Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: I wrote that, when? Late 2005? Was that before Steorn's stuff? Yes, their claim surfaced in late 2006. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
William Beaty wrote: Was flying machine plagued constantly by con artists taking money from enormous numbers of people? Well, not enormous numbers, but there were quite a few. Enough to cause the Wright brothers many problems because, for example, U.S. Army officials assumed they were con artists. In France up until the moment of the demonstration they were called con artists and bluffers. I have accounts from as late as 1912 that in U.S. cities and towns, aviators would sometimes show up on the train to do a flight exhibition (with the airplane in crates), and they would be met by angry crowds and the sheriff ready to arrest them because everyone knows people can't fly. This was after the Wrights had become world famous. Many people did not believe the newspapers, and they emphatically did not believe scientists and engineers. The same is true today. Many politicians make hay claiming the evolution, global warming, Hubbert's peak and other technical issues are a left-wing conspiracy, or something like that. I.e. was it akin to lead-into-gold alchemist research, or known-shady used car dealerships? Did wise investors have to assume a scam was in progress until innocence was proven? Yes, they did. The company that finally invested in the airplane, the Charles Flint company, sent experts to confirm the claims. They would have been foolish not to. With the spread of the technology, the con artists began to fade away, by they were replaced by many people who tried to steal the technology and claim they invented the airplane first. The Smithsonian, the Scientific American and others played fast and loose with the truth for political reasons. The Sci. Am. continues to do that today, denigrating the Wrights and lying about history as recently as 2003. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Executive Director of the AIP says cold fusion is wrong and fraud
Steven Krivit wrote: I'm sure Shanahan is finding immeasurable entertainment in these messages. Particularly your comment about certified fruitcake. It is the season, though, isn't it? Absolutely! And for the record, I'm crazy about fruitcake, especially made with cognac. I don't know why people dislike it so. I think that people like Shanahan and Morrison are good for cold fusion, and I appreciate their contributions. They make the researchers look good. They are good foils. Anyone familiar with the facts will see, for example, that Shanahan has a screw loose when he claims: 1. There is no opposition to cold fusion. 2. And because there is no opposition, researchers have been able to convince organizations such as the ENEA and the Italian Physical Society to sponsor conferences, and they have magically hoodwinked experts such as Robert Duncan to believe there is ~1 W input and ~20 W output at Energetics Technology. He honestly believes that people such as the President of the Italian Physical Society and Duncan are gullible fools who cannot understand basic chemistry, and they have overlooked Shanahan's technical objections. Shanahan, Morrison, Taubes, Park and these others do have monumental self confidence! You have to hand it to them. They think they know more about electrochemistry than Fleischmann or Bockris; more about calorimetry than Duncan; more about tritium than the top experts at Los Alamos and BARC, and more about theoretical physics than Schwinger. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Executive Director of the AIP says cold fusion is wrong and fraud
Response from website operator to me: Thank you for commenting on the Physics Today web site. Your comment has not been approved for publication in accordance with our editorial standards and the disclaimer on the web site. Sincerely Paul Guinnessy Manager, Physics Today web site
[Vo]:Moagar-Poladian theory paper
Moagar-Poladian, G. A Possible Mechanism For Cold Fusion. in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy: ENEA. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MoagarPolaapossiblem.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Executive Director of the AIP says cold fusion is wrong and fraud
Jed sez: Response from website operator to me: Thank you for commenting on the Physics Today web site. Your comment has not been approved for publication in accordance with our editorial standards and the disclaimer on the web site. Sincerely Paul Guinnessy Manager, Physics Today web site I don't think they like you, Jed. Wuz it something you sed? ;-) In regards to the never ending debate over fruitcake. As the late Johnny Carson explained, there is only one fruitcake in existence on the entire planet. The brick just keeps getting passed off, from relative to relative, getting more stale with each hand off. I sincerely believe this hypothesis to be true. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Executive Director of the AIP says cold fusion is wrong and fraud
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I sincerely believe this hypothesis to be true. Then you have never heard of Claxton, GA. Allow me to educate you: http://www.claxtonfruitcake.com/index.php Terry
[Vo]:Is pycnodeuterium below ground state?
