Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Steorn revolution begins with "Get Real. Get Orbo"

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    gpjordanf1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 867 ✭✭✭gpjordanf1


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    There are such things as patents you know. They're never going to be taken seriously on this when they continue to be so vague and mysterious about it. The burden of proof is on them, not the scientific community - we have mountains of data backing up the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Yes and they have applied for patents and have some granted,not on a OU device but on the applications of bringing it all together.

    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Not obviously a hoax, but more than likely. I imagine it'll stop at some point and they'll blame the lights again or something.

    Ah yes, well back to my original point, good old begrudgary, even if it works well beyond the probable battery life and even if its working at the original speed, then fails. Its a hoax, because of lights or some other lame get out of jail card. Is this how the scientific community want to deal with this?


  • Options
    #33
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    they have put their prototype on public display, thats a huge step forward in the free energy game. How many have done that before?
    At least three people. Nice inventions, but with no way to convert the energy made into electicity.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Yes and they have applied for patents and have some granted,not on a OU device but on the applications of bringing it all together.
    They say they have a working OU device, but they don't patent it.
    scargill wrote: »
    how do they earn their money?
    Would this be a good way for gangs, etc, to launder money?


  • Options
    #34
    gpjordanf1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 867 ✭✭✭gpjordanf1


    the_syco wrote: »
    At least three people. Nice inventions, but with no way to convert the energy made into electicity.

    Any links?

    the_syco wrote: »
    They say they have a working OU device, but they don't patent it.

    The US patent office wont accept a patent for an OU device without a working OU device, so how can ya patent it? And from my reading of Steorn they are not interested in a patent for a particular device but rather the methodology and application.

    And at this point they dont "say", but infact they "have" a working OU divice and its on public display in Dublin.


  • Options
    #35
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    And at this point they dont "say", but infact they "have" a working OU divice and its on public display in Dublin.

    Bull! They say they have a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. I'm not going to soften it by using terms like "over unity", they are claiming perpetual motion. They have something on display, but there is no way to verify that it is not powered from an external source. My understanding is that the bottom is suspiciously opaque.

    They are claiming to violate every known model we have for how the physical world works. So I ask you, which is more likely: That physicists have been completely wrong about physics for the last 200 years, or that the Steorn device doesn't quite live up to Steorn's claims?

    If your answer is that physicists have consistently misunderstood classical electromagnetism, then I think we are done. There is no use in arguing, since that is a ridiculous position (because, for example, the computer you are posting from works).


  • Options
    #36
    privateBeavis
    Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭privateBeavis


    Ok I dropped into Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium to see it in the flesh. What did impress me was the 10,000 mAh NiMH batteries they use to keep the wheel spinning, if I used them in my model planes I could fly forever probably :D

    But apart from that I'm unconvinced, I did ask a Steorn guy to cut the wire to the battery to see if it would keep spinning but he wasn't having any of it.

    oh yeah and of course the free steorn t-shirt on the way out almost made the trip worth it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Any links?
    I'll dig them up. They came up when we were discussing Tesla in one of the forums.


  • Options
    #38
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    gpjordanf1, they had their panel of independent experts. That panel found jack-****. As Sagan said, scientists have to be open minded, but not to the point of being gullible.


  • Options
    #39
    chem
    Registered Users Posts: 1,230 ✭✭✭chem


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    My understanding is that the bottom is suspiciously opaque.

    Its to hide the hamsters running in their wheels :D:D


  • Options
    #40
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    They are claiming to violate every known model we have for how the physical world works. So I ask you, which is more likely: That physicists have been completely wrong about physics for the last 200 years, or that the Steorn device doesn't quite live up to Steorn's claims?

    If your answer is that physicists have consistently misunderstood classical electromagnetism, then I think we are done. There is no use in arguing, since that is a ridiculous position (because, for example, the computer you are posting from works).

    It is possible (however small) that the device is harnessing some power source that is unknown and therefore not included when balancing out the equation.

    I doubt Steorns claims, its probably a hoax and should be treated with every scrap of scepticism available.

    But to say that an observed phenomenon that doesn't fit with known physics can never be true unless you throw everything you know in the bin is slightly arrogant.

    I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose - J. B. S. Haldane.


  • Options
    #41
    gpjordanf1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 867 ✭✭✭gpjordanf1


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Bull! They say they have a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. I'm not going to soften it by using terms like "over unity", they are claiming perpetual motion. They have something on display, but there is no way to verify that it is not powered from an external source. My understanding is that the bottom is suspiciously opaque.

