subject:"\[Vo\]\:Back EMF\: Sean may be right"

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 TB: Please cite any post whereby I called them any names.

Not one instance of me calling Steorn a name.  Yep, lots of derogatory
remarks and plenty more to come unless Steorn proves their case.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

Actually it was to Bill, the list owner, quoting:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:25 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 Scammers aren't visible because of what they do.  If they were, then anyone
 could see a con game for what it was.  Scammers only become obvious in
 what's missing: those things honest people do, but things scammers avoid
 doing.

 Has Steorn at any time stated that they have built a simple stand-alone
 device which produces energy?

Of course not.  They would tout a self-runner to high heaven.  But,
Bill, as Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, ie they are
laboring under ignorance.  Otherwise, there is a chance they will wind
up in jail.

end quote

Many are calling them scammers on this list; but, it is not me.  I
will expect your apology or it will be pistols at dawn, my good sir.

Terry

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 So Sean saying that they've already done the calorimetry and determined
 it empirically would not help you one bit --- you would still call them
 liars and scammers!

 I can think of at least two other people that have indeed used those exact 
 terms to describe
 Steorn/Sean, and numerous times, so it was more meant for them... Don't think 
 you've used these
 terms in your posts, but I only went back a few weeks.  Although, you seem to 
 agree with these
 individuals in reply to their posts, and don't call them on the use of such 
 derogatory terms.

 TB:  AAMOF I defended against those who do call them scammers.
 MI:  Really, I couldn't find any, at least not in the last 3 weeks. You have 
 made comments like
 this, I do certainly hope that he has found something miraculous.  I guess 
 that is supportive...

 TB: Please cite any post on any list whereby Sean says they HAVE performed 
 calorimetry. Doesn't
 exist.

 You misunderstood my statement... It was a hypothetical one. Let me rephrase 
 it:
 Even if Sean were to say that they've done the calorimetry and determined 
 the COP to be 3:1, it
 would not help you one bit...

 You wouldn't believe a thing they say at this point, so what good would it do?

 -Mark

 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/16/10 
 23:35:00

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-18 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Mark Iverson

 

 What I see in your [Terry Blanton's] posts, TB,

 is overconfident, arrogant intelligence... And you

 wonder why you were banned? Probably not the first

 time, eh? Can you say, Clueless?

 

 Perhaps you should learn to ask questions minus the

 snide, derogatory remarks.

 

and

 

 You wouldn't believe a thing they say at this point, so

 what good would it do?

 

From Esa Ruoho

 

 i understand the desperate need to disbelieve, and the desperate

 need to believe, in what Steorn say, be they educated guesses,

 opinions based on experience, or just plain distrust / trust.

 

 

From my perception, Mark appears to want to believe in the sincerity of
Steorn's OU claims. While many within the Vort Collective might have their
doubts, I suspect few are inclined to fuss over it - at least for the
moment. Most appear to be taking a sensible wait-and-see approach. In the
meantime, and unfortunately for Mark, he appears to have grown increasingly
defensive towards those who have chosen to be more expressive of their
criticism of Steorn's controversial claims.

 

From my perception, it all seems to boil down to the simple fact that Terry
isn't willing to take Steorn's claims at face value, certainly not without
proper due diligence.

 

Personally, I might be inclined to be more in sympathy with Mark's valiant
defensive of Steorn's plan-of-action if it was clear that Mark had performed
equivalent due diligence on these kinds of controversial OU claims as
Terry has performed, such as on the Sprain project. It bears repeating that
Terry diligently reported back to the Vort Collective insofar as the NDA he
signed with Sprain allowed him to do. (Of course, this is where Mark can
educate us on what controversial OU related projects he may have worked on.
This is where Mark can educate us on why we might wish to take his defense
of Steorn more seriously.) In the meantime it bears repeating that Terry
eventually found himself in the unpleasant position of having to be the
harbinger of bad news. Apparently, Sprain responded by ostracizing Terry
from the group when he finally realized that Sprain's claims of OU were
inaccurate. What is clear to me, what should be clear to everyone on the
Vort Collective is that Terry's criticisms of Steorn's behavior are not
based on overconfidence or arrogance as Mark would like to everyone to
believe. Terry's perceptions are certainly not clueless.

 

 

From my perception, Esa's recent comment probably comes closest to the heart
of the issue.

 

 

Beliefs are an interesting human construct. For better or worse, religions
and civilizations have been based on a belief. Unfortunately, there can be
dire consequences when we begin to identify the core foundations of our soul
with a particular belief construct. Folly occurs when we end up serving
beliefs originally constructed to help us better understand Mother Nature.
Such beliefs placed on a pedestal eventually begin to demand strict
obedience. They eventually demand sacrifices of all its subjects in order to
defend its honor.

 

Personally, I wish Steorn the best of luck. I continue to hope that their
controversial OU claims are eventually proven to be accurate. What a hoot
that would turn out to be! I'm not betting on it, however.

 

Regards

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-18 Thread Harry Veeder

From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, January 18, 2010 12:07:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

Personally,
I wish Steorn the best of luck. I continue to hope that their controversial OU
claims are eventually proven to be accurate. What a hoot that would turn out to
be! I'm not betting on it, however.

Regards

Imagine a lottery where the prize was a billion dollars and the tickets
were free. Some people would refuse to play because they would not risk winning 
for fear of the attention they would receive.

Harry

  __
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your 
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-18 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 12:47 PM 1/17/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Gosh, something happened and the calorimetry company had to 
withdraw. Sorry, folks.


This has not actually happened. Please identify statements such as 
this as hypothetical or cynical, to avoid confusion. (Seriously.)


I believe that anyone who would take that statement as other than 
hypothetical (and cynical!) wouldn't have been paying attention. Sean 
has done this kind of thing so many times that it's not purely 
cynical to expect it. It's a realistic possibility.


I think we should be a little more careful around here with the use 
of words like scam and fake.