One curious fact emerges from a close reading of the many Arata papers relative to what he labels as pycnodeuterium. I have never seen this explicitly mentioned in a connect-the-dots fashion, but if it has been put forward by someone else, please let me know the citation so that proper credit can be given in the future. We may have hinted about a Millsean connection on Vo in the past, yet Arata certainly never mentions it; and he is probably unaware of CQM. To backtrack, this pycno-species of Arata is NOT normal deuterium but is a previously activated version of deuterium, which has already given up quite a bit of heat in the DS cell or cathode, but has NOT yet transmuted or fused into anything. That is a most important point, even if some trace helium is seen. The trace Helium is many orders of magnitude too low at this stage but some pycno can proceed to full fusion at any time. IOW what we see in the AZ experiments is clearly mostly deuterium which has given up excess heat in the process of what Arata labels as temperature inversion. It has become first activated in a matrix and then depleted, but not transmuted or fused. To quote from the 2005 paper: .Without D2 or without sample such as Pd fine powder, Tin never went higher than the given temperature Tout. On the other hand, when the samples absorbed pycnodeuterium, then Tin was always higher than Tout, that is temperature inversion. For those of us who believe in the broader field of fractional ground states, with or without Mills - and admittedly Mills theory is incorrect in many details - the best physical description of pycnodeuterium, which goes well beyond what Arata is suggesting - is that the species is a fractional ground state, having become an energy-deficient form of shrunken deuterium, which has already given up lots of heat. This shrinkage also explains the enormous interior 'self-generated' pressure which is documented in the DS-cathode patent of 1995. I am trying to be careful in explaining how an energy-deficient form can also be labeled as activated since the activation relates to the next stage in a two stage process; one that proceeds with increased probability due to prior depletion. This is probably a semantic roadblock where skeptics will try to focus criticism. This process begins with adsorption of D2 into a catalytic matrix, with or without electrolysis. The dynamics of that may involve the relativistic theory of Fran Roarty. Importantly, the alloy which is an order of magnitude most effective for pycno is not palladium itself, but instead is mostly nickel with a few percent palladium. That rings of Mills going back to 1991. Going further, then, what Arata Zhang discovered and documented - and labeled as pycnodeuterium could well be the predecessor state to LENR. Pycno may or may not be a necessary predecessor state (sine qua non) for all forms of LENR, but the evidence bodes in that direction. This state of prior energy depletion of deuterium which he labels as pycnodeuterium elegantly explains both how cold fusion can proceed at lower energy input parameters than hot fusion; the delay which is often necessary; and also the lack of strong gammas in the aftermath. Stated simply, much of the expected excess energy was already given up prior to the actual nuclear reaction, via the non-nuclear shrinkage reaction which pushed it below ground state, giving up heat in the form of UV radiation. That is the part that BLP got right wrt hydrogen, and hinted at, back in the early nineties wrt cold fusion, but it took these good experiments by Arata/Zhang to actually document the transition into two distinct steps. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Executive Director of the AIP says cold fusion is wrong and fraud
Terry sez: I sincerely believe this hypothesis to be true. Then you have never heard of Claxton, GA. Allow me to educate you: http://www.claxtonfruitcake.com/index.php This website is an obvious clever hoax. I'm surprised that you fell for it Terry! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson (aka: proud card carrying member of the Flat Earth Society) www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
I wrote: Well, not enormous numbers, but there were quite a few. Enough to cause the Wright brothers many problems because, for example, U.S. Army officials assumed they were con artists. An even bigger problem was incompetent wannabee aviators, especially Langley (Smithsonian) and Ferber (French Army). Langley spent $50,000 of Federal money and crashed into the Potomac twice, in 1903, a few weeks before the Wrights flew. The mass media derided this and ridiculed other attempts to fly. The Army was reluctant to deal with the Wrights years later because of the Langley fiasco. Langley died in 1906. In 1909 they gave out the first Langley medal, to the Wrights, and later they named an airport after him. Langley was a pioneer and he had some redeeming features, but all in all, I think he was a vindictive jerk who made serious technical errors, held back progress in aviation, and nearly killed his pilot, Manley, twice. Needless to say, incompetent and dishonest people have caused much harm in over-unity energy research, cold fusion and related fields. It is not fair to hold Prof. A at fault because Prof. B makes a dumb mistake, but people tend to tar them with the same brush. The attitude is that a mistake by cold fusion researcher is a mistake by all. They don't often say this about plasma fusion researchers or doctors. On the other hand, I guess that is what they are saying about climate research, in this so-called Climate-gate scandal. There is another interesting parallel to cold fusion. Langley's failure, and ones similar to it, were widely taken as proof that man cannot fly and anyone who tries is an impractical ivory tower scientist. There were many popular culture poems and ditties about foolish people trying to fly (Darius Green and His Flying Machine), and expressions like you can no more do that than you can fly! They did just mean flap your arms; this was a popular culture reference to building an airplane. Bear in mind that people had been doing that since the late 1700s, often killing themselves. Flying was the cliche (or watchword) for an impossible or ridiculous venture. Most Americans regarded the flying machine as little more than a chimera pursued by foolish dreamers (T. Crouch, A Dream of Wings.) Nowadays, of course, people use cold fusion to mean the same thing. The thing is, people back in 1903 took that cliche literately. They did not realize that Pilcher, Lilienthal, Chanute and others had actually glided with considerable success. That was odd because Lilienthal was famous worldwide and there were many photos of him in newspapers. He flew hundreds of times before crashing and killing himself in 1896. I wonder if newspaper readers imagined that he was killed in the first attempt, and never succeeded at all. Technically knowledgeable people understood that flight was difficult, but because of the cliche, some of them overestimated the difficulties, and did not bother to look for a solution. This attitude even infected the Wrights. On the way home from Kitty Hawk after a discouraging season of flight tests in 1901, Orville said man will not fly for 50 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The discovery of Hydra-Jinn
