Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
iPoni sent dis message. Esa Ruoho wrote it. On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 05:45 PM 1/13/2010, Terry Blanton . He claims that the energy output is greater than the input, but he says that again and again without showing a measurement of this. Next week, he says. So, Abd, do you even know what happens next week? They open it up for visitors to come and measure it themselves. If they (steorn) had measured it this or that way, the skeptics would have wanted it a third way. If they did that, then a fourth and fifth way. If those, then the equipment wasn't to be trusted, and so on. It never ends. I think they're doing a good thing, allowing visitors to measure it their way with their own devices, nobody is going to believe steorn's way even if they filmed themselves walking into a shop buying a meter and unwrapping it in front of the Orbo and cameras, skeptics would still believe they're scamming, somehow. If THEY come with their OWN precious devices and measure it THEMSELVES and then think that their own device was magically tampered with, well, then I guess you have a special breed of skeptic that don't believe their own equipment or eyes, which would be pretty amazing. I know some of the headcases on steornforum and villageofthebanned could even justify and rant about that too, but don't you think it'd be a bit ludicrous? Next week is less than five days from now.
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
iPoni sent dis message. Esa Ruoho wrote it. On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEU The set of videos is too long for me to watch now. But my immediate impression. Tl;dw is a great way to go. I give you a WTG for this one, possibly followed by a few other acronyms, which I dislike, such as LOL and OMG Even I had the time to watch the live presentation, and I can't finish most documentaries or even a song.
[Vo]:Hotson's Third Article
I understand that Hotson published his third article last year in the July/August IE mag: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html I don't suppose anyone has this to share? Terry
RE: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
From Abd: ... Okay, I kept watching. Questioner asked why they weren't using capacitors instead of a battery, for all the reasons we discussed. And the answer was essentially to first give a bullshit answer, that a capacitor couldn't supply the instantaneous current needed. Put enough capacitance in there and and you could vaporize the conductors if you shorted it. And then, when the questioner asked a little more, he asked him to dream the dream a bit and talked about how important this could be. In other words, please stop asking this inconvenient question I skipped most of Abd's initial questions as they seem to express critical banalities of an uninspired nature, especially since Abd has not yet had time to review most of the recent videos in their entirety. However, the last question regarding the battery versus the capacitor, IMO, is a good one. This issue has in fact been brought up and discussed many times within the Vort Collective, and indeed the fact that Storn uses a battery instead of a capacity has cast deep suspicion among its critics. Steorn deserves to give its audience a more thorough explanation. I hope it is forth coming. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:11 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Steorn deserves to give its audience a more thorough explanation. I hope it is forth coming. I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that the capacitor was too slow in current delivery. Actually, the opposite is true and evident to anyone who accidently shorts the terminals of a large capacitor. Indeed, on the VotB forum, it has been suggested that a 1 Farad capacitor be charged and tossed to McCarthy for him to catch. T
[Vo]:Will 2010 be the Year of Zero Point Energy?
new animation http://www.byzipp.com/scenic.swf with new article http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-will-2010-be-year-zero-point-energy-29148.html Fran
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
On 01/12/2010 10:49 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/12/2010 06:29 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: The field of a permanent magnet must be either anchored in the magnet's material, or knotted around part of the magnet, as in the attached sketches. Oops, that's wrong. The field of a permanent magnet must be anchored in the magnet's material, period. The second sketch I gave -- bad-toroidal-mag-field-1.jpg -- is impossible to produce using permanent magnets. You can make such a field with a current ring, of course, but that's not at all the same thing. The idea I had was that you started with a bar magnet and milled out the center, and carved the rest into a smooth ring. But the field as I drew it is not what would result. The real thing would have the field going up through the magnet material, and down on the outside of the ring, *and* down on the inside of the ring. Sorry, no sketch, but hopefully the description is clear. (And I still don't know what Steorn's magnetic cores have for the shape of their fields. For that matter I don't even know what old computer magnetic cores had for a field shape -- sigh.)