Sure. But I haven't called Steorn a scam or the demonstration 
fake. I've stated that there is a possibility of fakery, but, so 
far, no evidence of it. I suspect that there are layers of traps 
laid, objections that they are setting up precisely to attract 
criticism that they can then refute.


Here is what it looks like they are selling: an anomaly of unknown 
explanation. They found this, apparently, and couldn't find an 
obvious way to scale it up and generate energy, and it could take a 
boatload of money to do that. They don't have the boatload and they 
couldn't get it. So how can they profit from their discovery?


Note that they have not disclosed the anomaly. That's what they are 
selling. But it also appears that they haven't disclosed it yet even 
to those who have paid. It's coming, supposedly by February 1. They 
have provided hints only, it's part of the marketing strategy.


Is there a real anomaly here, when the smoke clears? I rather doubt 
it, but I certainly can't say it's impossible. Steorn principals 
don't want to go to jail, I doubt that they are engaged in actual 
fraud. Lying is not illegal, folks. Not unless there is detrimental 
reliance by someone with a contractual or other legal right.


But I did claim that Sean was, effectively, lying. That's about the 
claim of 2:1 energy. Note that, if true, this would provide an 
immediate commercial application (or close). Heating. I'd love to 
have a heater that produced three times as much heat as its energy input.


However, the claim is that the excess energy is stored as the kinetic 
energy of the rotor. Sorry, folks, contrary to what someone wrote 
here, you can't just use F=ma, the kinetic energy of a rotor depends 
on the mass distribution of the rotor, but a low-friction supported 
bearing could readily be calibrated so that one would know the stored 
energy from the rotational velocity. Sean could easily have gathered 
all this data, and it would make all the claims about no-back-EMF 
moot. If the figure of 2:1 is a demonstrated fact, if Sean has a 
basis for it, measurement precision would be a dead issue. They are 
dumping a lot of battery power as heat!


Sean is obfuscating, and why he is obfuscating I consider obvious: 
he's postponing the resolution of all this, because when it's 
resolved, there goes interest in Orbo. Until then, until the matter 
is closed clearly, assuming that there is no real effect here, he's 
making money. We don't know how many people are buying the 
disclosure, they've made sure we won't know that. He's behaving as a 
skilled marketer of his products.


One way to look at it is that he is selling entertainment. A puzzle 
to solve. He's having fun watching all the contortions, great fun, 
I'm sure. Sorry about the broken rib, Sean, that hurts. Get well soon.


After this is all done, Sean, you can then write a book about it and 
make even more money. Perfectly legitimately.


Anyone associated with cold fusion has heard these terms far too 
often, applied inappropriately against people who have done nothing wrong.


Sure. And against some who have.

 It is one thing to say that Steorn seems like a scam, or it gives 
you that impression. It is quite another to assert that it actually 
is. When you say this, you should have proof. And proof of a scam 
has to be narrowly defined: you have to show there is an aggrieved 
party. That is, a person or funding organization who feels that 
their money was taken on false pretenses, by a researcher who knew 
for a fact that his claim was false.


Yup. Well, generally. The term scam can be more broadly applied. I 
think that you are referring to fraud. There are legal scams, Orbo 
could be one.


Researchers who are wrong, or inept, furtive, lazy, intellectually 
dishonest or highly disagreeable people are not scams. Researchers 
who threaten to sue people who criticize their work or quote from 
their papers violate academic norms, but that is not the same as 
being a scam either.


Note that Steorn hasn't disclosed their research. They simply claim 
they have some. But when we look closely, we find that critical 
testing hasn't been done. Calorimetry hasn't been done, it appears. 
Has the energy balance been studied by actual measurement of energy 
extracted from the battery and actual energy accumulated in the

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-18 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 02:46 PM 1/17/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:

How do you know? With regular bearings it may require more energy
then the system can
generate.


Isn't that my point? They are drawing relatively high power from the
battery. If all of that ends up as heat, and twice as much is going
into rotational energy, there should be no problem with bearings. But
hey , if I have the math wrong, let's say they haven't given us the
info to show it. I didn't do actual calculations, just seat of the
pants estimation.


Suppose that Sean is right. So, they put a controllable brake on the 
rotor. It could be done by using an induction coil to extract 
rotational energy from the rotor and dump it into a resistor to 
generate heat. They let the thing fire up, then move the induction 
coil in until rotor acceleration is zero. Or lower the resistance 
value until that point.


How much power is being extracted from the battery? How much heat is 
being generated there (mostly in the toroids)?


And how much heat, in this steady-state situation, constant RPM, is 
being generated in the resistor?


If Sean's claim of 2:1 is correct, say at some rotational rate, then 
twice as much power would be dissipated in the brake resistor. Very 
easy to measure the resistor dissipation, the waveform would be 
simple, no complications at all.


But this is what classical understanding would predict: the resistor 
would be dissipating only a small fraction of the energy being 
dissipated in the toroid circuit, representing some small deviation 
from the claim of 100% generation of heat of the current in that 
circuit. Some (small) fraction of that current is converted into 
rotor energy. And that's why very low friction bearings are required. 
It's a very low percentage, and being so low, it's not easy to see, 
the measurement accuracy would have to be high, and with transients, 
which is where it's happening (during the turn-on and turn-off of the 
circuit), such measurement is quite difficult.


This is what I'd predict if careful analysis is done: the continuous 
energy that can be extracted from the rotor, by the induction pickup, 
is within the noise in the measurement of energy input from the 
battery, minus energy dissipation in the toroid circuit, or it is 
observable as a deficit from that circuit, missing energy there, as 
would exist with a classic pulse motor.


There would be a smaller missing component of energy, so the 
efficiency isn't actually 100%, because some energy will be radiated 
as RF. So (work in the toroid circuit) minus (work in the induction 
circuit) will be positive, if measured accurately enough, or will be 
in the noise, if not. If Sean's claim is true, this difference will 
be very negative, the dissipation in the pickup coil will be double 
that in the toroid circuit.