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:43:57 -0800: Hi, [snip] http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2152989.aspx I think they're stretching it a bit to call this a water world. You can get the same mass and size figures from a rocky world with a thick atmosphere. I.e. Rrock ~= 12000 km; Ratm ~= 5000 km; Density of rock is taken as the same as the density of the Earth. I have neglected the mass of the atmosphere (Earth's atmosphere only contributes 1 part in a million to the mass of the Earth; even if this planets atmosphere contributes a much larger proportion, it is still relatively trivial. My guess for atmospheric composition would be a CO2/N2 mix. Heavy gasses like CO2 are easier for a planet to hang on to which helps explain such a thick atmosphere. Both gasses would be supercritical at the rocky surface. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:The discovery of Hydra-Jinn
An astral projectionist writes, I have been there twice. The beaches are wonderful this time of the year ... but the ebb tide goes out at Mach 2. Anyway, because it is relatively close, can be seen by amateurs, and has gotten lots of publicity, it will not be long before more detail comes out, to answer the important water question. That is why I had to get a spoof out relatively fast ;) If - like our moon, one hemisphere is always 'dark' then there could be a large inhabitable zone under a deep ocean, even if the hot side is very hot, and it would be a trip to envision the kind of intellignet life that could evolve there. Plus, for spaceflight they would be a bit hampered, but any civilization that has advanced life for millions of years can probably overcome almost any obstacle, and truth will undoubtedly be way, way stranger than fiction, on this planet. Jones -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2152989.aspx I think they're stretching it a bit to call this a water world. You can get the same mass and size figures from a rocky world with a thick atmosphere. I.e. Rrock ~= 12000 km; Ratm ~= 5000 km; Density of rock is taken as the same as the density of the Earth. I have neglected the mass of the atmosphere (Earth's atmosphere only contributes 1 part in a million to the mass of the Earth; even if this planets atmosphere contributes a much larger proportion, it is still relatively trivial. My guess for atmospheric composition would be a CO2/N2 mix. Heavy gasses like CO2 are easier for a planet to hang on to which helps explain such a thick atmosphere. Both gasses would be supercritical at the rocky surface. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:The discovery of Hydra-Jinn
I can't wait until the detection threshold comes down - like to the level of moons around these big planets. Bet that's where the action is as long as the system is in the liquid water zone. R.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Needless to say, incompetent and dishonest people have caused much harm in over-unity energy research, cold fusion and related fields. It is not fair to hold Prof. A at fault because Prof. B makes a dumb mistake, but people tend to tar them with the same brush. The attitude is that a mistake by cold fusion researcher is a mistake by all. They don't often say this about plasma fusion researchers or doctors. On the other hand, I guess that is what they are saying about climate research, in this so-called Climate-gate scandal. I once saw reference to the Curies being terrified of attracting the perpetual motion label, and being relieved when it didn't occur. But this was in some online article, and I've not seen such a thing mentioned in the two biographies I've read. If things went a bit differently, the Curies could have faced the same barriers as the Wrights. Americans regarded the flying machine as little more than a chimera pursued by foolish dreamers (T. Crouch, A Dream of Wings.) Nowadays, of course, people use cold fusion to mean the same thing. And today if you mention that flying machines were long ridiculed, people get angry and insist that no such thing could have happened. I expect that if CF starts being sold as products, 'Skeptics' will conveniently forget the history of ridicule. Perhaps we should congratulate Park and crew for actually publishing books. Imagine if CF supporters could point to a crop of specifically anti-Wright bros books, anti-spaceflight books, etc. All we have is embarrassing quotes from famous astronomers. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:The Wrights' approach to the British and U.S. Army
Ed Storms wrote to me: Your description of the Wright experience is fascinating, Jed. I did not realize that CF and flying had so much in common. Yes indeed. And we could learn a lot from history, if only we would. Learn from it or you are doomed to repeat it, as Santayana said. Apparently, very little changes when it comes to the influence of fools. Yes, but the good news is that because very little changes, the effective methods of overcoming the influence of fools remain pretty much the same as they were back in 1903. The principal method is to demonstrate the effect if possible, and if that is not possible, publish photographs and other graphic proof. A concrete illustration of this can be seen in the history of the Wright's negotiation with the British war office and the US Army. The British War Office was instantly convinced that the airplane was real within a few months of the 1903 flight. The U.S. Army was not convinced until late 1907. The question is: Why? and What does that tell us about what steps cold fusion researchers should take to convince people today? What can we learn from history? This subject is covered in detail in many books but especially A. Gollin, No Longer an Island (Stanford, 1984). Aeronautics, first balloons and later blimps, had played an increasingly important role in war since the U.S. Civil War. Count Zeppelin as a young man, and other European officers, came to the U.S. and witnessed Union Army balloon observers in action. This was very effective and impressive. Every European army was knowledgeable about this subject, and most were following both Zeppelin's work, and the Wrights and others working on heavier-than-air aircraft. The U.S. Army did nothing because as I said previously, because of the Langley fiasco: For some time they [the Army] had been victims of savage criticism and denunciation, in the national Press and in the Congress itself, because they had furnished Professor Langley with so much money for his ill-fated experiments. This