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
From Terry: Steorn deserves to give its audience a more thorough explanation [in regards to why Steorn used a battery instead of a capacitor.] I hope it is forth coming. I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that the capacitor was too slow in current delivery. Actually, the opposite is true and evident to anyone who accidently shorts the terminals of a large capacitor. Indeed, on the VotB forum, it has been suggested that a 1 Farad capacitor be charged and tossed to McCarthy for him to catch. Honorable critics of Steorn's claims [not the debunkers] should not let this issue get sidelined. Force Steorn to respond to the current official explanation, which I gather is something to the effect that using a capacitor would have resulted in too slow of a response time. I suspect Steorn will eventually be forced to respond with something to the effect of ... It's not as simple as that, whatever that might mean. But who knows. Maybe it ISN'T as simple as that. But then I'm hopelessly overoptimistic. IOW, I'm naive. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:57:17 -0600 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately for the rest of us who are languishing in the peanut gallery, I fear we will have to wait very VERY long time before anything of substance is revealed. McCarthy says that calorimetry results will be published at the end of this month. This is work being done by an independent firm. One of the 'skud' members says he has been told third-party testing will also be done. I hope the calorimetry results are unambiguous one way or the other. So we may know soon that they have something amazing or not. If they do, I hope enough hotshot engineers at large companies will work on it so that real products will show up within a year. FWIW, one of the engineers at waterways told a visitor he thought the first application would be to power portable generators.
RE: [Vo]:Will 2010 be the Year of Zero Point Energy?
Fran, Nice effort. Gradually you are helping to open up wider appreciation for another (and more accurate) perspective – which when applied to LENR would be this: that there is a predecessor state for these kinds of nuclear reactions, which is based on geometry and surface effects and on a “supplemental force” that itself is non-nuclear. Even though the suggestion that ZPE is instrumental to LENR - is itself not novel, you have managed to bring relevant and disparate research together in one place in order to add some “street cred” to the proposition. The downside is that few in the general public will be able to grasp it all, without great effort. There is a high entry-level learning curve for understanding LENR, and that will never go away. My immediate suggestion - from a “style” point of view - is to break up the long paragraphs into shorter, and to try to tie it all into an organized structure - with a hot-linked index at the start. This gives kind of an preliminary overview. Many readers are turned off or intimidated by 500 word paragraphs. Jones From: froarty...@comcast.net new animation http://www.byzipp.com/scenic.swf with new article http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/7200-will-2010-be-year-zero-point-energy-29148.html Fran
RE: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
Abd wrote: And the answer was essentially to first give a bullshit answer, that a capacitor couldn't supply the instantaneous current needed. Put enough capacitance in there and you could vaporize the conductors if you shorted it. According to Sean, its not a matter of having enough capacitance... It's a matter of internal resistance, and the internal resistance of a battery is less than a capacitor; that's what's needed to deliver a very sharp risetime current pulse. So, its really both, how much and how fast; both are req'd for Orbo to work. And then, when the questioner asked a little more, he asked him to dream the dream a bit and talked about how important this could be. In other words, please stop asking this inconvenient question Didn't hear that comment... I've followed Steorn carefully, and do not think this is anything less than what they claim it to be... Regardless of whether it ends up as a mistake in their measurements or not, they are not con-artists... They are sincere. Either way, it won't take much longer to determine that... A matter of a few weeks. -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.139/2620 - Release Date: 01/13/10 23:35:00
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