Simple hypothesis to test. Now, obvious question that will be asked, 
and this kind of question has been asked many times. Why haven't 
they thought of this?


Well, I assume that they have thought of it, if fact, the alternative 
is to assume that in spite of having the money to bring in serious 
expertise, they are seriously stupid. And I rather doubt that.


Abd's version of an old maxim:

Never ascribe to stupidity what may be effective marketing.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

  Sorry, folks, contrary to what someone wrote here, you can't
 just use F=ma, the kinetic energy of a rotor depends on the mass
 distribution of the rotor, but a low-friction supported bearing could
 readily be calibrated so that one would know the stored energy from the
 rotational velocity.

Of course you can.  I just didn't wish to bore people here with the
details.  The bearing energy would be assumed to be zero but will
actually be included in the inertia as a constant drag when the
measurement is done.  And the absolute final velocity is not an issue.
 It is the change in velocity which determines acceleration and the
subsequent force.  One would have to calculate the radius of the
center of mass for a non-homogenous rotating body.  Since the body has
quadilateral symmetry along the magnet axes, it's not a difficult
task.

I have a mechanical engineer on my staff.  We'll give it a shot for a
single plexiglass disc containing 4 magnets in quadrature.

T

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:07 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:


 Personally, I might be inclined to be more in sympathy with Mark's valiant
 defensive of Steorn's plan-of-action if it was clear that Mark had performed
 equivalent due diligence on these kinds of controversial OU claims as
 Terry has performed, such as on the Sprain project. It bears repeating that
 Terry diligently reported back to the Vort Collective insofar as the NDA he
 signed with Sprain allowed him to do. (Of course, this is where Mark can
 educate us on what controversial OU related projects he may have worked on.
 This is where Mark can educate us on why we might wish to take his defense
 of Steorn more seriously.) In the meantime it bears repeating that Terry
 eventually found himself in the unpleasant position of having to be the
 harbinger of bad news. Apparently, Sprain responded by ostracizing Terry
 from the group when he finally realized that Sprain's claims of OU were
 inaccurate. What is clear to me, what should be clear to everyone on the
 Vort Collective is that Terry's criticisms of Steorn's behavior are not
 based on overconfidence or arrogance as Mark would like to everyone to
 believe. Terry's perceptions are certainly not clueless.

Have you considered running for judge?

Iverson chapped my ass popping in here with his statement on 1-16-10:

If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum
or Overunity.com, as guessing
and speculating and accusing here, you just might have a different opinion. 

I don't know of many armchair skeptics on this list unless they are lurking.

As for Sprain, he and I are still good friends.  It was the company
that owned his IP that had to be convinced.  I do have permission to
totally disclose the happenings; but, it has to be approved by the
board of governors.  It's actually a difficult story to write.  One
day.

Mechanical energy calculations are tricky.  It took me over a year to
fully understand what is meant by the term torque.  Would you believe
that it doesn't actually exist?

Anyway, thanks for clarifying things, Steven.  I'll try to be less
defensive in the future.

T

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-18 Thread Harry Veeder

- Original Message 
 From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, January 18, 2010 12:55:23 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

 At 02:46 PM 1/17/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

  On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
  How do you know? With regular bearings it may require more energy
  then the system can
  generate.

  Isn't that my point? They are drawing relatively high power from the
  battery. If all of that ends up as heat, and twice as much is going
  into rotational energy, there should be no problem with bearings. But
  hey , if I have the math wrong, let's say they haven't given us the
  info to show it. I didn't do actual calculations, just seat of the
  pants estimation.

 Suppose that Sean is right. So, they put a controllable brake on the rotor. 
 It 
 could be done by using an induction coil to extract rotational energy from 
 the 
 rotor and dump it into a resistor to generate heat. They let the thing fire 
 up, 
 then move the induction coil in until rotor acceleration is zero. Or lower 
 the 
 resistance value until that point.

 How much power is being extracted from the battery? How much heat is being 
 generated there (mostly in the toroids)?

 And how much heat, in this steady-state situation, constant RPM, is being 
 generated in the resistor?

 If Sean's claim of 2:1 is correct, say at some rotational rate, then twice as 
 much power would be dissipated in the brake resistor. Very easy to measure 
 the 
 resistor dissipation, the waveform would be simple, no complications at all.

 But this is what classical understanding would predict: the resistor would be 
 dissipating only a small fraction of the energy being dissipated in the 
 toroid 
 circuit, representing some small deviation from the claim of 100% generation 
 of 
 heat of the current in that circuit. Some (small) fraction of that current is 
 converted into rotor energy. And that's why very low friction bearings are 
 required. It's a very low percentage, and being so low, it's not easy to see, 
 the measurement accuracy would have to be high, and with transients, which is 
 where it's happening (during the turn-on and turn-off of the circuit), such 
 measurement is quite difficult.

 This is what I'd predict if careful analysis is done: the continuous energy 
 that 
 can be extracted from the rotor, by the induction pickup, is within the noise 
 in 
 the measurement of energy input from the battery, minus energy dissipation in 
 the toroid circuit, or it is observable as a deficit from that circuit, 
 missing 
 energy there, as would exist with a classic pulse motor.

 There would be a smaller missing component of energy, so the efficiency isn't 
 actually 100%, because some energy will be radiated as RF. So (work in the 
 toroid circuit) minus (work in the induction circuit) will be positive, if 
 measured accurately enough, or will be in the noise, if not. If Sean's claim 
 is 
 true, this difference will be very negative, the dissipation in the pickup 
 coil 
 will be double that in the toroid circuit.

 Simple hypothesis to test. Now, obvious question that will be asked, and this 
 kind of question has been asked many times. Why haven't they thought of 
 this?

I noticed on the Steorn forum there is talk of a punch line that Steorn will 
give at the end of the month. Perhaps the test you describe is it.

 Well, I assume that they have thought of it, if fact, the alternative is to 
 assume that in spite of having the money to bring in serious expertise, they 
 are 
 seriously stupid. And I rather doubt that.