campaign of ridicule and censure was so bitter that, in the opinion of Langley's friends, it broke his spirit and eventually caused his death a few years later. For their part, the military bureaucrats in the [U.S.] War Department condemned once for squandering public funds in support of the ridiculous and impractical dreams of a professor, had now learnt the value of prudence in such matters. They did nothing. Langley's failures had demonstrated what every practical matter already knew. They proved that heavier than air flight was impossible . . . The British Army, on the other hand, was more open minded. A British aviation aficionado in contact with the War Office, Patrick Alexander, was in touch with the Wrights. The Wrights invited him to the December 1903 test fight, with a telegraph advising him to BRING ABUNDANT BEDDING but he could not make it. In 1904, soon after the first flight, Col. Capper, Chief of the Aeronautic Department, British War Office, contacted the Wrights and asked to visit them. He was coming to the U.S. to see the aeronautics exposition in St. Louis, which did not impress him. They welcomed him, the way they welcomed many other technically knowledgeable visitors. When such people visited the Wrights in Dayton, they were shown dozens of photos and so on, and this invariably, instantly convinced them. In his official report Capper wrote: . . . In December last they succeeded in keeping the machine in the air for 59 seconds, and since then they have made further experiments which have induced them both a very strong confidence that they will shortly without difficulty be able to compass journeys of considerable length. Both these gentlemen impressed me most favorably; they have worked up step by step, they are in themselves well-educated man, and capable mechanics, and I do not think are more likely unlikely to claim more than they can perform . . . . . . They were most courteous, showing me their motor of which they do not desire any particulars be at present made public, and also gave me, in confidence, certain particulars of their machine and of the work they have actually done, illustrated by photographs taken of the machine in different conditions of flight, which have satisfied me that they have at least made far greater strides in the evolution of the flying machine than any of their predecessors . . . Here is an example of the Wrights technical presentations and photos from 1901. This was given at the Western Soc. of Engineers, a major engineering societies, and published in the journal. There was another presentation like this in 1903: http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/library/Aeronautical.htmlhttp://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/library/Aeronautical.html This is the sort of thing Capper saw. The Wrights gave a few presentations and published data and few photos, but they
Re: [Vo]:OT : Avatar trailers and clips
Yes, I see the similarity! harry - Original Message From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 9:55:18 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT : Avatar trailers and clips Avatar trailers and clips (9 videos) http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/video/17077180 Thanks for the link, Harry. While watching one of the trailers I saw images that reminded me of a painting I did back in 1979, when I was 27 years old. http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/path_m.htm For a second there was a weird juxtaposition of imagery in my brain. It threw me for a second. Obviously, I plan on seeing Cameron's latest creation. Looks like great fun! Not that I'm obsessed, mind you, here is the reason behind my madness! While watching one of the trailers, specifically, #9, titled Behind the Scenes: Planet Jim, I saw images that reminded me of a painting I did back in 1979, when I was 27 years old. If you view trailer #9 and pause it at approximately 31 and 57 seconds into the trailer, and then compare the imagery the following painting I did back in 1979: http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/path_m.htm Woo hoo! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 02:25 PM 12/16/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Let me repeat, I am playing devil's advocate here. I do not seriously believe these claims. On the other hand, there have been several magic magnetic motor claims over the years and I am not quite ready to dismiss them all. I'm not making a general claim about magic motors. Though I have high skepticism that someone is going to find the magic combination of magnetic fields and timing and all that in order to change the very seriously verified understanding of conservation of energy, i.e. that you don't get gains by playing a shell game with fields and configurations, you only get greater or lesser losses. This is entirely different from low energy nuclear reactions, which don't involve such contradictions with fundamental and extremely-well known theory (because there is no violation involved in unknown catalysis, for example, that allows bypass of the coulomb barrier -- such as muons, supposing that hadn't been observed before). It's entirely different from some device that taps zero point energy, there is no hint of ZPE effects on magnetic fields and forces at the levels involved, etc. It's an energy shell game, almost certainly, and that game can fool the players, so I don't reject the sincerity of people who claim magic motors, I merely note that when they get serious and manage to get some funding, they are sometimes forced into a situation where fraud does arise. What I do claim is that the Steorn situation bears very strong marks of being a con, a fairly sophisticated one, where they are deliberately setting up demonstrations with obvious flaws, which they can then remedy, setting up the rebound effect. I.e., people will make charges against Steorn, such as charges that the batteries are running the thing, etc. And so then they remove the batteries, and it still runs, and then their explanation that the batteries were just for blah, blah, previously seen as preposterous, suddenly looks good, and that shift can wipe away skepticism that would otherwise remain. Just doing the thing without batteries in the first place, the other sources of deception or error would be more obvious and wouldn't get so easily dismissed. And it looks to me like they have surrounded this thing with layers of such tricks. Imagine this dialog, a little down the way: Steorn: They claimed that we were running this on batteries. Well, we removed the batteries and it still runs. They claimed that we were replacing the batteries when the webcams were off, and trading out units. Well, we ran a continuous webcam for X time with no interruptions. They claimed that the translucent panels were obscuring the real mechanism. We replaced them with transparent panels. So what objections remain? Critic: It's fraud, there is a