          • FC

            Frank’s the boss, no question about it.

            Regarding the internal charging (or self-charging), I agree. But it will be a very long test, just waiting for any voltage drop to disprove that an equilibrium has been reached.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok 100 Ohm resistor is now on o1-2 — It’s hot to the touch.

          • DrD

            its 250mW, quite a lot.

          • DrD

            It’s doing surprisingly well Frank, 10 mins at 250mW.
            You watch, it heard that, it’ll be zero next reading lol.

          • Frank Acland

            It’s dropping fast now. I guess there’s still enough charge in the primary to keep the controller at 5:17

          • DrD

            some very useful data there. If it was continuos we could measure the cut -off V of the converterregulator

          • Frank Acland

            I took the 100 Ohms off o1-2 and put it on o3-4. o1-2 bounced back from 1.66-3:07 in about 3 minutes

          • DrD

            I think that means that the “capacitor(s)”, which are almost certainly the cermets themsleves, that supply the charge to drive O4,3 and O1,2 is/are not connected directly to either of them. Hardly surpising really.

          • DrD

            Wow, it’s 22 mins. O1,2 is falling and we could caclculate a theoretical capcitance for O1,2 to provide 450mW

        • DrD

          The trouble is, even when it’s not active it may be taking Quiescant current and that may actually be it’s problem but it’s only speculation. My specualtion I meant)

          • Frank Acland

            Yes that is possible.

    • DrD

      It actually fell and interestingly, the loss was between O1 and O4.
      It was NOT O4 to O3 and NOT o1 to O2

  • DrD

    I note that, the overnight charging of the ref cell via the 470k from O3 to O2 hasn’t had any success.
    It’s perhaps not surprising as it only has 2.38V across it. That’s equivalent to charging from the 18V bias with a 5.46 M Ohm resistor. We know from experience that even 1 M is very slow.

    • FC

      Agreed DrD. We were just looking for equilibrium with the minimum energy expense from the power core.

      As I wrote below a moment ago, I think that we are better off trying something different, such as searching for COP>1 with a traditional bias on O1-O2, as you suggested some time ago.

      • DrD

        Yes, I agree absolutely with that.
        Just pointing out that 470K might indeed be expected to be too big.

      • Frank Acland

        I don’t think we’ll get COP >1 while the controller is active. So maybe time to drain o1-2 to a point where it is not giving enough charge to activate it.

        • FC

          We haven’t really tried. Well, we did, but with the wrong resistors. And then you gave up. 🙂

          It won’t take long. Let’s give it a chance.

          • DrD

            Agree but recognise Franks in charge. Actually, if it works (the internal charging), even a tiny output current (say 10M load) would be a COP>>1 because there is no external input so Output/input = infinite.
            Edit, of course we would have to keep drawing current long enough to rule out the possibilty that it’s coming from the stored charge (which I think happened a few days ago and misslead me “us?”.

          • FC

            Frank’s the boss, no question about it.

            Regarding the internal charging (or self-charging), I agree. But it will be a very long test, just waiting for any voltage drop to disprove that an equilibrium has been reached.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok 100 Ohm resistor is now on o1-2 — It’s hot to the touch.

          • DrD

            It’s doing surprisingly well Frank, 10 mins at ~200mW.
            You watch, it heard that, it’ll be zero next reading lol.

          • Frank Acland

            It’s dropping fast now. I guess there’s still enough charge in the primary to keep the controller at 5:17

          • DrD

            some very useful data there. If it was continuos we could measure the cut -off V of the converterregulator

          • Frank Acland

            I took the 100 Ohms off o1-2 and put it on o3-4. o1-2 bounced back from 1.66-3:07 in about 3 minutes

          • DrD

            I think that means that the “capacitor(s)”, which are almost certainly the cermets themsleves, that supply the charge to drive O4,3 and O1,2 is/are not connected directly to either of them. Hardly surpising really.

          • DrD

            Wow, it’s 22 mins. O1,2 is falling and we could caclculate a theoretical capcitance for O1,2 to provide ~200mW
            Edit: corrected typo, 450 mW should have said ~200mW

        • DrD

          The trouble is, even when it’s not active it may be taking Quiescant current and that may actually be it’s problem but it’s only speculation. My specualtion I meant)

          • Frank Acland

            Yes that is possible.

    • DrD

      It actually fell and interestingly, the loss was between O1 and O4.
      It was NOT O4 to O3 and NOT o1 to O2

  • Frank Acland

    We may have made some progress. Check the video above, and the spreadsheet for the latest updates: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UBIA4JTDb_kBwoytR9LP7OP7tH63yUeiPn2kKye4frY/edit#gid=0

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Is there still a voltage across the 100 Ohm resistor? If not so, I would guess that the circuit has interrupted the connection due to the high load.