 Abd's version of an old maxim:

 Never ascribe to stupidity what may be effective marketing. 

Harry

  __
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! 

http://www.flickr.com/gift/

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-18 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 12:05 AM 1/19/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:

I noticed on the Steorn forum there is talk of a punch line that 
Steorn will give at the end of the month. Perhaps the test you describe is it.


I rather doubt it. If they've done this and they have the data and it 
shows significant excess energy, they would have something very, very 
solid, so why all this smoke and mirrors for so long? It's quite 
plain to me that they have been drawing it out, providing information 
in little bits and pieces. If they had this test, and if they have 
2:1 excess:input, it would be a conclusive demonstration, and they 
could actually raise huge sums as investments.


So I don't think so.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread peatbog

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:01:22 -0800 (PST)
 Or has Steorn now released all info on Orbo so everyone can build exact 
 copies?   Part numbers of toroid cores, number of turns of which gauge of 
 wire etc?
As I understand it, they will do that starting Feb 1, if you pay
them 419 euros. 

According to the remarks by a member, the people already in the
steorn development group will also get the final pieces of the
info needed to make an orbo, but I don't know if that will happen
on Feb 1 (no charge to those people).

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

Of course Sean may be right. In a sense. But wrong if we take No 
back EMF as an absolute, and wrong in the implications.


I don't think I've seen how the Orbo motor allegedly works stated clearly.

The drive current doesn't accelerate the rotor directly, or, more 
accurately perhaps, it doesn't do that with most of the current. 
Rather it turns on and off the attraction of the toroid core for the 
permanent magnets in the rotor.


If we are talking about substantial rather than making absolute 
statements, there is no back-EMF. That's the design!


But what's really suspicious and an astounding claim is that Sean is 
claiming that twice as much work is done on the rotor as is 
dissipated in the toroid. And we have not seen one shred of evidence 
regarding that, we haven't seen figures for the rotational 
energy/rotational velocity of the rotor (easy to calculate from 
theory, and to measure, in fact), nor have we seen information on the 
power drawn from the battery, nor have we seen correlated data: 
acceleration of the rotor and power dissipation from the battery.


We only have Sean's claim, with no data at all: twice as much energy 
going into the rotor as is going into heat.


We have seen oscilloscope plots of voltage vs. current, showing no 
back EMF, at a gross level. But none at all? How much would it take 
to have an effect on the rotor?


This is what I've seen: the rotor is on a magnetic bearing, extremely 
low friction, so the rotor can accumulate energy that is provided in 
tiny bursts. There are transients in the oscilloscope plots that Sean 
waves away. All it takes is a little leakage.


If, in fact, there were twice as much energy appearing in the rotor, 
that rotor would accelerate with extreme rapidity, and low-friction 
bearings would be completely unnecessary.


Hence, my conclusion: Sean is lying about the twice the energy thing. 
He doesn't know that at all.


Calorimetry? Hopeless! The acceleration is apparently coming from a 
very small energy transfer, a tiny fraction of what is being 
dissipated from the battery. However, of course, if there is 300% 
power, i.e., some brake is put on the rotor that causes any rotor 
energy to be dissipated as heat, and there are appropriate controls, 
etc., etc., calorimetry should be quite effective. We will see, of 
course, what the calorimetry company comes up with. Or will we see 
some excuse. Remember, the calorimetry apparently hasn't been done 
yet. Sean is, as before, making predictions.


Gosh, something happened and the calorimetry company had to withdraw. 
Sorry, folks.


And, remember, Sean justifies the battery because he needs to handle 
very high transient currents? Wait a minute? Why high transient 
currents? What would happen without these high transient currents, 
what if the current were limited to some value, still enough to 
accomplish the transition in a time short compared to magnet proximity?


Remember, again, Steorn has never disclosed what effect they 
discovered. That's what they are selling, in fact. So don't hold your 
breath. But, my prediction: when the smoke clears, he was lying. Not 
merely making a mistake.


I'm saying that if he's claimed 300% (100% plus 200%), without having 
decent evidence for that, but merely some prediction based on 
conditions or measurements not made yet, or extrapolated from 
measurements so small within the context of possible noise, like a 
few milliwatts of anomaly measured in the presence of a hundred watts 
of power dissipation, he's lying. He is attempting to create an 
impression of knowledge that doesn't exist.


If he'd said, We predict from what we know not a lie. But 
that's not what he's written.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Harry Veeder

- Original Message 
 From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:06:18 AM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

 If, in fact, there were twice as much energy appearing in the rotor, that 
 rotor 
 would accelerate with extreme rapidity, and low-friction bearings would be 
 completely unnecessary.

How do you know? With regular bearings it may require more energy then the 
system can generate.

Harry

  __
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your 
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Jed Rothwell

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


 Gosh, something happened and the calorimetry company had to withdraw.
 Sorry, folks.


This has not actually happened. Please identify statements such as this as
hypothetical or cynical, to avoid confusion. (Seriously.)

I think we should be a little more careful around here with the use of words
like scam and fake. Anyone associated with cold fusion has heard these
terms far too often, applied inappropriately against people who have done
nothing wrong. It is one thing to say that Steorn seems like a scam, or it
gives you that impression. It is quite another to assert that it actually
is. When you say this, you should have proof. And proof of a scam has to be
narrowly defined: you have to show there is an aggrieved party. That is, a
person or funding organization who feels that their money was taken on false
pretenses, by a researcher who knew for a fact that his claim was false.

Researchers who are wrong, or inept, furtive, lazy, intellectually
dishonest or highly disagreeable people are *not* scams. Researchers who
threaten to sue people who criticize their work or quote from their papers
violate academic norms, but that is not the same as being a scam
either. Yes, you should try to avoid funding such people. Yes, you are
wasting your money. But unless you have solid proof that they knew they were
wrong, and that their sole purpose was to enrich themselves at your expense,
they are not scams. I have actually funded such people, so I know what I am
talking about here.