    Bull, please explain? How do you jump to that conclusion? Have you access to the data? have you run tests in your lab? What is this external source? Some sort of wireless power? Or this this a preimtive strike in case the battery is still going two months down the road. So your understanding is the base is opaque, which means that its a hoax of course. So you haven't seen it in person?
    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    They are claiming to violate every known model we have for how the physical world works. So I ask you, which is more likely: That physicists have been completely wrong about physics for the last 200 years, or that the Steorn device doesn't quite live up to Steorn's claims?

    No they are not, dont be so dramatic. They are claiming a small anomoly in magnetics. They are harnessing a small magnetic interaction which is time dependant, my understanding.
    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    If your answer is that physicists have consistently misunderstood classical electromagnetism, then I think we are done. There is no use in arguing, since that is a ridiculous position (because, for example, the computer you are posting from works).

    Nobody but you have said that physicists have consistently misunderstood classical electromagnetism, I have said they have found a SMALL anomoly with magnets.
    The world is still turning, the sun still rising. No big deal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    gpjordanf1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 867 ✭✭✭gpjordanf1


    mikhail wrote: »
    gpjordanf1, they had their panel of independent experts. That panel found jack-****. As Sagan said, scientists have to be open minded, but not to the point of being gullible.

    THey didn't even build the rig? how is that valid scientific research? How can you test a system without building it.

    So inturn their opinion isn't worth jac-*****!


  • Options
    #43
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    gpjordanf1 I don't think you grasp the magnitude of Steorns claims. It would possibly be the greatest scientific breakthrough since Newton discovered the laws of gravity. If what they claim is true then the entire body of scientific knowledge humanity has accumulated to date is founded on false principles and would have to be redressed in it's entirety.

    This is not a matter of a "SMALL anomoly with magnets", it is the equivalent of discovering time flowing backwards.


  • Options
    #44
    npc_100
    Registered Users Posts: 42 ✭npc_100


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    THey didn't even build the rig? how is that valid scientific research? How can you test a system without building it.

    So inturn their opinion isn't worth jac-*****!


    Unfair to blame the panel, they could only work with what they were given access to and that certainly did not include a working device, or plans on how to build one.

    If Steorn want to be taken seriously, they should now get the same independent team they selected before and let them in to examine the device now that it is built.


  • Options
    #45
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    What someone unfamiliar with physics can miss is the precise meaning of the term "Energy" as used by science. Energy has many other meanings in everyday use and this (I believe) causes confusion.

    Remember that Energy (the scientific version) and Mass (matter) are equivalent - as described by E=mc^2. When Steorn claim to be able to create "free energy", they are effectively saying that they can magic new matter out of thin air.

    Maybe looking at in terms of matter being created out of nothing (rather than the fluffier concept of "free energy") will help explain why Steorn's claims seem so far-fetched to those of us with a background in science.


  • Options
    #46
    chem
    Registered Users Posts: 1,230 ✭✭✭chem


    the_syco wrote: »
    At least three people. Nice inventions, but with no way to convert the energy made into electicity.

    Well if you have something spinning (for free) weld a rod to it, and at the other end place a ball of copper. Around the ball of copper, place magnets. "or is it the other way round?" Spinning stuff makes eletricty, same as hydro electric power stations, or any other power station for that matter.


  • Options
    #47
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    chem wrote: »
    Well if you have something spinning (for free) weld a rod to it, and at the other end place a ball of copper. Around the ball of copper, place magnets. "or is it the other way round?" Spinning stuff makes eletricty, same as hydro electric power stations, or any other power station for that matter.

    In other words a dynamo.


  • Options
    #48
    leaba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭leaba


    chem wrote: »
    Well if you have something spinning (for free) weld a rod to it, and at the other end place a ball of copper. Around the ball of copper, place magnets. "or is it the other way round?" Spinning stuff makes eletricty, same as hydro electric power stations, or any other power station for that matter.

    If you got a magic wand (for free) you could just hey presto a battery


  • Options
    #49
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,306 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Nobody but you have said that physicists have consistently misunderstood classical electromagnetism, I have said they have found a SMALL anomoly with magnets.
    The world is still turning, the sun still rising. No big deal.

    Nobody but him and Steorn.

    If Steorn's claims were correct then it would be anything but a small anomaly. It would be violating one of the most fundamental laws of physics.

    They may as well be claiming they've invented an anti-gravity device.


  • Options
    #50
    leaba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭leaba


    I'm sitting on an anti-gravity device


  • Options
    #51
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    They may as well be claiming they've invented an anti-gravity device.