I have stayed away from the Steorn discussion, but I have now looked a Naudin's device and looked at the presentation on YouTube. I have also spent time with the Newumann machine cotroversy, and dug deeply into the Correa PAGD device and looked at the Testatika publications, including hearing a talk by a man who saw it operate. Along the way I have read extensively the works of Harold Aspden. There is something there guys, and its whiskers, teeth, and claws occasionally peek out to tantalize and lot ob bright people. It is productive to ask qestionas about peripheral matters, looking for clues, but it is not productive to ask in a gotcha mode, thinking that one will expose a hidden trick. Dr. Aspden is a former head of IBM's patent department in th UK, now retired. He has made a lifelong study of the aether [no not zero-point] arising from some graduate-school experiments with electromagnetism which gave anomalous results. I won't recap this, one can find it in his extensive wiritings. Point here is that some simple observations point to anomalous thermal and magnetic relationships which give the hope of 'free energy' by a clever machine. In the YouTube presentation, a throwaway line disclosed that the magnetic coils in the Orb device are toroids with ferromagnetic cores; this is obvious in the Naudin setup. This is extremely unconventional in a motor. Small currents can saturate those cores, modulating the permeability of the magnetic circluit seen by the magnets in the rotors. I have seen the PAGD device in operation and what I saw was consistent with the Correa claims for the device. The energy released in the dislcharge is much greater than that required to sustain the conditions for the discharge to occur. Correa used carefully calibrated batteries to absorb the energy lieu of capactors which would have to have been enormous to operate in the experiment. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
On 01/14/2010 11:46 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd wrote: And the answer was essentially to first give a bullshit answer, that a capacitor couldn't supply the instantaneous current needed. Put enough capacitance in there and you could vaporize the conductors if you shorted it. According to Sean, its not a matter of having enough capacitance... It's a matter of internal resistance, and the internal resistance of a battery is less than a capacitor; No -- that statement is false. It's the other way around. Internal resistance of a cap is typically far, far lower than the internal resistance of a battery. This is widely known and supported by a lot of experimental evidence, done by lots of people, including myself. If you have any evidence to back your (or Sean's) claim that a battery is less resistive than a cap please provide it, and please specify the particular battery and cap which you are talking about. Compared with capacitors, batteries win on storage capacity, they might win on self discharge rate (or they might not), but they lose bigtime on internal resistance. that's what's needed to deliver a very sharp risetime current pulse. So, its really both, how much and how fast; both are req'd for Orbo to work. And then, when the questioner asked a little more, he asked him to dream the dream a bit and talked about how important this could be. In other words, please stop asking this inconvenient question Didn't hear that comment... I've followed Steorn carefully, and do not think this is anything less than what they claim it to be... Regardless of whether it ends up as a mistake in their measurements or not, they are not con-artists... They are sincere. Either way, it won't take much longer to determine that... A matter of a few weeks. -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.139/2620 - Release Date: 01/13/10 23:35:00
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
At 03:07 AM 1/14/2010, Esa Ruoho wrote: At 05:45 PM 1/13/2010, Terry Blanton . He claims that the energy output is greater than the input, but he says that again and again without showing a measurement of this. Next week, he says. So, Abd, do you even know what happens next week? They open it up for visitors to come and measure it themselves. If they (steorn) had measured it this or that way, the skeptics would have wanted it a third way. If they did that, then a fourth and fifth way. If those, then the equipment wasn't to be trusted, and so on. It never ends. That's right, and that's exactly what they are about. Release just enough to keep the buzz going. These people are marketers, and they are marketing a product, very effectively. They are marketing differently than they would market if they had an actual over-unity device. If they had that, they might not be marketing at all, by this time. They'd have a demonstration model that works, that can be replicated easily, that shows the effect they claim to have discovered. Do they believe they have a real discovery, or do they believe that they have something that looks enough like a real discovery that they can milk it for years? What I'm saying is that their behavior matches the latter possibility, not the former. In one month, they go from a totally stupid demonstration, inviting lots of derisive comment, setting up the