Most researchers work hard. That includes the inept ones, the ones whose
results are unclear and unimpressive, and the ones whose work has been
nothing but a string of failures. They are not scams because they are not
wealthy, and not enjoying life at the expense of their supporters, and most
of all because they sincerely hoped to succeed. They are doing the best they
can, which unfortunately is not good enough. Perhaps they do not deserve
funding, but that is far different from saying they got funded by defrauding
people or by some other unethical means.

Let us be careful to make this distinction. I do not know of any scams among
cold fusion researchers. Or plasma fusion researchers either, for that
matter, although in a sense the plasma fusion program has been a 60-year
ripoff. A sort of scam, but not in the literal sense. I am sure that the
plasma fusion researchers sincerely believe that someday Tokamak reactors
might produce electricity. They might even be right, but I doubt it.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Terry,

 Steorn has no idea how much energy is consumed by the bearings' heat
 and the windage heat.  He has not done calorimetry.  He is
 conjecturing.  Since there is really no way to measure heating due to
 windage or bearings without calorimetry his conjecture is unfounded.
 He SAYS he will perform calorimetry in the future which means he has
 not performed it in the past.

It's my understanding that a comprehensive calorimetry test performed by an
independent firm is in the works.

It will be interesting to see what the results might reveal - or will the
exercise turn out to be open to interpretation.

Regards

Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:53 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 It's my understanding that a comprehensive calorimetry test performed by an
 independent firm is in the works.

Yes, but the point is that Sean does not know NOW.  So, he is
obfuscating at best and lying at worst.

Unless he did a very complex solution that I just posted in another
thread using F=ma.  But, I don't think they would have thought of
that.  :-)

Terry

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Mark Iverson

Thx Jed for expressing it a bit more eloquently than I.
 
In these situations I try to reverse the roles and ask myself, How would I 
want to be treated.
 
All I would want is the time to do what I said I would do before you make any 
(public) judgements...
 
Sincerely, 
The Endearing Mr. Iverson  ;-)


  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 9:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right



Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
 

Gosh, something happened and the calorimetry company had to withdraw. Sorry, 
folks.



This has not actually happened. Please identify statements such as this as 
hypothetical or cynical,
to avoid confusion. (Seriously.)

I think we should be a little more careful around here with the use of words 
like scam and fake.
Anyone associated with cold fusion has heard these terms far too often, applied 
inappropriately
against people who have done nothing wrong. It is one thing to say that Steorn 
seems like a scam, or
it gives you that impression. It is quite another to assert that it actually 
is. When you say this,
you should have proof. And proof of a scam has to be narrowly defined: you have 
to show there is an
aggrieved party. That is, a person or funding organization who feels that their 
money was taken on
false pretenses, by a researcher who knew for a fact that his claim was false.

Researchers who are wrong, or inept, furtive, lazy, intellectually dishonest or 
highly disagreeable
people are not scams. Researchers who threaten to sue people who criticize 
their work or quote from
their papers violate academic norms, but that is not the same as being a scam 
either. Yes, you
should try to avoid funding such people. Yes, you are wasting your money. But 
unless you have solid
proof that they knew they were wrong, and that their sole purpose was to enrich 
themselves at your
expense, they are not scams. I have actually funded such people, so I know what 
I am talking about
here.

Most researchers work hard. That includes the inept ones, the ones whose 
results are unclear and
unimpressive, and the ones whose work has been nothing but a string of 
failures. They are not scams
because they are not wealthy, and not enjoying life at the expense of their 
supporters, and most of
all because they sincerely hoped to succeed. They are doing the best they can, 
which unfortunately
is not good enough. Perhaps they do not deserve funding, but that is far 
different from saying they
got funded by defrauding people or by some other unethical means.

Let us be careful to make this distinction. I do not know of any scams among 
cold fusion
researchers. Or plasma fusion researchers either, for that matter, although in 
a sense the plasma
fusion program has been a 60-year ripoff. A sort of scam, but not in the 
literal sense. I am sure
that the plasma fusion researchers sincerely believe that someday Tokamak 
reactors might produce
electricity. They might even be right, but I doubt it.

- Jed


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/16/10 
23:35:00

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Mark Iverson

And you KNOW that Sean doesn't know NOW? How?  Did he confess this to you over 
a beer at the local
pub?  Perhaps in a vision or dream?  Do you realize how ridiculous, and wrong, 
those explicit
statements are unless you provide evidence?  Claiming to 'know' what someone 
else knows when they
are clear across the planet, is a bit stretching credulity...

The fact that he says COP is 3:1, and doesn't explain HOW he knows that, is NOT 
evidence that he
doesn't know that... (why do I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello movie). 
And besides, if he
did say it, YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE HIM ANYWAY.  All you, and all of us, are going 
to believe is some
kind of measurements that make us confortable that what we are seeing is real.  
So Sean saying that
they've already done the calorimetry and determined it empirically would not 
help you one bit ---
you would still call them liars and scammers!

If I was them, after global egg-on-face 2007, I would have tested and rehersed 
every aspect of the
demos to make sure things don't fail a second time.  So I would bet that they 
either did some
calorimetry themselves, or had someone do it for them already... Won't be long 
now.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:53 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net
wrote:

 It's my understanding that a comprehensive calorimetry test performed 
 by an independent firm is in the works.

Yes, but the point is that Sean does not know NOW.  So, he is obfuscating at 
best and lying at
worst.

Unless he did a very complex solution that I just posted in another thread 
using F=ma.  But, I don't
think they would have thought of that.  :-)

Terry

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/16/10 
23:35:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/16/10 
23:35:00

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax




Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:






- Original Message 

From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:06:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right




If, in fact, there were twice as much energy appearing in the  
rotor, that rotor
would accelerate with extreme rapidity, and low-friction bearings  
would be

completely unnecessary.


How do you know? With regular bearings it may require more energy  
then the system can

generate.