      • Frank Acland

        the voltage on o3-4 comes and goes. It’s like it wants to charge but keeps getting drained. The spreadsheet doesn’t really tell the full story of o3-4 because it’s constantly cycling — or pulsing as Steorn calls it.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Perhaps you could try a somewhat larger resistance. The “pulsing” might just be caused by the voltage regulator that cannot ‘decide’ itself what to do.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes. Actually that’s deliberate. The goal here has been to try to neutralize the resistor by putting a heavy load on o1-2, because we think it might be the regulator that has been causing the drain in the system all this time. If we can put it to sleep we might get rid if the drain.

          • Frank Acland

            Once there is the intended voltage of 5.17 on o3-4, then we start to see the drain on o1-2

          • Frank Acland

            The other issue is that when o1-2 gets too high it gives more power to the cell on o3-4 and the controller kicks in. Which might stop the possible energy gain we are seeing now.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Let’s see what will happen. There may be a chance that the circuit gets grilled, but that would be welcome as long as it does not result in a short.

          • OM
          • DrD

            Hi Frank,
            Just watching your video.
            The discharge behaviour (slowing down ) is exactly the way a capacitor discharges. The rate of voltage drop gets slower as it reaches zero. In theory it only reaches zero after infinite time.
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html#c1

          • Sanjeev

            I’m guessing that you mean, you want to disable the regulator by not allowing it to kick in (turn ON) and that stops the drain from the reference orbo and as a result we see the self-charging of reference orbo.
            Is that right?

          • Frank Acland

            Exactly, Sanjeev.

          • Sanjeev

            Great. Ok lets see how the reference orbo charges up, we may be able to use it as stand alone orbo.

          • Frank Acland

            One potential problem is that if o1-2 charges too much, it delivers power to o3-4 which charges the cell on that side better, thus activating the regulator. So we can’t let it get too high.

          • Frank Acland

            if you see on the sheet, I drained o1-2 pretty low this morning twice, to try and deny power to o3-4

          • Sanjeev

            Yes I see, reference starts rising at 9:07 AM.

          • Frank Acland

            If the regulator is on (you can tell by the 5.17 reading on o1-2), then you see a constant drain on o1-2. Now we see a voltage gain even with a small load on o1-2.

          • Sanjeev

            You mean 5.17 on O3-4?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, my mistake. Edited now

          • Sanjeev

            No problem. Yes, there seems to be an electrical connection between reference and regulator (aka controller) circuit.

  • Frank Acland

    We may have made some progress. Check the video above, and the spreadsheet for the latest updates: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UBIA4JTDb_kBwoytR9LP7OP7tH63yUeiPn2kKye4frY/edit#gid=0

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Is there still a voltage across the 100 Ohm resistor? If not so, I would guess that the circuit has interrupted the connection due to the high load.

      • Frank Acland

        the voltage on o3-4 comes and goes. It’s like it wants to charge but keeps getting drained. The spreadsheet doesn’t really tell the full story of o3-4 because it’s constantly cycling — or pulsing as Steorn calls it.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Perhaps you could try a somewhat larger resistance. The “pulsing” might just be caused by the voltage regulator that cannot ‘decide’ itself what to do.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes. Actually that’s deliberate. The goal here has been to try to neutralize the resistor by putting a heavy load on o1-2, because we think it might be the regulator that has been causing the drain in the system all this time. If we can put it to sleep we might get rid if the drain.

          • Frank Acland

            Once there is the intended voltage of 5.17 on o3-4, then we start to see the drain on o1-2

          • Frank Acland

            The other issue is that when o1-2 gets too high it gives more power to the cell on o3-4 and the controller kicks in. Which might stop the possible energy gain we are seeing now.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Let’s see what will happen. There may be a chance that the circuit gets grilled, but that would be welcome as long as it does not result in a short.

          • Sanjeev

            I’m guessing that you mean, you want to disable the regulator by not allowing it to kick in (turn ON) and that stops the drain from the reference orbo and as a result we see the self-charging of reference orbo.
            Is that right?

          • Frank Acland

            Exactly, Sanjeev.

          • Sanjeev

            Great. Ok lets see how the reference orbo charges up, we may be able to use it as stand alone orbo.

          • Frank Acland

            One potential problem is that if o1-2 charges too much, it delivers power to o3-4 which charges the cell on that side better, thus activating the regulator. So we can’t let it get too high.

          • Frank Acland

            if you see on the sheet, I drained o1-2 pretty low this morning twice, to try and deny power to o3-4

          • Sanjeev

            Yes I see, reference starts rising at 9:07 AM.