hidden battery within one or more of the components, or some other transmission of power into the system. Steorn: See what scoundrels these critics are? We answered every objection, and so then they resort to claims of fraud. It's obvious that they are simply out to deny whatever we demonstrate. And remember, it doesn't have to convince everyone. Just a few. They could keep this up for a long time! Here is what I'd say: anyone considering investing in Steorn should get together with others considering the same. If the possible investors were to cooperate with each other, they could be protected. Steorn may try to defend against this, but the very defense would be visible. And then I'd say this: want to keep it secret, want to make the big killing by being the only investor with the guts and perspicacity to see beyond the foggy notions of modern physics, you will deserve what you get. Hint: it won't be profit, it will be loss. You won't ever see that investment again. If I'm wrong, a consortium of investors could find out, and possible losses would be minimized. If Steorn doesn't allow investment by corporations or partnerships, that would be a hint. A corporation could be formed to be this kind of consortium, easily, or it could be a partnership, and the partners would certainly be allowed to share the information internally among each other. An NDA which prohibited this would probably be unenforceable, and I'd fully support subterfuge in attacking unreasonable interpretations of an NDA. There is a legitimate purpose to NDAs, and it would not be to prevent people from helping each other to avoid disclosure that the thing was a scam and not reproducible, *to each other, not necessarily to the public. If the consortium found evidence of actual fraud -- and this whole thing looks like, certainly, it's at or over that edge -- then no contract could prevent disclosure, it would be completely unenforceable. A consortium, of course, could afford lawyers. It could have resources much greater than Steorn. And it could even present itself to Steorn as an individual. All it would have to do
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 02:44 PM 12/16/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 12/16/2009 02:23 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: So, not only are the batteries running down (obvious from the slowing of the motors discussed in another thread) but the units seem to be failing. The cameras also go off line at convenient times. What in heck are they up to? Too much Irish whiskey? Conclusions: 1) They're not slick, after all. (I was certainly wrong about that.) I guess we should have guessed that from the earlier fiasco. 2) They're not all that bright, it appears. This isn't going to convince anyone of anything good, and they should have at least had a good idea of how long their batteries would last. Did they even test this design before they set up the demo? 3) There's no hidden power source. 4) Their demo is obviously totally phony. 5) This is too blatant to be self-deception. Nobody capable of building a motor of any sort could be so totally retarded as these guys would need to be to continue believing their own nonsense with stuff like this going on. 6) When I said things would still be murky come the end of January, I was wrong. Didn't someone have a theory that they were doing all this just to show how good they are at running a PR campaign? If Steorn really does have investors, they may get into rather deep trouble over this -- they are surely in violation of a number of securities laws. Madoff's team had no exit strategy, which I found nearly inexplicable. Perhaps these folks have the same disease (whatever it is). A perpmo machine built from existing novelty toys would work better than their demo. Well, Stephen, my comment is that you are effing naive. You are correct about the visible facts, but are making exactly the kind of assumptions that a skilled magician would want you to make. There are people who know how to do this stuff, you know! I have some serious problems with the Amazing Randi, but he is good at smelling out some of this stuff, because he's been good at it himself. It's called Magic. The art of deception, and a major device is misdirection. You create an impression in the audience of what the trick is, building that, allowing them to believe it, then you turn it upside down and show that their theory is totally false. You have done something entirely different, and, having put so much energy into the hypothesis you led them into, with all your skill, they are flat footed and their jaws drop and they have no ideas at all. That's the effect of that contrast between expectation and reality. For a moment, it creates the impression that they don't know Bleep. That's actually a good thing, by the way. We don't, more often than we like to admit. But that doesn't mean that you should give all your money to a someone who can turn a $1 bill into a $20 with his little box, so that he can multiply it for you. Even if he lets you look at the box all you want. There are other ways to run that trick that don't involve anything odd about the box! More than one. Really, if you are up against a skilled magician, you are dealing with someone with a thousand times as much experience in the situation as you. This person knows all the responses you might have, can observe and see exactly what you are thinking, etc., and knows how to lead that thinking exactly where he wants it to go. It's skill, born of study and practice, and isn't really a mystery -- except inasmuch as human consciousness and skill are mysteries
RE: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 03:37 PM 12/16/2009, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: I'm on thin ice with that question, so all I can say is it is connected, but not in the normal way. All the battery energy is dissipated as heat, not KE. Well, Hoyt, you can get off the thin ice, I will ask you some generic questions that should not involve the violation of any enforceable NDA. 1. Do you understand how the device works, sufficiently that if Steorn were to disappear, you could reproduce it? Do you have documentation this, adequate to reproduce? 2. Do you know that it works, that there is excess energy in the system? 3. How do you know this? I'm not asking for specific, just a general comment that can later be compared with what becomes known. To put this question a different way, how much are you relying on your own experience and how much on what they have told you? 4. Is there a time limit on the NDA? 5. If you found what you believed to be fraud, would you be prohibited by the NDA from revealing this to the authorities? (If so, the NDA is itself illegal and unenforceable.) 6. Can you discuss what you have found with anyone, such as your own employees or counselors? 