Isn't that my point? They are drawing relatively high power from the  
battery. If all of that ends up as heat, and twice as much is going  
into rotational energy, there should be no problem with bearings. But  
hey , if I have the math wrong, let's say they haven't given us the  
info to show it. I didn't do actual calculations, just seat of the  
pants estimation.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Harry Veeder

- Original Message 
 From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 2:46:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

  - Original Message 
  From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:06:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

  If, in fact, there were twice as much energy appearing in the rotor, that 
 rotor
  would accelerate with extreme rapidity, and low-friction bearings would be
  completely unnecessary.

  How do you know? With regular bearings it may require more energy then the 
 system can
  generate.

 Isn't that my point? They are drawing relatively high power from the battery. 
 If 
 all of that ends up as heat, and twice as much is going into rotational 
 energy, 
 there should be no problem with bearings. But hey , if I have the math wrong, 
 let's say they haven't given us the info to show it. I didn't do actual 
 calculations, just seat of the pants estimation.

This is my reasoning:
Asssuming the orbo really operates, as they claim, with a COP of 300% with low 
friction bearings, then ordinary bearings might require the orbo to operate 
with a COP of 400% which it is incapable of generating.

Harry

  __
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your 
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 So Sean saying that
 they've already done the calorimetry and determined it empirically would not 
 help you one bit ---
 you would still call them liars and scammers!

Please cite any post whereby I called them any names.  AAMOF I
defended against those who do call them scammers.  You must have a
problem with the language.

Please cite any post on any list whereby Sean says they HAVE performed
calorimetry.  Doesn't exist.

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Mark Iverson

TB: Please cite any post whereby I called them any names.  

TB: So far, all I have experienced is a smoke enema.

Fri 1/15/2010 8:21 PM
TB: ... calorimetry is the only way to quantify the output of the Orbomination

Tue 1/5/2010 8:20 AM
MI: regarding the upcoming Demo#1... Where you replied
TB: Where Sean McCarthy will try to convince you that the I^2 x R losses 
should not be included in
the Orbo's energy balance equation.

MI: Snide remark... Total conjecture on your part, and he didn't do any such 
thing, did he?

Thu 12/31/2009 5:46 PM
TB: A fool and his money

MI: Another snide remark... You're full of them, aren't you!  I could go back 
another week or two,
but I think that's enough for now.


The other problem I have is that you make all kinds of confident statements as 
if they were fact; as
if you had first hand knowledge that it was true, when it is obvious you have 
no way of determining
if they are indeed true!

Thu 12/31/2009 6:55 PM
TB: The Steorn motor cannot lift the string which would hold the weight.

MI: how do you know it can't lift the string?  Have you built one and tried it? 
 Did Sean tell you
that?  No one knows, except Steorn, how much torque this technology can 
produce.  I've seen some
replication attempts that accelerate a rotor that weighs at least .25 to .5 
pound to several
thousand RPMs in under 30 to 40 seconds.  The torque comes from the rotor PMs 
attraction to the
core... And you having worked with plenty of PMs, rare earth ones I would 
imagine, you know how
string the B-fld can be... Very difficult to pull two small 1/2 inch round 
cylindrical magnets apart
once they are within about 1/8 inch.

Sat 1/16/2010 8:25 PM
TB: Steorn has no idea how much energy is consumed by the bearings' heat and 
the windage heat.  He
has not done calorimetry.  He is conjecturing.  Since there is really no way to 
measure heating due
to windage or bearings without calorimetry his conjecture is unfounded.

MI: Again, how the hell do you know what experiments they have done over the 
last several years???
You expect him to come out and tell you everything the first time round... 
Well, sorry to disappoint
you, but he's getting the info out there in a methodical way.  How do you know 
they haven't done
Calorimetry???  Perhap's they have and the results were 3:1, so he reported 
that result, but not how
they got it.  Has anyone asked?  Yes, and his reply was that that is what they 
intend to show on
Demo#3, done by a German company with expertise in calorimetry.  What more do 
you want?

TB: He SAYS he will perform calorimetry in the future which means he has not 
performed it in the
past.
MI:  Say what  It means NO SUCH THING... I will have a beer on Wednesday 
does not even imply
that I have never had a beer.  You simply cannot draw that confident, 
no-qualifier conclusion from
the statement about doing a calorimetry test in the future.

What I see in your posts, TB, is overconfident, arrogant intelligence... And 
you wonder why you were
banned? Probably not the first time, eh?  Can you say, Clueless?

Perhaps you should learn to ask questions minus the snide, derogatory remarks.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 So Sean saying that
 they've already done the calorimetry and determined it empirically 
 would not help you one bit --- you would still call them liars and scammers!

Please cite any post whereby I called them any names.  AAMOF I defended against 
those who do call
them scammers.  You must have a problem with the language.

Please cite any post on any list whereby Sean says they HAVE performed 
calorimetry.  Doesn't exist.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/16/10 
23:35:00

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-17 Thread Esa Ruoho

Mark, lets hope they (Steorn) schedule talk#3 for this week, it'd be nice.

i understand the desperate need to disbelieve, and the desperate need to
believe,  in what Steorn say, be they educated guesses, opinions based on
experience, or just plain distrust / trust.
feb1st is almost here. the demos will  (and have?) accomplished a lot more
than years of silence.

p.s. does anyone know what friedrich is off about with the the demo wasnt
even live, and didn't continue how the visitors said it did?  i kind of
zoned him out after he started ranting about the usage of the word Classic
:D


On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:
 You wouldn't believe a thing they say at this point, so what good would it
 do?

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-16 Thread Michel Jullian

2010/1/16, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net:
 I sent one post which hasn't shown up yet... Perhaps its awaiting Bills
 scrutiny before allowing it
 thru.  It had a JPEG attachment

This is because posts above 40 KB total size are not allowed on this
Eskimo hosted list, which is one of several reasons why Bill considers
switching list hosting to e.g. Google Groups (free hosting, more
reliable delivery, several MB attachment allowance, web interface for
browsing-posting-archiving-searching)

Michel

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

Thanks Michel!
I'll repost with a link or smaller pic...