conditions for it, then the next month, they have a far more sophisticated demonstration going, but still not actually addressing the points made by skeptics (or just neutral critics that might even welcome an over-unity device!). They've been at this for years. This should be obvious: they aren't revealing enough details so that someone can accurately replicate it. That's part of the plan, and, directly asked, they might even acknowledge this. They are revealing glimpses of the technology, meting it out carefully so as to generate maximum interest among their target audience without dousing that interest with a bucket of cold water. They would justify the drips and dabs approach by saying that, after all, they are selling the technology. Want to see it, pay for it! They don't have a demonstration device. Look carefully. Everything is we are working on it. We have arranged with a German calorimetry company so that they will All future. It is conceivable that they believe they have found an effect. A small one. And they realized that scaling this up to something solid would require much more money than they have or will be able to obtain as direct venture funding. So they got the bright idea to sell what they *do* have in hand. Some experimental evidence. Valid or not. And if they sell this, what they are doing is legal. But, of course, what they have, then, isn't a proof, it's just a clue, with the far more likely truth being that it is simply an as-yet unexplained anomaly. And by keeping it secret, they sure aren't going to allow others to find the explanation, because that would blow their business opportunity! They are selling mystery. Call it entertainment. Have a few hundred dollars to blow? Like puzzles? You can buy it and see for yourself. Of course, since it's a secret and under a non-disclosure agreement, you can't tell anyone else, and you sure can't get your money back. Or maybe you can, under certain narrow conditions. We don't know what's in the NDA, the NDA prohibits disclosure of its contents, and I'd strongly guess that before you even receive the NDA you sign a previous NDA that prohibits disclosure of the final NDA contents. Someone judgment-proof might get through and around this, but, then again, they investigate anyone applying and don't accept everyone. I assume they check out this possibility. Whatever they are, they are not stupid. And when they do a stupid demonstration, like in December, be sure of this: they know that it was stupid. That's part of their plan. You've got two reasonable choices: 1. They are stupid. This choice, however, is not terribly compatible with the opinion that they have something real. More likely, it would also be a stupid mistake, or even a less-stupid one. 2. They are not stupid. (They might occasionally do a stupid thing, but as consistently stupid as they appear to have been, no. Their apparent stupidity at times is part of their plan. Oops! The bearings burned out! We've only been working for a few years preparing this incredibly simple demonstration, and we didn't anticipate that the temperature would rise as it did. Silly us, we apologize. Then, how long was it?, a long time later, another simple stupid demonstration. This time the bearings don't burn out, but it's all run by a big battery that obviously runs down, but there is no measure of power input, nor of power dissipation in the coils, and no measure of acceleration of the rotor, with any calibration of speed vs. stored energy. Yet they
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
At 03:11 AM 1/14/2010, Esa Ruoho wrote: On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEUhttp://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEU The set of videos is too long for me to watch now. But my immediate impression. Tl;dw is a great way to go. I give you a WTG for this one, possibly followed by a few other acronyms, which I dislike, such as LOL and OMG Even I had the time to watch the live presentation, and I can't finish most documentaries or even a song. The writer here violated his own principles by responding to a message he did not read. If he'd read all the way through, he'd have seen that I did, in the end, watch the whole damn thing. Ah, I've been involved in on-line debate since about 1986 or so, with the W.E.L.L. Just to explain some stuff to those who might be watching. I certainly don't intend to continue this thread. As I read from another today, I concede the last word, in advance. He who laughs last laughs best, and it's impossible to actually laugh on-line, LOL isn't laughing, and about half the time the person didn't actually laugh but is simply attempting to deride, or, at least, it's impossible to laugh last, what is on-line can't cover it. I'll be laughing, I expect and have reason to hope, after I'm dead. So whatever you are doing, be sure to have fun. You'll probably do less damage if you remember this.