          • Frank Acland

            If the regulator is on (you can tell by the 5.17 reading on o3-4), then you see a constant drain on o1-2. Now we see a voltage gain even with a small load on o1-2.

          • Sanjeev

            You mean 5.17 on O3-4?

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, my mistake. Edited now

          • Sanjeev

            No problem. Yes, there seems to be an electrical connection between reference and regulator (aka controller) circuit.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Frank I see you are getting arthritis in your joints. Look into colloidal silver. I have read it has an effect on arthritis.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks Michael, yes it’s hereditary unfortunately.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Frank I see you are getting arthritis in your joints. Look into colloidal silver. I have read it has an effect on arthritis.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks Michael, yes it’s hereditary unfortunately.

  • Alex Fenrick

    Mark, that is quite presumptuous that I am a pseudoskeptic especially as I have shown my knowledge and understanding of Steorn/Orbo since day one. I would watch to curb that type of behavior…not a impressive nor wise trait. Anyways….as a very simple request in response to your rather tacky accusation…please provide me the proof of concept. Thanks.

  • FC

    Congratulations, Frank. That was one interesting test yesterday. It appears that the power core was effectively dead by the end of the day. But we may be surprised again today and it may spring back to life, who knows. In any case, I think that if it doesn’t recover, we may have won the equivalent of a bare core in return, as the reference core would be liberated from its biasing duties and the regulator would become a fossilized relic, as you intended.

  • FC

    Congratulations, Frank. That was one interesting test yesterday. It appears that the power core was effectively dead by the end of the day. But we may be surprised again today and it may spring back to life, who knows. In any case, I think that if it doesn’t recover, we may have won the equivalent of a bare core in return, as the reference core would be liberated from its biasing duties and the regulator would become a fossilized relic, as you intended.

  • DrD

    Frank, You say
    “there is a 100 Ohm resistor on o1-o2, with the goal of keeping that orbo cell drained
    On o1-2 there’s a 100k Ohm resistor to see if we can get some energy out of o1-o2 without draining it.”
    Should one of those be O3-O4? The SS only refrs to the 100k, as being on O1,2.
    I believe something “extraordinary” is indeed going on. Providing conclusive proof is different matter and for that reason I’ve held back from implying that “it’s working”. I think I did that once, unintentionally.
    We know it is NOT performing as Steorn suggested but I believe you are on the verge of demonstrating that it is generating power. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to provide conclsuive proof except maybe over a long time period.
    However, if we throw out the possibilty that a battery is hidden inside (a valid proposition of course) then I think you are on the verge of proving, lets say “excess power”.
    Keep up the good work!

    • Frank Acland

      Yes you are right, it was a typo. This morning o1-2 has dropped in voltage quite a bit which raises some questions about how much power is in that cell. I’m thinking of trying to put an external bias on o1-2 and see what kind of difference it makes, if any.

      • DrD

        Only dropped a little though, 0.14V. The big question is, how much if any is being generated.

        • Frank Acland

          So let’s say the average voltages since the 100k Ohm resistor was put on is 3.8 V. This calculator — http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/ohms-law-calculator — says it would be producing 0.00014 W

          • DrD

            Did you add external bias Frank? Some

            things causing it to rise again. Could it be reacting to changes in room temperature

          • Frank Acland

            No, not yet.

          • Ged

            Being that it’s a smaller mass then that Ocube, it could be more (rapidly) sensitive to temperature, if that is indeed a factor. Gives ideas for more testing at least.

          • Sanjeev

            100k is too small for a load, I think its best left open while in self
            charging mode and for discharge use a 100 ohm to discharge it quickly (while noting the voltage every minute or so).

            If you can keep the primary orbo discharged and stop the leakage in reference AND if the reference keeps self charging to 4V within a few hours consistently AND without any external battery, then it can be used as a stand alone orbo generator.

            If it takes 3 hours to self charge from 0 to 4V then you can discharge it to a suitable load about 6 times everyday and keep an account of energy it produces per day.

          • Frank Acland

            I like your idea, Sanjeev. Did the first of these tests just now. I didn’t note the voltage every minute unfortunately. I did a 10 minute discharge test and made it to 1.111 V. It actually went a bit lower, but started to come back up even with the load on it, kind of like hitting a barrier.

          • Ged

            Could be the time difference between fully discharging the static charge of the polymer imposed on the parallel plates, versus when the actual breaking down of the polymer starts. Kinda like discharging all the low hanging fruit first.

            If that’s so, then keeping the resistor on longer should see the sudden rise end and the discharge continue below that first floor.

            Still, very cool that it is responding so vigorously and fast.