7. How the eff do you explain the really dumb demonstration, laden with hosts of obvious flaws? I have a theory, as you may have noticed. Other than that theory, the default idea seems to be that they are just plain dumb and incompetent. How would you explain that a bunch of incompetent people have ended up in control of this discovery with huge consequences? 8. Can you understand why we are Skeptical as Hell? Would it be rational for us to believe at this point that there was any significant possibility that there really is an over unity device here? Out of what is publicly known, can you give us a reason to think otherwise? 9. Suppose a possible investor were to consult with you. Before putting any money in and getting the information you have, could that investor purchase an indemnity from you, such that you would have to cover the investor's losses if there were fraud involved on the part of Steorn? After all, if the information is solid and has been confirmed by you, the indemnity would be easy money.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 04:00 PM 12/16/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: What's the payoff? ...That Steorn is really good at manipulating PR? ...That they they can pull a fast one on everyone? There seems to be an equally unproven assumption that if Steorn can pull it off that future prospective clients will know that they, too, will be able to cash in on Steorn's PR skills and make tons of money by hiring them to manipulate PR to their own advantage. Such convoluted reasoning stretches my own internal BS scale. However, I also have to confess that having such a conclusion prominently displayed over at Wikipedia as the preferred explanation probably didn't help my predisposition in taking it seriously. ;-) Okay, being the resident expert on Wikipedia (there are certainly people who know it better than I, but they aren't reading this list, I think), I'll look at the article. All right. The account above is inaccurate. While individual articles often violate guidelines on neutrality and sourcing, due to the way that Wikipedia process operates, and there are also groups of editors who might be highly inclined to put in skeptical material outside of what the guidelines allow, the article doesn't state that advertising PR skills is the preferred explanation. Rather, the article simply reports that this explanation has been offered by some published commentators, and it also notes others. It's possible that the standards for published have been pushed a little, but the article presents this neutrally, as far as I've noticed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn About the 2007 demonstration. They blamed it on a failed bearing due to the greenhouse effect in the plastic housing. Okay, so it took them two years to fix the bearing and pop some cooling holes in the plastic housing? No, it's obvious, I'd say. They are creating delay. If the article is accurate, they have already, at least once, released misleading information, by their own account. In May 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Business_PostThe Sunday Business Post reported that Steorn was a former http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot.comdot.com business which was developing a microgenerator product based on the same principle as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energykinetic energy generators in watches, as well as creating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commercee-commerce websites for customers. The company had also recently raised about 2.5 million from investors and was three years into a four year development plan for its microgenerator technology.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn#cite_note-post-ie-9[10] Steorn has since stated that the account given in this interview was intended to prevent a leak regarding their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energyfree energy technology.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn#cite_note-steorn-crisis-management-interview-10[11] In other words, when it suits them, they will lie. At least that's how it looks to me! Lies are sometimes not reprehensible. But ... the lies that aren't reprehensible are lies to enemies who will do harm with information, but the Sunday Business Post? The public? Gratuitous misinformation? Does that explanation make any sense at all, on the face of it?
RE: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
Abd remarks, ... What I do claim is that the Steorn situation bears very strong marks of being a con, a fairly sophisticated one, where they are deliberately setting up demonstrations with obvious flaws, which they can then remedy, setting up the rebound effect. ... You may recall that I also recently voiced similar speculation. I also speculated that STEORN is deliberately attempting to lead all the skeptics and debunkers down to the slaughter house where at the right moment they will all get wacked on the head. Very calculated... Very dramatic. However, in my scenario, I seem to have come to a different conclusion. It seems more plausible for me to speculate that Steorn actually believes that their ORBO device is for real. IOW, I don't yet buy the premise that it's a con job. OF course, under my scenario it's quite possible that the Steorn engineers have deluded themselves. Please understand, I remain highly skeptical of Steorn's claims. Like everyone here, I demand definitive evidence and am disappointed that Steorn has not yet delivered on that point. Nevertheless I'm having a difficult time perceiving how this con game you have described could possibly benefit Steorn. If this is all nothing more than a deliberate (albeit sophisticated) con game then it's all a house of cards and they will eventually get caught. There's no way around the fact that they would eventually get caught. The village will rise up in arms with pitchforks they and torches in hand and run them all out of town, that is after they are tarred and feathered and sent to the slammer. Granted, I could be wrong but I really, REALLY have a difficult time believing they could be that stupid as to believe they could pull off such a con job on the public, not with the amount of constant scrutiny they are receiving. When do they get to eat their cake? More to the point, how can they get to the cake without getting the heads cut off? And remember, it doesn't have to convince everyone. Just a few. They could keep this up for a long time! I disagree. I think Steorn would have to convince a LOT of people in order to pull it off, but in the end it would still fail - they will still be tarred and feathered. It's my understanding that most con jobs are done with as little publicity as possible since con artists typically go after the ignorant and uneducated, and the best way to accomplish that is to operate as discretely as possible - preferably from Nigeria! ;-) I realize some might point to Madoff as an example of a high profile successful con job. But again I disagree. I realize many people got