Steorn again

seamus

AlmightyCushion wrote:

I think someone said before that any one looking to patent a perpetual motion machine is instantly refused.

I think that may be waht patrick was referring to, and it may also counter daveirl's point of "why haven't they just sent it to market yet?". If they are unable to obtain a patent based on their claims, then releasing a working model onto the market would result very quickly in it being reverse-engineered and copied. If they can get scientific verification (and in a very public way), then they may be able to get a patent for it.

radiospan

Important update on the Kinetica demo:

We are experiencing some technical difficulties with the demo unit in London. Our initial assessment indicates that this is probably due to the intense heat from the camera lighting. We have commenced a technical assessment and will provide an update later today. As a consequence, Kinetica will not be open to the public today (5th July). We apologise for this delay and appreciate your patience.

Sounds completely bogus.

Duggy747

plazzTT wrote:

Sounds completely bogus.

Yea, these 80W bulbs at work are turning me into charcoal! :rolleyes:

zuutroy

plazzTT wrote:

Sounds completely bogus.

Yeah....are they trying to tell us that the camera lighting has heated the magnets beyond the Curie temperature and they're no longer working? Seems to be the only way a magnetically driven system could fail due to heat IMO!

woodyg

liar liar liar your magnets are on fire .
So to no suprise it's a complete load of bullplop.

Ice_Box

Some pics from the feed

http://yirkha.fud.cz/tmp/468cd289_clipboard.jpg

http://yirkha.fud.cz/tmp/468cd700_clipboard.jpg

http://yirkha.fud.cz/tmp/468cdaf5_clipboard.jpg

http://yirkha.fud.cz/tmp/468cdaca_clipboard.jpg

They are having major problems. The orbo has been taken away and what you see is some plastic wheel.

seamus

zuutroy wrote:

Yeah....are they trying to tell us that the camera lighting has heated the magnets beyond the Curie temperature and they're no longer working? Seems to be the only way a magnetically driven system could fail due to heat IMO!

Or perhaps the metal expanded, you know as it does when it's heated, which interfered with it or otherwise caused an excessive amount of friction.

Kwekubo

The direct links to the video streams have been unearthed:

[URL="mms://wms.Astream.com/steorn1"]Camera 1[/URL]
[URL="mms://wm2.Astream.com/steorn2"]Camera 2[/URL]
[URL="mms://win.Astream.net/steorn3"]Camera 3[/URL]
[URL="mms://wm.Astream.net/steorn4"]Camera 4[/URL]

zuutroy

seamus wrote:

Or perhaps the metal expanded, you know as it does when it's heated, which interfered with it or otherwise caused an excessive amount of friction.

So it can only be operated in an artificially cooled environment which requires more energy to keep cool than the technology produces eh!......Technology busted, nobel prize please.

Sam Vimes

joe_chicken wrote:

Not exactly true...

In fact a lot of the time 0 = The limit of ( x tending to infinity) (1 / x)

As has been pointed out, trying to use maths to prove this thing wrong is not wise. Maths only models what we know, there could be forces working on this that we don't know about. That's unlikely, but there could be.

1/x as x tends to infinity is taken to be 0 for practical purposes but its not zero.

maybe all they've done is assumed the zero energy they generated to be 1/x and therefore mathematically not zero but actually still zero

griffdaddy wrote:

well how did the universe originate then? when did time start or has it always been there?

well the creation of the universe is where science ends. i doubt the ceo of steorn is some kind of deity

patrickolee

Hmmmm, not a lot going on there. Although I can see some people walking around in the background, which is nice.

TheBigLebowski

http://www.astream.com/live/steorn/camera1.html
What's it supposed to do?

patrickolee

TheBigLebowski wrote:

http://www.astream.com/live/steorn/camera1.html
What's it supposed to do?

That be a plastic box that be.

zuutroy

TheBigLebowski wrote:

http://www.astream.com/live/steorn/camera1.html
What's it supposed to do?

As with everything this crowd have done to date, no one knows...no details...just a load of perspex, I'm sure that in a couple if days it'll move and they'll tell us it's a miracle.
It would be quite easy to pull a stroke in that setup, whereby there would be optical fibres in the perspex which provide a source of infrared photons which could move the wheel by radiation pressure, seemingly without any power source.

_blank_

zuutroy wrote:

As with everything this crowd have done to date, no one knows...no details...just a load of perspex, I'm sure that in a couple if days it'll move and they'll tell us it's a miracle.
It would be quite easy to pull a stroke in that setup, whereby there would be optical fibres in the perspex which provide a source of infrared photons which could move the wheel by radiation pressure, seemingly without any power source.

Ah here.

This post belongs in Conspiracy Theories tbh, why would they go to such lengths for a hoax?

seamus

zuutroy wrote:

So it can only be operated in an artificially cooled environment which requires more energy to keep cool than the technology produces eh!......Technology busted, nobel prize please.

Who said anything about artificially cooled?
For a start, it's a demo system. Any finished system would probably incorporate passive or even a small bit of active cooling, but may still need to be kept below a certain temp to work properly.

Basically what you're doing is attempting to step all over this with zero information. I have no information either, and I'm skeptical, but like anything else, I'm not going to write it off without some information.