          • Frank Acland

            I am doing a video now to show what I was talking about. I’d like to see how long it resists at the lower levels.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like its working !
            In SS, I guess you mean 220 on o1-2 (because I guess the o3-4 is still connected to 100 ohm)
            Its good that it came back up just in 20 mins. I was expecting it’d take hours. This means you can do many more charge-discharge cycles per day and reach the target energy earlier.

            The calculation of energy released in this discharge will be approx because we know only the start and end values. Mostly it can be assumed to be linear (seeing from earlier experiments) and so the average of start and end powers can be taken. But its recommended to video it while it discharges (at least once or twice), so we can see if its really linear.

          • Ged

            I would propose from hypothesis that it would be linear till that “floor” is hit, and then nonlinear (slow decrease) after that point if the discharging is continued, indicating two separate, physical discharge modes. We shall see! This is pretty exciting as it’s so dramatic and fast compared to anything we’ve seen yet.

            Gees, who would have thought sapping that controller chip would change so much?

          • Sanjeev

            We saw such instant self charging in steorn’s video, where he shows a bare orbo being shorted and jumping to max voltage (2.5V) instantly. That’s what got me interested. We see something similar here, so its good news.
            Controller was suspect since the start and I’m glad Frank has found a workaround.

          • Frank Acland

            First video is processing, it had a lower Voltage starting point and it hits a floor at around .6-7 Volts. Finally it broke through. I ran out of space on the camera so the video cuts off abruptly. I’ll post it as soon as it uploads to YT. Then I’ll do a follow up.

          • Ged

            That would support two discharge modes, so that’s very interesting. Maybe we don’t want to drain it too much in the second (scrambling) mode, or we could “freck” up those domains, perhaps.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok I have taken the resistor off, and it’s bouncing back pretty quickly again. I’m not sure how easy it is to mess with the domains actually. You’ll see on the second video.

          • Sanjeev

            According to Steorn, it bounces back instantly, but the “juice” takes some time to build up. Which means that if you load it just after it bounces back, it will discharge very quickly and if you allow it to sit longer without load, it accumulates energy and takes longer time to discharge (with same load).

          • Frank Acland

            The first video is posted above now.

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks for the video.
            The discharge is not linear, which means more frequent readings will be needed (ideally a DAQ).
            It slows down a lot after 1V, perhaps the generation rate begins to match the consumption around that point. (A guess). But it keeps going down for some reason. If its generating it should stop somewhere.

          • Frank Acland

            Now the follow up video is posted above.

          • Sanjeev

            Nice. It still takes some time to recharge, but its acceptable, seeing the very poor performance of ocube. I think you need to repeat the charge discharge a few times just to confirm that its not a one day affair and then you are ready for energy estimate tests.
            There are two options, first is to find a balance point where charge equals discharge and leave it there till we get enough energy to conclude something. The other option is to do periodic discharges. It depends on you. Or may be others can suggest better options.

          • Frank Acland

            I’m interested in trying to find a balance point, if possible. It would take less work! I’m going to leave the orbo charging overnight (I mean self-charging with no bias) and think of something to do in the morning. Right now it’s at about 3.5 Volts.

          • Sanjeev

            Great.
            See you then.

          • Frank Acland

            I did not keep the test going long enough to find out where it would stop. I would think that a higher ohm resistor would have a higher “stopping point”.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes it should.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I think I’ve noticed that kind of behavior.

          • Frank Acland

            I’ve been doing another discharge/recharge test this morning. Data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UBIA4JTDb_kBwoytR9LP7OP7tH63yUeiPn2kKye4frY/edit#gid=0

          • Sanjeev

            Looks good to me, although the self-charging is not as fast as last time.
            I will do some calculations in some time.

          • Frank Acland

            Possibly self charge time depends on how much work was extracted from the cells by the load. I think I had the load (same value 220 ohms) on longer in this test than the previous. Maybe it also depends on how much ‘rest’ the cell has had previous to the test. I guess with continued testing we’ll see.

          • Sanjeev

            Plots for charge/discharge are attached here.
            Total energy output is 10.17 Joules, most of which is released in first 10 mins. The discharge is parabolic, with very slow change after 1V is reached.
            The self charge is strange, the best fit I got is a log curve. The voltage stops increasing after approx 2 hours. It may be building up juice after that as you say.

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks very much, Sanjeev. Nice to see it graphic form.

          • Alex Fenrick

            Frank….Sean has said he believes Orbo is speeding up and slowing down electromagnetic fields, which causes energy anomalies. Out of curiousity, have you tried putting an oscilloscope on the outputs to see if you can detect any evidence of this or any other anomalies?

          • Frank Acland

            No I haven’t — I don’t have a scope here.

  • DrD

    Frank, You say
    “there is a 100 Ohm resistor on o1-o2, with the goal of keeping that orbo cell drained”
    I think that Should say O3-O4?
    and it’s not mentioned in the SS.