bilked out of billions of dollars, but eventually, Madoff didn't succeed, and where is he now. Here is what I'd say: anyone considering investing in Steorn should get together with others considering the same. If the possible investors were to cooperate with each other, they could be protected. Steorn may try to defend against this, but the very defense would be visible Sounds sensible. I personally would demand that before I would be willing to open up my check book that I be personally shown the device running. The contraption had better be powering a light bulb with NO batteries in sight! I would also demand that I be allowed to bring in anyone of my choosing whom I knew to be competent in engineering principals, preferably electrical engineering who could advise me. It will be fun to watch, I'm enjoying this tremendously. Stay tuned for the next Episode of Steorn Watch. Will all the devices run down? Will one of them mysteriously keep running? Will the demonstration be interrupted by a mysterious fire that burns the building down, destroying all the very valuable demonstration models, constructed at tremendous expense according to detailed plans that were also destroyed? Or will Steorn remove all the veils, pulling those translucent covers away like a magician turning the hat over? Yes, it is fun to watch, especially when one has no financial involvement! I'm still waiting for them to screw in the light bulb and get rid of the battery. That might pique my interest. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
On 12/17/2009 08:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 02:44 PM 12/16/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 12/16/2009 02:23 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: So, not only are the batteries running down (obvious from the slowing of the motors discussed in another thread) but the units seem to be failing. The cameras also go off line at convenient times. What in heck are they up to? Too much Irish whiskey? Conclusions: 1) They're not slick, after all. (I was certainly theowrong about that.) I guess we should have guessed that from the earlier fiasco. 2) They're not all that bright, it appears. This isn't going to convince anyone of anything good, and they should have at least had a good idea of how long their batteries would last. Did they even test this design before they set up the demo? 3) There's no hidden power source. 4) Their demo is obviously totally phony. 5) This is too blatant to be self-deception. Nobody capable of building a motor of any sort could be so totally retarded as these guys would need to be to continue believing their own nonsense with stuff like this going on. 6) When I said things would still be murky come the end of January, I was wrong. Didn't someone have a theory that they were doing all this just to show how good they are at running a PR campaign? If Steorn really does have investors, they may get into rather deep trouble over this -- they are surely in violation of a number of securities laws. Madoff's team had no exit strategy, which I found nearly inexplicable. Perhaps these folks have the same disease (whatever it is). A perpmo machine built from existing novelty toys would work better than their demo. Well, Stephen, my comment is that you are effing naive. Indeed. Ça, c'est un peu fort, n'est-ce pas? None the less, I'm flabbergasted at the appallingly low level of this demo. It is light years worse than anything I expected. The fact that the machines are *slowing* *down* as the batteries drain, right on camera (according to Terry, I haven't double checked it but I trust his comments), is really startling, because it contradicts assertions made by Steorn to the effect that the batteries aren't driving the motors. It shows them lying. Explaining away a lie is not something anyone wants to need to do. The fact that they are having the cameras shut down frequently, that they are blatantly swapping out machines as they slow down or stop (which makes their claim that the demo would show a really long run into another lie), just leaves me feeling amazed. The issue of changing the batteries just isn't coming up: They're changing out whole units! This goes so far beyond leaving an obvious objection around for critics to pounce on that it smells really strongly of plain, simple, old, technical incompetence. In short, they're painting themselves as liars in loud, garish colors. Your theory that they're doing all this so they can come up from the rear in a Garrison finish and charm the world is interesting but, at this stage, difficult to believe. As yet, I see no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that they are really very slick showmen. More and more, I'm liking the alternate theory, which is that Sean McCarthy is surrounded by yes-men and is out of touch with how far off his company is from being able to pull off a decent demo. You are correct about the visible facts, but are making exactly the kind of assumptions that a skilled magician would want you to make. There are people who know how to do this stuff, you know! Yes, but at this point I'm not convinced any of those people are in charge at Steorn. (If they are, they are staying very far out of sight.) You are apparently _assuming_ that there are skilled magicians involved here. I haven't seen any evidence to support that, any hint of such a person being behind the scenes, any fingerprint of a talented slight of hand artist. All I *see* so far is garbage put together by boobs, and blizzards of words to explain away the problems. I have some serious problems with the Amazing Randi, but he is good at smelling out some of this stuff, because he's been good at it himself. It's called Magic. The art of deception, and a major device is misdirection. You create an impression in the audience of what the trick is, building that, allowing them to believe it, then you turn it upside down and show that their theory is totally false. You have done something entirely different, and, having put so much energy into the hypothesis you led them into, with all your skill, they are flat footed and their jaws drop and they have no ideas at all. Sounds good. But magicians don't usually start by working to convince everyone that they are incompetent liars. That's a label nobody wants to start with. Consider, once again, the bit with the machines slowing down, apparently as a result of the batteries draining. If that's not for real, then it's done solely to
Re: [Vo]:Steorn toroids