    That would be coolest thing ever!!:D
    *Dreams*


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    swampgas wrote: »
    What someone unfamiliar with physics can miss is the precise meaning of the term "Energy" as used by science. Energy has many other meanings in everyday use and this (I believe) causes confusion.

    Remember that Energy (the scientific version) and Mass (matter) are equivalent - as described by E=mc^2. When Steorn claim to be able to create "free energy", they are effectively saying that they can magic new matter out of thin air.

    Maybe looking at in terms of matter being created out of nothing (rather than the fluffier concept of "free energy") will help explain why Steorn's claims seem so far-fetched to those of us with a background in science.

    They claim to *not understand* where the energy comes from. If you add up the energy from KNOWN energy sources then it breaks laws.


    50 years ago this would have looked like free energy also. And probably would have been scoffed at.


  • Options
    #53
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,306 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    zod wrote: »
    50 years ago this would have looked like free energy also. And probably would have been scoffed at.

    50 years ago? I think you'll find you'd have to go some way further back before the basic concepts of that would be new to people.
    They claim to *not understand*

    That much I can believe.


  • Options
    #54
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    zod wrote: »
    But to say that an observed phenomenon that doesn't fit with known physics can never be true unless you throw everything you know in the bin is slightly arrogant.

    No, it isn't. If energy isn't conserved then it means that the Schroedinger equation, thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations are all wrong. You would need to bin all of them.
    zod wrote: »
    I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose - J. B. S. Haldane.

    Oh, so we're playing physics quotes are we?

    "Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics."-Seth Lloyd

    "The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." -Arthur Eddington

    "The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke. It is not possible to find any other law (except, perhaps, for super selection rules such as charge conservation) for which a proposed violation would bring more skepticism than this one. Not even Maxwell’s laws of electricity or Newton’s law of gravitation are so sacrosanct, for each has measurable corrections coming from quantum effects or general relativity. The law has caught the attention of poets and philosophers and has been called the greatest scientific achievement of the nineteenth century. Engels disliked it, for it supported opposition to Dialectical Materialism, while Pope Pius XII regarded it as proving the existence of a higher being." - Ivan P. Bazarov

    "A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore the deep impression that classical thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts." - Albert Einstein

    Anyone can toss quotes around, taking them out of context to give the impression that great minds back up their position. It is silly, unproductive and unscientific. Can we please stop now?


  • Options
    #55
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Bull, please explain? How do you jump to that conclusion? Have you access to the data? have you run tests in your lab? What is this external source? Some sort of wireless power? Or this this a preimtive strike in case the battery is still going two months down the road. So your understanding is the base is opaque, which means that its a hoax of course. So you haven't seen it in person?

    No, I haven't seen it in person yet, but frankly I don't have to to be sure that they have not built a perpetual motion machine. There are any number of ways to fake perpetual motion if you so desire. The burden of proof rests with Steorn.

    And to answer your other question, yes, I have been involved in experiments which would have failed if the expectation value of the Hamiltonian was not conserved.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    No they are not, dont be so dramatic. They are claiming a small anomoly in magnetics. They are harnessing a small magnetic interaction which is time dependant, my understanding.

    No, it isn't. It would falsify thermodynamics, Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics. That is more than a small anomaly.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Nobody but you have said that physicists have consistently misunderstood classical electromagnetism, I have said they have found a SMALL anomoly with magnets.
    The world is still turning, the sun still rising. No big deal.

    As Podge said, only me and Steorn...

    See my previous response.


  • Options
    #56
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    No, it isn't. If energy isn't conserved then it means that the Schroedinger equation, thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations are all wrong. You would need to bin all of them.

    I didn't say that energy wasn't conserved. I said there is an extremely small chance that we don't know all the energy sources involved.

    Steorn themselves said they don't understand where the energy comes from and if you can't add it into the equations then it LOOKS like the second law is broken.


  • Options
    #57
    gpjordanf1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 867 ✭✭✭gpjordanf1


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    No, I haven't seen it in person yet, but frankly I don't have to to be sure that they have not built a perpetual motion machine. There are any number of ways to fake perpetual motion if you so desire. The burden of proof rests with Steorn.

    Isn't that what they are doing now? A public display with the details to follow in New year, I guess their patents will be finalised by then. SO not long now!
    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    And to answer your other question, yes, I have been involved in experiments which would have failed if the expectation value of the Hamiltonian was not conserved.