    I believe something “extraordinary” is indeed going on. Providing conclusive proof is a different matter and for that reason I’ve held back from implying that “it’s working”. I think I did that once, unintentionally.
    We know it is NOT performing as Steorn suggested but I believe you are on the verge of demonstrating that it is generating power. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to provide conclsuive proof except maybe over a long time period.
    However, if we throw out the possibilty that a battery is hidden inside (a valid proposition of course) then I think you are on the verge of proving, lets say “excess power”.
    Keep up the good work!

    • Frank Acland

      Yes you are right, it was a typo. This morning o1-2 has dropped in voltage quite a bit which raises some questions about how much power is in that cell. I’m thinking of trying to put an external bias on o1-2 and see what kind of difference it makes, if any.

      • DrD

        Only dropped a little though, 0.14V. The big question is, how much if any is being generated.

        • Frank Acland

          So let’s say the average voltages since the 100k Ohm resistor was put on is 3.8 V. This calculator — http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/ohms-law-calculator — says it would be producing 0.00014 W

          • DrD

            Did you add external bias Frank? Some

            things causing it to rise again. Could it be reacting to changes in room temperature

          • Frank Acland

            No, not yet.

          • Ged

            Being that it’s a smaller mass then that Ocube, it could be more (rapidly) sensitive to temperature, if that is indeed a factor. Gives ideas for more testing at least.

          • Sanjeev

            100k is a tiny load, I think its best to leave it open while in self
            charging mode and for discharge use a 100 ohm (while noting the voltage every minute or so).

            If you can keep the primary orbo discharged and stop the leakage in reference AND if the reference keeps self charging to 4V within a few hours consistently AND without any external battery, then the reference can be used as a stand alone orbo generator.

            If it takes 3 hours to self charge from 0 to 4V then you can discharge it to a suitable load about 6 times everyday and keep an account of energy it produces per day.

          • Frank Acland

            I like your idea, Sanjeev. Did the first of these tests just now. I didn’t note the voltage every minute unfortunately. I did a 10 minute discharge test and made it to 1.111 V. It actually went a bit lower, but started to come back up even with the load on it, kind of like hitting a barrier.

          • Ged

            Could be the time difference between fully discharging the static charge of the polymer imposed on the parallel plates, versus when the actual breaking down of the polymer starts. Kinda like discharging all the low hanging fruit first.

            If that’s so, then keeping the resistor on longer should see the sudden rise end and the discharge continue below that first floor.

            Still, very cool that it is responding so vigorously and fast.

          • Frank Acland

            I am doing a video now to show what I was talking about. I’d like to see how long it resists at the lower levels.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like its working !
            In SS, I guess you mean 220 on o1-2 (because I guess the o3-4 is still connected to 100 ohm)
            Its good that it came back up just in 20 mins. I was expecting it’d take hours. This means you can do many more charge-discharge cycles per day and reach the target energy earlier.

            The calculation of energy released in this discharge will be approx because we know only the start and end values. Mostly it can be assumed to be linear (seeing from earlier experiments) and so the average of start and end powers can be taken. But its recommended to video it while it discharges (at least once or twice), so we can see if its really linear.

          • Ged

            I would propose from hypothesis that it would be linear till that “floor” is hit, and then nonlinear (slow decrease) after that point if the discharging is continued, indicating two separate, physical discharge modes. We shall see! This is pretty exciting as it’s so dramatic and fast compared to anything we’ve seen yet.

            Gees, who would have thought sapping that controller chip would change so much?

          • Sanjeev

            We saw such instant self charging in steorn’s video, where he shows a bare orbo being shorted and jumping to max voltage (2.5V) instantly. That’s what got me interested. We see something similar here, so its good news.
            Controller was suspect since the start and I’m glad Frank has found a workaround.

          • Frank Acland

            First video is processing, it had a lower Voltage starting point and it hits a floor at around .6-7 Volts. Finally it broke through. I ran out of space on the camera so the video cuts off abruptly. I’ll post it as soon as it uploads to YT. Then I’ll do a follow up.

          • Ged

            That would support two discharge modes, so that’s very interesting. Maybe we don’t want to drain it too much in the second (scrambling) mode, or we could “freck” up those domains, perhaps.

          • Frank Acland

            Ok I have taken the resistor off, and it’s bouncing back pretty quickly again. I’m not sure how easy it is to mess with the domains actually. You’ll see on the second video.

          • Sanjeev

            According to Steorn, it bounces back instantly, but the “juice” takes some time to build up. Which means that if you load it just after it bounces back, it will discharge very quickly and if you allow it to sit longer without load, it accumulates energy and takes longer time to discharge (with same load).

          • Frank Acland

            The first video is posted above now.