- Original Message From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, December 17, 2009 10:35:34 PM Subject: [Vo]:Steorn toroids But note that in the above, the *slowly* changing bias field (~1Hz) is able to amplify a much higher (~3KHz) audio signal. WOuldn't it be odd if the same phenomenon could allow us to amplify apparently DC motion; to extract some energy from a battery-biased toroid (essentially 0Hz,) by sweeping a permanent magnet past it (producing maybe 5Hz audio to be amplified?) For the ringing steel, the energy output phase was in the correct direction to amplify the initial small mechanical vibration. It doesn't act like hysterisis loss, instead it's hysterisis gain! A large slow version of this effect might resemble a battery-biased toroid placed next to a wheel with supermagnets on its rim. Would this explain Thane Hiens regenerative acceleration effect. I don't how closely you have been following his workbut you should take a look at his youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins Harry Perhaps rather than a purely DC effect, the ferrous toroid core even becomes progressively magnetized by the bias field plus the AC coming from the moving magnets. It's nonlinear, a bit like a diode, since things only happen on one half of the AC waveform. If the excess Barkhausen noise output is in the correct phase to accelerate the rotating magnet, then the effect would appear only after the DC bias was first applied. Then would cease after awhile, but could be restored, perhaps by reversing the battery leads, or by demagnetizing; by briefly exposing the toroid cores to a bulk-tape-eraser. OK, when eventually the Steorn technique is revealed, I'll come back here and see how close my guess really was. __ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
On 12/17/2009 10:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: I disagree. I think Steorn would have to convince a LOT of people in order to pull it off, but in the end it would still fail - they will still be tarred and feathered. It's my understanding that most con jobs are done with as little publicity as possible since con artists typically go after the ignorant and uneducated, and the best way to accomplish that is to operate as discretely as possible - preferably from Nigeria! ;-) I realize some might point to Madoff as an example of a high profile successful con job. But again I disagree. I realize many people got bilked out of billions of dollars, but eventually, Madoff didn't succeed, and where is he now. Wait -- Madoff is held up as an example of a high profile con job that shows the sort of things a con artist will attempt. He's held up as an example of how you can get staff members to go along and do the heavy lifting to make the con work. But he's **NOT** held up as an example of a successful con artist, because he (a) had no exit strategy, (b) was running a con for which no conceivable exit strategy existed which could have covered all the people involved in it, and (c) was running a con which was absolutely guaranteed to collapse, as a result of which it absolutely required an exit strategy (but see (a) and (b)). In other words, far from being successful, his was a con whose failure was absolutely assured. And as such it provides an existence proof for people who are intelligent, dishonest, and yet are also fools, all at the same time. Any reasoning which goes, Joe can't be conning us, because if he is, he's sure to get in trouble eventually, and he knows it, so he wouldn't do that... is proven to be false by the existence of the Madoff gang. By the standards of normal humans, who are by and large honest most of the time and more or less law abiding, professional criminals are insane. When trying to understand con artists, this is a good thing to keep in mind.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
Rick always writes what he means and means what he says. He's the guy who sells the Bedini kits, there's a 10 coil monopole kit that they have released, for instance. http://rpmgt.org/order.html The Bedini Monopole Energizer kit was built by a friend and he came to the conclusion that it's only for learning-purposes, and can be taken further (it's possible that mr. Friedrich has upped his ante and knows and understands more about the Bedini monopole tech - and that the 10-pole energizer would be quite worth looking into. But at that price? Not sure how much machining something like that would cost, but they mention it'd be in the tens of thousands of usd? on the page..) Rick also features on the Energy From The Vacuum series as a spectator of Bedini showing his stuff, I think in EFTV12 perchance. The detail here that (I guess) matters, is that Bedini chose Friedrich to make the kits available via, and Friedrich also sells the Renaissance charger devices, and has relations to Bedini's EnergenX -company. It's not a random guy shooting the breeze on a mailinglist, if I'm not completely mistaken, Friedrich maintains some of the monopole lists and is in general a guy who would know what Bedini is up to, and what's next. Looking at what Friedrich wrote about 1/3 of the amps going into the secondary - he is quite probably talking about the secondary batteries that get charged while the primary batteries provide the juice for the transformation process. On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 12/16/2009 12:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:00 AM 12/16/2009, Esa Ruoho wrote: No he didn't. Esa Ruoho quoted rickfriedrich from the bedini_monopole_3 forum. It was Rick who was experimenting with the Bedini motor described here, not Esa, and AFAIK Rick isn't on Vortex. Rick's batteries are apparently magic, if I understood this quote; he says a good number of amps were constantly being drawn [from the batteries?] but the batteries remained charged; I don't understand that. He must have meant something other than how I interpreted his words. I was running the system on smaller used batteries for days and they remained charged even though a good number of amps were constantly being drawn and the meter was showing 1/3rd of the amps going back into the secondary. Take a hint. Fine to set it up and start it with batteries, but batteries are tricky to monitor, they don't easily show the exact state of the charge. Put together a capacitor bank with enough depth (farads) to cover the draw phase, and charge it up to the battery voltage. Then once you are running, take the battery out of the circuit. You can then directly monitor the power storage by monitoring the capacitor voltage. No guessing. You will know right away if you are over unity, and how much, or, if you are under unity, exactly how much you are under unity. The larger the capacitance, the more even the available voltage will be. I'd think of making it really large, so you would not want to directly connect the battery to the capacitor, that can melt wires! You'd charge through a resistor. You could make all this part of one circuit, with a switch on the battery, or you could eliminate the battery and use a power supply which you then, once the thing is running, disconnect. Unless, of course, you want a demonstration that looks reasonably good through the idea that a battery couldn't possible last this long. As another pointed out, pulse charging can make batteries last much longer than we might expect. But a capacitor won't lie.