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
From Abd: Tl;dw is a great way to go. I give you a WTG for this one, possibly followed by a few other acronyms, which I dislike, such as LOL and OMG Even I had the time to watch the live presentation, and I can't finish most documentaries or even a song. The writer here violated his own principles by responding to a message he did not read. If he'd read all the way through, he'd have seen that I did, in the end, watch the whole damn thing. Abd, you initially stated: The set of videos is too long for me to watch now... But later at the end of that same post you state: Okay, I kept watching. Fortunately for me I did read that entire post, (not the previous MUCH LONGER ONE!) and I generally concurred with your concern that the battery versus capacitor explanation is inadequate. Nevertheless, you state at the very beginning that you didn't have enough time to watch the show in its entirety. Let me reiterate: It is in fact the first thing you tell your readers. While, in a sense, you are taking advantage of literary license (something I'm guilty of having done as well) I still think you share some of the blame for misleading some of your readers. Ah, I've been involved in on-line debate since about 1986 or so, with the W.E.L.L. Just to explain some stuff to those who might be watching. I certainly don't intend to continue this thread. As I read from another today, I concede the last word, in advance. He who laughs last laughs best, and it's impossible to actually laugh on-line, LOL isn't laughing, and about half the time the person didn't actually laugh but is simply attempting to deride, or, at least, it's impossible to laugh last, what is on-line can't cover it. I'll be laughing, I expect and have reason to hope, after I'm dead. So whatever you are doing, be sure to have fun. You'll probably do less damage if you remember this. I agree. This is a fun topic, regardless of what side of the fence one is leaning towards. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. T
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
Terry Blanton wrote: Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. Or, they understand it perfectly well but they don't want to do that because they are in the business of obfuscation. Let's call that the Abd hypothesis, in honor of its most verbose advocate here. In politics, business and consulting, many people make a good living by obfuscation and sewing confusion. It is less common in science and technology, but not unheard of. Academic rivals opposed to cold fusion have made a fine art of it. Many people fail to perform definitive tests. I cannot be sure, but in most cases I get the impression this is because they are inept, not devious. Mike Carrell mentioned Newman and the Correas. Newman strikes me as inept. The Correas are a strange mixture. Carrell describe their PAGD tests which impressed many people, and which are legitimate as far as I can tell: The energy released in the discharge is much greater than that required to sustain the conditions for the discharge to occur. Correa used carefully calibrated batteries to absorb the energy lieu of capacitors which would have to have been enormous to operate in the experiment. That's fine as far as it goes, but when I last heard from the Correas they were working with Gene Mallove on two experiments that struck me as absolutely looney, to the n'th degree. One was with a gold leaf electroscope which they claimed was producing energy when the leaf was extended out, like a person holding up his arms. A person does, in fact, expend energy to do this, but an electroscope emphatically does not. The second was with a device they claimed runs on energy from the sun that comes right through the earth, like neutrinos. That is at least plausible, but the method they chose to test it is perhaps the worst imaginable one. I would put the gadget in a sub-basement or a mine shaft to exclude other possible sources of energy. As I recall, they put it in bright sunlight outdoors and combined it with a Crookes radiometer or some other solar powered device (I don't recall). That's like trying to tune a piano in a boiler factory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google's problem in China
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:19:24 -0500: Hi, [snip] http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://baike.baidu.com/view/1391655.htm%3Ffr%3Dala0_1sl=zh-CNtl=enhl=ie=UTF-8http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://baike.baidu.com/view/1391655.htm%3Ffr%3Dala0_1sl=zh-CNtl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 [snip] ...humans can be extracted from sea water heavy hydrogen to produce a wealth of nuclear energy. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