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks for the video.
            The discharge is not linear, which means more frequent readings will be needed (ideally a DAQ).
            It slows down a lot after 1V, perhaps the generation rate begins to match the consumption around that point. (A guess). But it keeps going down for some reason. If its generating it should stop somewhere.

          • Frank Acland

            Now the follow up video is posted above.

          • Sanjeev

            Nice. It still takes some time to recharge, but its acceptable, seeing the very poor performance of ocube. I think you need to repeat the charge discharge a few times just to confirm that its not a one day affair and then you are ready for energy estimate tests.
            There are two options, first is to find a balance point where charge equals discharge and leave it there till we get enough energy to conclude something. The other option is to do periodic discharges. It depends on you. Or may be others can suggest better options.

          • Frank Acland

            I’m interested in trying to find a balance point, if possible. It would take less work! I’m going to leave the orbo charging overnight (I mean self-charging with no bias) and think of something to do in the morning. Right now it’s at about 3.5 Volts.

          • Sanjeev

            Great.
            See you then.

          • Frank Acland

            I did not keep the test going long enough to find out where it would stop. I would think that a higher ohm resistor would have a higher “stopping point”.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes it should.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I think I’ve noticed that kind of behavior.

  • OM

    Hi there.

    Frank, what is the voltage on O1-4 now?

    • Frank Acland

      It’s 2.393 V

      • OM

        Thank you!

  • OM

    Hi there.

    Frank, what is the voltage on O1-4 now?

    • Frank Acland

      It’s 2.393 V

      • OM

        Thank you!

  • OM

    I recommend try to charge the internal cell via O1-4 and watch the voltage on O1-4, O1-2.

  • OM

    I recommend try to charge the internal cell via O1-4 and watch the voltage on O1-4, O1-2.

  • OM

    One more test: setup some load on O1-4 and charge via O1-2 in the same time.

  • OM

    One more test: setup some load on O1-4 and charge via O1-2 in the same time.

  • OM

    Frank, I understand that you are tired.
    But, please, record the voltage on O1-4 too.

  • OM

    Frank, I understand that you are tired.
    But, please, record the voltage on O1-4 too.

  • OM
  • OM
  • OM
  • Frank Acland

    Two new videos have been posted above showing discharge and recharge behavior of the orbo pack.

  • Frank Acland

    Two new videos have been posted above showing discharge and recharge behavior of the orbo pack.

  • OM

    goodbye

  • OM

    goodbye

  • DrD

    Hi Frank,
    Just watching your video.
    The discharge behaviour (slowing down ) is exactly the way a capacitor discharges. The rate of voltage drop gets slower as it reaches zero. In theory it only reaches zero after infinite time.
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html#c1
    Edit: same for charging.

    • Cesar Pinheiro

      From the Orbo page in facebook:

      Orbo Hi Darren, the ophone contains a capacitor that directly powers our phone. During extensive use this capacitor may become discharged, however this capacitor is being constantly trickle charged by Orbo. So after a period of time the capacitor will be recharged and the phone will be functional again. In essence the phone is charging itself.

  • Alex Fenrick

    Frank….Sean has said he believes Orbo is speeding up and slowing down electromagnetic fields, which causes energy anomalies. Out of curiousity, have you tried putting an oscilloscope on the outputs to see if you can detect any evidence of this or any other anomalies?

    • Frank Acland

      No I haven’t — I don’t have a scope here.

  • Frank Acland

    I’ve been doing another discharge/recharge test this morning. Data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UBIA4JTDb_kBwoytR9LP7OP7tH63yUeiPn2kKye4frY/edit#gid=0

    • Sanjeev

      Looks good to me, although the self-charging is not as fast as last time.
      I will do some calculations in some time.

      • Frank Acland

        Possibly self charge time depends on how much work was extracted from the cells by the load. I think I had the load (same value 220 ohms) on longer in this test than the previous. Maybe it also depends on how much ‘rest’ the cell has had previous to the test. I guess with continued testing we’ll see.

        • Sanjeev

          Plots for charge/discharge are attached here.
          Total energy output is 10.17 Joules, most of which is released in first 10 mins. The discharge is parabolic, with very slow change after 1V is reached.
          The self charge is strange, the best fit I got is a log curve. The voltage stops increasing after approx 2 hours. It may be building up juice after that as you say.

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks very much, Sanjeev. Nice to see it graphic form.

  • Frank Acland

    I left the unit overnight to see if recharging continued, and so far it has — up to 3.67V now.

  • Frank Acland

    I left the unit overnight to see if recharging continued, and so far it has — up to 3.67V now.