Pal

when do we all get a once in a lifetime chance to invest ?

zuutroy

seamus wrote:

Who said anything about artificially cooled?
For a start, it's a demo system. Any finished system would probably incorporate passive or even a small bit of active cooling, but may still need to be kept below a certain temp to work properly.

Basically what you're doing is attempting to step all over this with zero information. I have no information either, and I'm skeptical, but like anything else, I'm not going to write it off without some information.

I was just playin'...though I'd be temptetd to write if off BECAUSE of the continued lack of information. As I said above, my bet is that its no more than a Crookes Radiometer.

seamus

zuutroy wrote:

I was just playin'...though I'd be temptetd to write if off BECAUSE of the continued lack of information..

Ah but this kind of crap happens all the time. You build a demo system, it works fine, responds to all tests, no problems. Then you go to publicly demo it, and it falls flat on its face. I think it happens on purpose.

If I hadn't seem similar disasters happen before, I'd be equally likely to be suspicious.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

joe_chicken

Pal wrote:

when do we all get a once in a lifetime chance to invest ?

I think the device works on the inertia created by money pyramids... you can never lose you know!

Kinetic^

Free energy has made the device to turn invisible.......all hail steorn!!!!

seo-ireland

From: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10005596o-2000331777b,00.htm

Still not there, but as Steorn has just said that the museum will be closed all day there's probably no point.

Oh dear...

TheBigLebowski

patrickolee wrote:

That be a plastic box that be.

Oh I thought that was it. I was waiting for it to start spinning.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Catsmokinpot

seamus wrote:

Yeah, but otherwise what would that magnetic energy be doing (serious question)?

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

bonkey wrote:

I've already explained this is wrong.

sorry i cant find where you explained the laws of thermodynamics are wrong? and im sure the scientific community would love to know about this.

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

bonkey wrote:

Actually, its called the theory of gravity. Strangely enough, thats what it is. Its a theory.

do you understand what the term theory means in a scientific context?

bonkey wrote:

No, you believe. You can have relative-but-not-absolute surity. You do not know.

anyone who doesn't have absolute surity that when they jump into the air they wont come down is wrong, unless there is no gravitational force they will come down.

you do not need to believe that it will not happen gravity will prove itself to you.

bonkey wrote:

One of the points underlying String / -brane / p- Theory was that gravity had not been reliably confirmed at scales below approximately 1mm, nor at intergalactic scales (obviously). It is assumed to hold at these scales. There is evidence to suggest that it does, but its not entirely conclusive.

Its a theory. The "laws" of physics are all theories, and each and every single one of them can be wrong.

This is because no matter where you are in the galaxy, you are always under the pull of the Supermassive black hole in the the galaxies center, so no matter how much scientists try to measure, our environment prohibits us from getting the desired results, this does not mean that it is inaccurate or not fact.

When someone disproves thermodynamics then i will agree there are not laws of thermodynamics and when someone jumps up into the air unaided, and doesn't come back down again, then i will know i was wrong.

cooperguy

judas101 wrote:

its a perspex box with a little white contraption in it. cant see any real detail as only camera 4 is working for me.

theres a load of small desks and four computers around it with a few blokes messing around on them.

i wonder what the computers are for?

According to a guy from Steorn that was on The Last Word yesterday the computers are for the people in the building to talk to the people looking at it online.

bonkey

Catsmokinpot wrote:

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


sorry i cant find where you explained the laws of thermodynamics are wrong?

I explained that your explanation of what a law actually is is incorrect.

do you understand what the term theory means in a scientific context?

Yes, I do. I was correcting your understanding of what a law is, in a scientific context.

anyone who doesn't have absolute surity that when they jump into the air they wont come down is wrong,

Then you still don't understand what a scientific theory is. Absolute surity means they rule out any chance of being wrong. If you rule out any chance of being wrong, you no longer have falsifiability. If you do not have falsifiability, you do not have a scientific theory.

When someone disproves thermodynamics then i will agree there are not laws of thermodynamics and when someone jumps up into the air unaided, and doesn't come back down again, then i will know i was wrong.

Why is it that every time I point out that the explanation someone has given of the meaning of a scientific term is not strictly correct, they take it to mean that I'm somehow suggesting scientific theory has been indermined, or that I support whatever crazy notion it is that they're trying to say is wrong.

Scientific Laws are not what you claimed they are. That is the point I was making. They are simply renamed theories. They are not proven. THey are not inviolable. They can be wrong.

You allegation that its the Law of gravity is also wrong. Its the Theory of Gravity. It is not, nor ever has been, named a Law, even though the renaming would mean nothing.

All scientific theories are falsifiable. The possibility exists that our understanding of them is flawed. You can insist all you want that they are facts that are unquestionably true, but such insistence is non-scientific. They're falsifiable (and thus unproven and unproveable) theories.

johnp

You guys are funny

Crucifix

seansouth wrote:

...why would they go to such lengths for a hoax?

Millions of euro?

Also Bonkey's right. There's a famous analogy for it. Imagine trying to learn the rules of chess by watching people play. You could watch 100 games and think you've totally figured out how the pawn works, and then the, and excuse me if I misspell this, I'm not a big chess player, En Passent move would catch you totally off guard. However skeptical I am personally about Steorn, doesn't make this any less true.