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian [mailto:michelj...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010/1/16, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net:
 I sent one post which hasn't shown up yet... Perhaps its awaiting 
 Bills scrutiny before allowing it thru.  It had a JPEG attachment

This is because posts above 40 KB total size are not allowed on this Eskimo 
hosted list, which is
one of several reasons why Bill considers switching list hosting to e.g. Google 
Groups (free
hosting, more reliable delivery, several MB attachment allowance, web interface 
for
browsing-posting-archiving-searching)

Michel

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
11:35:00

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or 
Overunity.com, as guessing
and speculating and accusing here, you just might have a different opinion.  
Sean is responding to
questions on the Steorn Forum, and many guys on the Steorn thread on 
Overunity.com are making very
good progress towards a replication.  If you actually wish to discuss this from 
an informed
position, I suggest you start reading...
  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.1740

Attached is a graph that JLNaudin has done, so I think its an objective result. 
 He shows that the
inductance of the coils changes from a low of 185mH to a high of 962mH just by 
the rotor magnets
moving past the toroidal coil... Sean has mentioned this effect, so he's not 
hiding some KEY
elements of the design!!!  

No BEMF is also an essential effect, and has been replicated now by JLN, as can 
be seen here...
  http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm 

and about 2/3rds of the way down the page look for... 
  TEST 3: Canceling the Back EMF in the toroïdal stator coils

This is ANOTHER key element WHICH Sean HAS ALSO MENTIONED, to quote him, 
...and by very careful and
specific positioning of the coils...  But then, you guys wouldn't know that 
since you prefer to
spend your valuable time speculating here instead of trying to educate 
yourselves.

This webpage also has a graph of coil inductance vs rotor magnet position...

So, the inductance is LOW when you energize the coil, and ~5+ times higher 
inductance when the
current is turned off and the field collapses... I think you geniuses should be 
able to figure out
the consequences of that!  :-)

I STRONGLY suggest that you stop speculation and start education!

They will be allowing people in to make measurements with their OWN instruments 
(more than I can say
for 99% of the 'inventors' out there), and a German company will be doing the 
calorimetry. I still
don't know if its overunity or not, but they are much more open than nearly all 
OU inventors that
I've seen in 25+ years...

-Mark



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
 I've been trying to get my head around the interactions of moving 
 magnets, toroidal magnets, and toroidal cores.  As I understand it, we 
 have a situation like this:

 1) Toroidal magnetic core has a non-toroidal field when current is off.
  Another magnet will be attracted to the core.

I don't recall that we know anything about the core except it is present in 
demo 2 Orbo and absent
in demo 2 Pulse Motor.  I don't recall anyone saying the core was magnetic, 
only ferromagnetic.  Of
course, it could become magnetic due to remanence.  Or it could be a high 
permeability metal with
lots of nickel and little remanence, a super-mumetal.

T

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/14/10 
23:35:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/14/10 
23:35:00

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

Attached is a graph that JLNaudin has done...

Forgot to edit that out... The graph is on JLN's webpage.
  http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm 

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:18 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or 
Overunity.com, as guessing
and speculating and accusing here, you just might have a different opinion.  
Sean is responding to
questions on the Steorn Forum, and many guys on the Steorn thread on 
Overunity.com are making very
good progress towards a replication.  If you actually wish to discuss this from 
an informed
position, I suggest you start reading...
  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.1740

Attached is a graph that JLNaudin has done, so I think its an objective result. 
 He shows that the
inductance of the coils changes from a low of 185mH to a high of 962mH just by 
the rotor magnets
moving past the toroidal coil... Sean has mentioned this effect, so he's not 
hiding some KEY
elements of the design!!!  

No BEMF is also an essential effect, and has been replicated now by JLN, as can 
be seen here...
  http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm 

and about 2/3rds of the way down the page look for... 
  TEST 3: Canceling the Back EMF in the toroïdal stator coils

This is ANOTHER key element WHICH Sean HAS ALSO MENTIONED, to quote him, 
...and by very careful and
specific positioning of the coils...  But then, you guys wouldn't know that 
since you prefer to
spend your valuable time speculating here instead of trying to educate 
yourselves.

This webpage also has a graph of coil inductance vs rotor magnet position...

So, the inductance is LOW when you energize the coil, and ~5+ times higher 
inductance when the
current is turned off and the field collapses... I think you geniuses should be 
able to figure out
the consequences of that!  :-)

I STRONGLY suggest that you stop speculation and start education!

They will be allowing people in to make measurements with their OWN instruments 
(more than I can say
for 99% of the 'inventors' out there), and a German company will be doing the 
calorimetry. I still
don't know if its overunity or not, but they are much more open than nearly all 
OU inventors that
I've seen in 25+ years...

-Mark



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
 I've been trying to get my head around the interactions of moving 
 magnets, toroidal magnets, and toroidal cores.  As I understand it, we 
 have a situation like this:

 1) Toroidal magnetic core has a non-toroidal field when current is off.
  Another magnet will be attracted to the core.

I don't recall that we know anything about the core except it is present in 
demo 2 Orbo and absent
in demo 2 Pulse Motor.  I don't recall anyone saying the core was magnetic, 
only ferromagnetic.  Of
course, it could become magnetic due to remanence.  Or it could be a high 
permeability metal with
lots of nickel and little remanence, a super-mumetal.

T

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/14/10 
23:35:00 No virus found
in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/14/10 
23:35:00

  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
23:35:00

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-16 Thread Esa Ruoho

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

This is ANOTHER key element WHICH Sean HAS ALSO MENTIONED, to quote him,
...and by very careful and
specific positioning of the coils... But then, you guys wouldn't know
that since you prefer to
spend your valuable time speculating here instead of trying to educate
yourselves.

Now now, Mark, let this not turn into another Paul Lowrance issue, where
someone starts up a crusade against those bumbling idiots on vortex-list
and gets himself banned. Let's be civil now. This is simply a case of a few
people deciding that it's all smoke'n'mirrors, and therefore to devote any
time to it would be a waste of time.. and then taking the time to write
about how much of a scam it is. I value your input to this list, so let's
not go down the road of who was bought by who, who is x and who is y.
It'll only take a while for Steorn/Sean's claims to be meaningful or not.