From Terry: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. Fro Jed: Or, they understand it perfectly well but they don't want to do that because they are in the business of obfuscation. Let's call that the Abd hypothesis, in honor of its most verbose advocate here. I tend to sympathize with Terry's assessment, and give Jed's an honorable mention. As odd as this might sound, at present I take comfort from the realization that I'm not smart enough to determine whether the ORBO prototype is an intentional scam, an invention of the deluded, or a closeted energizer bunny. I'm reminded of a fine book I purchased decades ago, titled In Advance of the Landing, Folk Concepts of Outer Space http://www.amazon.com/Advance-Landing-Concepts-Outer-Space/dp/0789207087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1263502029sr=1-1-spell http://tinyurl.com/y8tpmmb There are some priceless photos in this book. One photo showed a flying saucer being constructed in the basement of an individual's home. The individual had a vision one evening. His vision was of Jesus who instructed him to build a flying saucer. Jesus had also commanded him to pilot the flying saucer around the world in order to distribute copies of the bible.The flying saucer was coming along nicely. It took up most of the basement floor. One wonders if the builder had figured out how he was going to get it up the stairs and out the door. Film at eleven. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn motor. Granted, Sean's 300% OU would lead to this conclusion. However, his fundamental, most basic claim is that the motor has no back EMF, and consequently *all* input energy appears as heat in the coils. If that were true, then the motor would be OU if it did any mechanical work at all, no matter how small the amount. The OU thing here, however, is not mechanical_work/input_energy, but rather (mechanical_work + heat_in_coils)/input_energy To determine if this is actually OU it would be necessary to stuff the whole thing into a calorimeter, which is, I think, the test the firm in Germany is supposed to perform. If it could be shown that the motor was, indeed, OU by this test, it might still be the case that (mechanical_work/input_energy)1, which would make it impossible to either close the loop or even get any useful work out of it, *but* it would still be an incredible, amazing, remarkable, stunning achievement (or a measurement error, of course). Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. T
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Slow to no work -- smallest possible energy release
The Correa's gold leaf electroscope claims were brought to my attention by Ed Storms, who exchanged a series of messages with the Correas about this years ago. As I mentioned, the claim was that the extended leaves are doing work. They are not, since they do not move, and the fact that the Correas (both of them, I assume) think the leaves are doing work convinces me they need a remedial course in grade-school Newtonian physics. I think the Correas mentioned the example of a person holding up a weight. That is entirely different since the muscles are continually contracting and working. The gold leaf electroscope is more like a weight tied to a string, hanging from the ceiling. However, as I pointed out to Ed, that system actually does a tiny bit of work. The string gradually stretches. If you leave it for years, the threads separate. Eventually, the string breaks, and the weight falls, doing a bunch of work, but in the months leading up to that event, the gradual stretching and breaking of molecular bonds in the string is mechanical work. It is such a small amount of work that I doubt any calorimeter or other instrument will ever be able to measure it. Maybe it makes a tiny noise as each string filament breaks? It is interesting to look for other examples of ultra-low energy expenditure. A machine can be defined as an object that consumes energy and makes some sort of internal or external state change. All machines consume energy, although in some cases it may not seem that way. A needle and thread consumes energy supplied by a person. In the old days, people used to cite the wristwatch as the machine that consumes the least amount of energy. They also defined a machine as something with moving parts. Nowadays digital watches, LEDs, motion sensors for airbags and many other devices consume far less energy than a wind-up wristwatch, and they have no moving parts. (Arthur Clarke wrote that the ultimate goal of technology is to make a full set of machines for any purpose that have no moving parts. It is difficult to imagine fabrication and machine tools without parts, but not impossible, especially if something like force fields can exist.) Anyway . . . this makes me wonder what the ultimate low energy machine would be. Cracked automobile glass is a well-known ultra-slow, ultra-low energy mechanical phenomenon. The glass is under tension, like the string holding the weight from the ceiling. The crack spreads slowly, sometime a few centimeters a year. It is breaking apart molecules. It must be very few molecules per hour, at a remarkably even, well controlled rate. Otherwise the crack would do nothing for weeks and then progress rapidly (which does happen in response to temperature changes). A micro-calorimeter that could detect the heat from cracking auto glass would be an astounding device. I doubt it will ever be made, but perhaps these is some other way to detect the individual fracturing of the molecules, by putting some sort of sensor on the glass. Maybe look for fracto-fusion. Relatively simple and cheap devices, such as Atomic Force Microscopes (AFM), can detect far smaller bodies and events than I ever imagined possible. When I was a kid it was taken for granted that we will never see an individual atom with any kind of microscope. Never say never with technology! In the not too distant future, Fisher Price may be selling AFMs. I have read that an AFM is roughly as complicated as a CD-ROM player. The most difficult part is dampening the vibrations from outside the sensor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Slow to no work -- smallest possible energy release