  • Okay…so, I’m not as well-versed in physics and electrical stuff as some others participating, and I can’t say that I have been following the comments sections of these E-Cat World articles about testing The Orbo Effect terribly carefully. (in large part because of my lower level of knowledge about this kind of stuff) However, from what I have been reading in these comments sections, I’m getting the sense that, from the observation and running of these tests, the consensus seems to be moving (albeit very slowly) towards believing that it is likely that The Orbo Effect is real. If I was going to write a progress report for regular folks, would it be accurate to say that the consensus on this blog, at least overall, is slowly moving in favor of The Orbo Effect being real? For the record, I’m just speaking hypothetically and I do not plan on writing any progress report on my blog, or anywhere else.

    • Frank Acland

      Mark, I’m not sure about a consensus. I think there’s just a small number of people following the latest experiments. Personally from what I have seen recently it seems that the orbo cell we are testing on now is acting similar to what Steorn have said it does — if you put a load on it, it will do some work and then recharge. More testing needs to be done, however to confirm this is a long-term effect that can be repeated over and over.

      • Right, I get that it is a small number of people following your experiments, but I meant the consensus of those people, just to clarify.

        • Frank Acland

          I guess we’ll have to let people speak for themselves. As for myself, I’m increasingly positive as I continue to test.

          • Alex Fenrick

            I actually think it is a good thing that we have people on both sides of the fence as long as the discussion stays intelligent and logical. Both perspectives need checks and balances. I’m off to look over the newest spreadsheet updates!!

          • DrD

            Just to second what Frank is saying.
            It does seem that it is generating a tiny amount of energy which is so small it could just possibly be explained as coming from well known sources. My feeling is that it isn’t coming from any of those well known sources. That “feeling” isn’t proof. I have no axe to grind either way so I’m not on either side of a fence but hope to be eventually.
            Time, or a fully working Orbo may tell .

    • Alex Fenrick

      There is definitely NOT a consensus at this point by any means that we are seeing the Orbo effect. Using your stated frame of perspective Mark…we could say there a consensus that we MAY be observing a condition that is possibly similar to what the Orbo effect claims to do. But to say that we ARE seeing the Orbo effect at this point is a complete logical fallacy on every contextual front from the tests in my opinion as an electrical engineer. We are experiencing a condition out of a “black box” that can be easily explained by numerous other effects as well as POSSIBLY Orbo…but many of us have come to very logical other possibilities that do not break the laws of nature as Orbo would. Now with that being said….I think Frank hit the nail on the head to the point we need to observe this effect long term to rule out the numerous alternate possibilities if we are to stay on the same track with this device I would say we are far from a consensus of observation of Orbo effect at this point…and slowly straying from it as we still do not have a working Ocube or Ophone and Steorn sinks back into the shadows as is their 20 yr custom after yet another catastrophic failure. I think the next big step in this saga will be to see if Steorn can finally provide a working unit after what they have supposedly found to be faulty here. From an engineering standpoint, what they have said to be the issue should be a VERY simple fix from a component perspective. While a whole new manufacturing phase will probably take some time…Sean could easily send Frank a test unit if he is sincere about the testing interaction he has had with Frank. If we get a working unit to test and we establish a track record of the Ocube charging enough per day over a decent period of time to substantiate Steorn’s claim of operation….THEN and only then would it be prudent to consider a consensus of success for the Orbo. Claiming a consensus for Orbo effect short of that or any unforseen future progress only causes to remove legitimacy from the testing and the whole situation.

  • Frank Acland

    Mark, I’m not sure about a consensus. I think there’s just a small number of people following the latest experiments. Personally from what I have seen recently it seems that the orbo cell we are testing on now is acting similar to what Steorn have said it does — if you put a load on it, it will do some work and then recharge. More testing needs to be done, however to confirm this is a long-term effect that can be repeated over and over.

    • Right, I get that it is a small number of people following your experiments, but I meant the consensus of those people, just to clarify.

      • Frank Acland

        I guess we’ll have to let people speak for myself. As for myself, I’m increasingly positive as I continue to test.

        • Alex Fenrick

          I actually think it is a good thing that we have people on both sides of the fence as long as the discussion stays intelligent and logical. Both perspectives need checks and balances. I’m off to look over the newest spreadsheet updates!!

        • DrD

          Just to second what Frank is saying.
          It does seem that it is generating a tiny amount of energy which is so small it could just possibly be explained as coming from well known sources. My feeling is that it isn’t coming from any of those well known sources. That “feeling” isn’t proof. I have no axe to grind either way so I’m not on either side of a fence but hope to be eventually.
          Time, or a fully working Orbo may tell .