    Ok, so where were theses experiment published? Any white papers?

    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    No, it isn't. It would falsify thermodynamics, Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics. That is more than a small anomaly.

    How do you know what it does without data?

    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    As Podge said, only me and Steorn...
    See my previous response.

    Again I think this is all hinged on the fact it is a time dependant reaction and saturation of magnets? Probably not very well studied over the years. But I'm only guessing.

    Funny if its such a hoax, how come it hasn't been debunked yet?

    And you know 99% of people wont give a toss about any law of thermodynamics if it works.


  • Options
    #58
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Ok, so where were theses experiment published? Any white papers?

    Physical Review Letters and Science.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    How do you know what it does without data?

    Because Maxwell's equations don't predict the phenomenon, thermodynamics states that energy is conserved, and in quantum mechanics the Hamiltonian commutes with the time evolution operator. The Hamiltonian is a conserved quantity in all of these theories. Any energy producing anomaly, no matter how small would falsify all of these.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Again I think this is all hinged on the fact it is a time dependant reaction and saturation of magnets? Probably not very well studied over the years. But I'm only guessing.

    Of course it has been studied. There are entire journals devoted to magnetism.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Funny if its such a hoax, how come it hasn't been debunked yet?

    And you know 99% of people wont give a toss about any law of thermodynamics if it works.

    It has, many times. The whole point is that it doesn't work. They tried a demo before which failed, and now they have a device which is hooked up to batteries. Who's that supposed to convince?


  • Options
    #59
    gpjordanf1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 867 ✭✭✭gpjordanf1


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Physical Review Letters and Science.

    Ok? no links?
    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Because Maxwell's equations don't predict the phenomenon, thermodynamics states that energy is conserved, and in quantum mechanics the Hamiltonian commutes with the time evolution operator. The Hamiltonian is a conserved quantity in all of these theories. Any energy producing anomaly, no matter how small would falsify all of these.

    Going round in circles, sort of like Steorn's Demo! HA! Again without Steorns data you cant comment on it authenticity, and if your that closed to the idea then why bother to comment?

    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Of course it has been studied. There are entire journals devoted to magnetism.

    So what is magnetism?

    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    It has, many times. The whole point is that it doesn't work. They tried a demo before which failed, and now they have a device which is hooked up to batteries. Who's that supposed to convince?

    Show me once where Steorns claim has been definitively disproven?


  • Options
    #60
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Ok? no links?

    No. I get enough crackpot email as it is, and I currently enjoy some semblence of anonymity on boards.ie so I don't really care to give out my real name. Besides, neither PRL nor Science is open access, and I doubt you're willing to pay for the papers.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Going round in circles, sort of like Steorn's Demo! HA! Again without Steorns data you cant comment on it authenticity, and if your that closed to the idea then why bother to comment?

    No. I'm simply going on statements from steorn. If they are violating conservation of energy (which is exactly what they claim with their talk of "over unity") then they violate the physical theories I mentioned. This doesn't require any data from specific experiments, it's a theoretical implication.
    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    So what is magnetism?

    Well, it's an interaction (part of the electro-magnetic interaction) modulated by virtual photon exchange.

    gpjordanf1 wrote: »
    Show me once where Steorns claim has been definitively disproven?

    Try http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/repeat_after_me_conservation_of_energy_p_1.php for a start.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    gpjordanf1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 867 ✭✭✭gpjordanf1


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    No. I get enough crackpot email as it is, and I currently enjoy some semblence of anonymity on boards.ie so I don't really care to give out my real name. Besides, neither PRL nor Science is open access, and I doubt you're willing to pay for the papers.

    So I have to believe YOUR claims on blind faith, oh well, does that sound familiar.

    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    No. I'm simply going on statements from steorn. If they are violating conservation of energy (which is exactly what they claim with their talk of "over unity") then they violate the physical theories I mentioned. This doesn't require any data from specific experiments, it's a theoretical implication.

    So your just dismissing it out of hand, refusing to even look at it theoretically, not very scientific. But that has been the attitude of the scientific community over the last 3 years, at least ye are consistant. And from the general publics stand point thats consistantly very poor.

    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Well, it's an interaction (part of the electro-magnetic interaction) modulated by virtual photon exchange.

    So is it a closed book subject? Nothing new to learn here?

    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Try http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/repeat_after_me_conservation_of_energy_p_1.php for a start.

    So somebodys opinion is definitive proof, so in other words Sean Mc Carthy's claim is as equally valid. Without test data there is no proof. Come on your the scientist here.


Advertisement