Ed Storms -- who Oracle-likes sometimes reads but does not respond to Vortex these days -- pointed out that I am wrong about clocks. They do have moving parts: All machines that measure time MUST have moving parts. In a digital watch, the moving part is the vibration of a quartz crystal. In the Cesium clock, the moving part is the vibration of electrons. Only the scale has changed. So, if we define a part as something with mass, I wonder if we can measure time with photons instead of electrons. All computers have clocks, so they all have moving parts by this definition. I have read that people are trying to develop computers without clocks, in which every component works at its own pace, like people in Swedish automobile factory, or people playing tennis without a net. It is hard for me to imagine how a clock-less computer would work. Most modern computer displays have no moving parts. The Kindle book readers have internal mechanical movement of black and white beads. I consider that a retrograde design, that will not last for long. The resolution is remarkable but the contrast is poor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Slow to no work -- smallest possible energy release
On 01/14/2010 05:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ed Storms -- who Oracle-likes sometimes reads but does not respond to Vortex these days -- pointed out that I am wrong about clocks. They do have moving parts: All machines that measure time MUST have moving parts. In a digital watch, the moving part is the vibration of a quartz crystal. In the Cesium clock, the moving part is the vibration of electrons. Only the scale has changed. So, if we define a part as something with mass, I wonder if we can measure time with photons instead of electrons. Photons have no rest mass but none the less, when they're moving, they have mass. They carry momentum, when they leave something it loses mass, when they're absorbed by something it gains mass, they gravitate, and they're attracted by gravity. I think that about covers it for properties of a massive body, doesn't it? But in any case Clarke clearly allowed photons to move in his ideal machine with no moving parts (see City and the Stars -- the Central Computer, with no moving parts, none the less has some lights of some sort). All computers have clocks, so they all have moving parts by this definition. I have read that people are trying to develop computers without clocks, in which every component works at its own pace, like people in Swedish automobile factory, or people playing tennis without a net. It is hard for me to imagine how a clock-less computer would work. How so? It's a simple asynchronous design. First machine I ever worked on professionally was asynchronous. The CPU board, which was about a foot square, had a row of tweak pots along one edge of the board -- a dozen or more -- to adjust the timing of the various parts so they would play together. The design made heavy use of arbiters to deal with the (constant) races; needless to say one must be very careful in calculating the rate of arbiter failure in such a design to be sure it won't happen in practice. Nowadays computers are all synchronous, at least in part because it's a whole lot simpler, and when you're trying to tear along at gigahertz+ speeds simplicity counts for a lot. Most modern computer displays have no moving parts. The Kindle book readers have internal mechanical movement of black and white beads. I consider that a retrograde design, that will not last for long. The resolution is remarkable but the contrast is poor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google's problem in China
Soylent? On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:58 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:19:24 -0500: Hi, [snip] http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://baike.baidu.com/view/1391655.htm%3Ffr%3Dala0_1sl=zh-CNtl=enhl=ie=UTF-8http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://baike.baidu.com/view/1391655.htm%3Ffr%3Dala0_1sl=zh-CNtl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 [snip] ...humans can be extracted from sea water heavy hydrogen to produce a wealth of nuclear energy. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