  • Frank Acland

    Another discharge/recharge test has been done (actually recharge is still ongoing) this evening: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UBIA4JTDb_kBwoytR9LP7OP7tH63yUeiPn2kKye4frY/edit#gid=0

    • Sanjeev

      It outputted about 10.6 joules, almost same as yesterday. But the self charge was faster (in 30 mins)
      I think it will be good to operate it in the range of 1V min and 3V max, which will take about 1 hour per cycle and output the same energy.(Assuming similar performance everyday)

      I made this calculator to check if the test is practical (time wise)
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SmmDLw9-g_Mamtk7qloWEeWNacHwEBpXxdwdTXnAZpc/edit?ts=56c4cc64#gid=246518164

      • Frank Acland

        The faster recharge could be because of the longer gap of time between tests compared to the previous one.

        • Sanjeev

          Sorry I read it wrong, 30 mins was for yesterday, today its 20 mins (to reach 3V).
          Its remarkable that it reaches 2V in only a minute or two. So if you operate in 1V-2V range, it will be very fast. Only thing is we need to see how much energy it generates in that range in 2 mins.

  • Frank Acland

    Another discharge/recharge test has been done (actually recharge is still ongoing) this evening: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UBIA4JTDb_kBwoytR9LP7OP7tH63yUeiPn2kKye4frY/edit#gid=0

    • Sanjeev

      It outputted about 10.6 joules, almost same as yesterday. But the self charge was faster (in 30 mins)
      I think it will be good to operate it in the range of 1V min and 3V max, which will take about 1 hour per cycle and output the same energy.(Assuming similar performance everyday)

      I made this calculator to check if the test is practical (time wise)
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SmmDLw9-g_Mamtk7qloWEeWNacHwEBpXxdwdTXnAZpc/edit?ts=56c4cc64#gid=246518164

      • Frank Acland

        The faster recharge could be because of the longer gap of time between tests compared to the previous one.

        • Sanjeev

          Sorry I read it wrong, 30 mins was for yesterday, today its 20 mins (to reach 3V).
          Its remarkable that it reaches 2V in only a minute or two. So if you operate in 1V-2V range, it will be very fast. Only thing is we need to see how much energy it generates in that range in 2 mins.

  • DrD

    Goodmorning Frank,
    It does seem as though the current state of the domains is such that the reference cell (the double elecret that you’re currently working with) has settled at a “self charge” voltage of about 3.65V.
    That’s interesting because it’s not a single cell voltage.
    Also a few days ago it seemed to be 5.19V which is approximately the potential of two cells?
    So I think weve lost a few domains?
    I appreciate you managed to force it higher than 5.19V but I think that wasn’t a genuine “self charge” voltage, it was a forced over voltage.
    It’s current behaviour is that of a voltage source (3.65V) with a high series resistance feeding a large capacitor across O1,2.
    It’s charging curve will be according to the link i pasted earlier:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html#c1

    • Frank Acland

      I was actually able to force charge it over 6V by pumping enough DC into it. Right now, without any kind of bias applied, it seems to settle to around 3.69 if you leave it alone for a day or so without discharging. Possibly higher if you leave it longer, but I haven’t done that yet. Yes the self-charging curve does seem very similar to the one in the link you posted.

      • DrD

        I agree, i only guessed at 3.65V. If it is as behaving that way it will approach a fixed voltage asymptotically and not go above it, unless some additional domains re-align.
        BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that it is necessaily a battery or voltage source etc., only that it acts like it. Just in case some one thinks I do think that’s the only explananation.
        Now for a long patient wait.

  • DrD

    Goodmorning Frank,
    It does seem as though the current state of the domains is such that the reference cell (the double elecret that you’re currently working with) has settled at a “self charge” voltage of about 3.65V.
    That’s interesting because it’s not a single cell voltage.
    Also a few days ago it seemed to be 5.19V which is approximately the potential of two cells?
    So I think weve lost a few domains?
    I appreciate you managed to force it higher than 5.19V but I think that wasn’t a genuine “self charge” voltage, it was a forced over voltage.
    It’s current behaviour is that of a voltage source – Imagine a battery- (3.65V) with a high series resistance feeding a large capacitor across O1,2.
    It’s charging curve will be according to the link i pasted earlier:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html#c1

    • Frank Acland

      I was actually able to force charge it over 6V by pumping enough DC into it. Right now, without any kind of bias applied, it seems to settle to around 3.69 if you leave it alone for a day or so without discharging. Possibly higher if you leave it longer, but I haven’t done that yet. Yes the self-charging curve does seem very similar to the one in the link you posted.

      • DrD

        I agree, i only guessed at 3.65V. If it is behaving that way it will approach a fixed voltage asymptotically and not go above it, unless some additional domains re-align.
        BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that it is necessaily a battery or voltage source etc., only that it acts like it. Just in case some one thinks I do think that’s the only explananation.
        Now for a long patient wait.