No, it does some mechanical work, it's spinning. It is overcoming bearing friction and wind friction. No doubt it is performing mechanical work. But to be OU, it must perform more mechanical work than electrical input. But the freakin' motor would not work without magnetic floating bearings. And windage is virtually zero from the geometry. But so is the electrical input. Put a string on the axle and see how much weight it can lift. My bet is a fraction of a gram. I have no doubt that when the energy balance is calculated, the efficiency of the motor will be 0.5. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn motor. Granted, Sean's 300% OU would lead to this conclusion. However, his fundamental, most basic claim is that the motor has no back EMF, and consequently *all* input energy appears as heat in the coils. If that were true, then the motor would be OU if it did any mechanical work at all, no matter how small the amount. The OU thing here, however, is not mechanical_work/input_energy, but rather (mechanical_work + heat_in_coils)/input_energy To determine if this is actually OU it would be necessary to stuff the whole thing into a calorimeter, which is, I think, the test the firm in Germany is supposed to perform. If it could be shown that the motor was, indeed, OU by this test, it might still be the case that (mechanical_work/input_energy)1, which would make it impossible to either close the loop or even get any useful work out of it, *but* it would still be an incredible, amazing, remarkable, stunning achievement (or a measurement error, of course). Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. T
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
- Original Message From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 10:31:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig From Terry: Steorn deserves to give its audience a more thorough explanation [in regards to why Steorn used a battery instead of a capacitor.] I hope it is forth coming. I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that the capacitor was too slow in current delivery. Actually, the opposite is true and evident to anyone who accidently shorts the terminals of a large capacitor. Indeed, on the VotB forum, it has been suggested that a 1 Farad capacitor be charged and tossed to McCarthy for him to catch. Honorable critics of Steorn's claims [not the debunkers] should not let this issue get sidelined. Force Steorn to respond to the current official explanation, which I gather is something to the effect that using a capacitor would have resulted in too slow of a response time. I suspect Steorn will eventually be forced to respond with something to the effect of ... It's not as simple as that, whatever that might mean. But who knows. Maybe it ISN'T as simple as that. But then I'm hopelessly overoptimistic. IOW, I'm naive. ;-) A capacitor discharges quickly, but then it needs to be recharged and that takes time. So over time would the delivery of current be slowerer than a battery? harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
[Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 4:10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn motor. Granted, Sean's 300% OU would lead to this conclusion. However, his fundamental, most basic claim is that the motor has no back EMF, and consequently *all* input energy appears as heat in the coils. If that were true, then the motor would be OU if it did any mechanical work at all, no matter how small the amount. The OU thing here, however, is not mechanical_work/input_energy, but rather (mechanical_work + heat_in_coils)/input_energy To determine if this is actually OU it would be necessary to stuff the whole thing into a calorimeter, which is, I think, the test the firm in Germany is supposed to perform. If it could be shown that the motor was, indeed, OU by this test, it might still be the case that (mechanical_work/input_energy)1, which would make it impossible to either close the loop or even get any useful work out of it, *but* it would still be an incredible, amazing, remarkable, stunning achievement (or a measurement error, of course). The purpose of a _motor_ is to convert electromagnetic energy into useful motion. The purpose of the orbo is to turn electromagnetic energy and motion into heat. Therefore it is misleading to call it a motor. If the orbo can produce more output heat energy than it uses in input energy then it is similar to the purpose of a _reactor_. Harry __ 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 talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
At 01:03 PM 1/14/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Nevertheless, you state at the very beginning that you didn't have enough time to watch the show in its entirety. Let me reiterate: It is in fact the first thing you tell your readers. While, in a sense, you are taking advantage of literary license (something I'm guilty of having done as well) I still think you share some of the blame for misleading some of your readers. Sure. I wasn't blaming him purely for thinking that what I wrote at the beginning was no longer true. That's obviously something reasonable for him to conclude. But he was faulting me for commenting without, supposedly, watching the whole damn set of videos, which would take much longer than to read over my post, yet he commented on my post without reading it all the way through. Don't you agree that's ironic? So whatever you are doing, be sure to have fun. You'll probably do less damage if you remember this. I agree. This is a fun topic, regardless of what side of the fence one is leaning towards. Yes. I think Steorn is brilliant. (I have trouble using the plural for them, except like in this sentence. Steorn are brilliant? Sorry, that grates. it is a company, a single entity, but I can also speak of those involved as them.) Brilliant as entertainers and sophisticated marketers. Never mind the product they are marketing, it's an excuse for making money, which is what marketers are supposed to do.