I see on another list, Rick Friedrich is already digging into Steorn being a
total Bedini rip-off, you can see such conversations between Friedrich and
McCarthy at:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8199-Breakthrough-Energy-Examiner~y2010m1d13-Steorn-gives-COP-gt-1-demo

Again, I have no opinion on this, but have a firm feeling that Steorn have
purposefully kept from immersing themselves in Free Energy -scene, they also
don't know what Friedrich/Bedini have, and thus I would take the net worth
of your advice/knowledge, since you give it for 0$, is, obviously, 0$
comment from McCarthy towards Friedrich, with a pinch of salt.

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or 
 Overunity.com,

I read and post on both plus the VofB.  I read all posst here and if
YOU kept up you would know that we have discussed how inductance of a
coil varies with the magnetic field.

Many of us are also experimentalists and speak from experience, Mr. Zeropoint.

Warm regards,

Terry

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

Yes, Terry, there has been a little discussion on inductance... BillB back on 
12/30 or 12/31 goes
into great detail of what his understanding is.

I don't believe any one here criticising Steorn and calling them scammers has 
made an attempt to
replicate their device... Correct me if I'm wrong.  Have you, Terry?  And just 
because someone has
done some experiments with magnets and toroidal coils in the past doesn't mean 
they've got special
insight into what is going on in the Steorn device... 

Just sit back and relax, and watch and read, and in a very short time we'll see 
how well the device
and explanations hold up to what they are claiming... Just because they choose 
to reveal their
technology and insights in a careful, methodical manner, doesn't mean they are 
disingenuous.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum 
 or Overunity.com,

I read and post on both plus the VofB.  I read all posst here and if YOU kept 
up you would know that
we have discussed how inductance of a coil varies with the magnetic field.

Many of us are also experimentalists and speak from experience, Mr. Zeropoint.

Warm regards,

Terry

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
23:35:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
23:35:00

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

I am relaxed, Mr. Iverson; but, Steorn's claims of OU are unjustified.
 He has not quantified the  output energy in any way, form nor
fashion.  I have been working with saturated cores since 2006 and have
a full understanding of what Steorn is doing.  I do certainly hope
that he has found something miraculous; but, it is obvious from his
responses that he has not done a proper energy balance calculation for
his spinny thing.  So far, all I have experienced is a smoke enema.
I have been banned from his forum for asking revealing questions as
have many others; however, I am registered under another alias and
have learned a different approach to getting my messages through.
;-)

Warmest regards,

Terry

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 Yes, Terry, there has been a little discussion on inductance... BillB back on 
 12/30 or 12/31 goes
 into great detail of what his understanding is.

 I don't believe any one here criticising Steorn and calling them scammers has 
 made an attempt to
 replicate their device... Correct me if I'm wrong.  Have you, Terry?  And 
 just because someone has
 done some experiments with magnets and toroidal coils in the past doesn't 
 mean they've got special
 insight into what is going on in the Steorn device...

 Just sit back and relax, and watch and read, and in a very short time we'll 
 see how well the device
 and explanations hold up to what they are claiming... Just because they 
 choose to reveal their
 technology and insights in a careful, methodical manner, doesn't mean they 
 are disingenuous.

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:55 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

 On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum
 or Overunity.com,

 I read and post on both plus the VofB.  I read all posst here and if YOU kept 
 up you would know that
 we have discussed how inductance of a coil varies with the magnetic field.

 Many of us are also experimentalists and speak from experience, Mr. Zeropoint.

 Warm regards,

 Terry

 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
 23:35:00
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
 23:35:00

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

Terry,

He has laid out the plan of how this will be done.  He has said that input and 
output energy
measurements will be done, and very soon.  Just because he doesn't do them as 
fast and you'd like
means nothing.  Get a beer and go read some other forum until next week and 
you'll have your data.  

I too have said in the past, why not close the loop and make it a self-runner 
and all skeptics would
be silenced!  How easy could that be!  So I wasn't particularly thrilled with 
the way Sean is doing
this, but, they told us exactly what the plan and schedule were, and so far are 
doing exactly what
they said...

Bedini has been around for 20+ years and claims to have an OU device in his 
garage, and there have
been HUNDREDS of replication attempts. If he was as open with the critical 
details of how to
replicate his device, numerous people would have been successful by now, and OU 
would have been
proven to the point of commercialization. At least Steorn isn't dragging it out 
over many many
years... 

I've been interested in OU and fringe science for 30 years, and stopped going 
to conferences after
about 5 years because all you heard were excuses why the person with the OU 
device couldn't show
up, or was testing the device before the conference and it 'burned out', and no 
replacement parts
are available... I've heard it all.  The public demos of this technology are 
happening, and will be
done in a very short span of time compared to the BS that is too prevalent in 
this field.  There's a
lot of $ being made by people selling conferences and books and dvds of 'free 
enery secrets'!  But
where has that gotten us? NOWHERE!  From my years of listening to claims and 
excuses, the way this
is transpiring is quite different from the norm, and gives me some hope that 
they really have
discovered something novel... I've waited thirty years... I can wait another 
week or two.

Warmest back atcha!
-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

I am relaxed, Mr. Iverson; but, Steorn's claims of OU are unjustified.
 He has not quantified the  output energy in any way, form nor fashion.  I have 
been working with
saturated cores since 2006 and have a full understanding of what Steorn is 
doing.  I do certainly
hope that he has found something miraculous; but, it is obvious from his 
responses that he has not
done a proper energy balance calculation for his spinny thing.  So far, all I 
have experienced is
a smoke enema.
I have been banned from his forum for asking revealing questions as have many 
others; however, I am
registered under another alias and have learned a different approach to 
getting my messages
through.
;-)

Warmest regards,

Terry

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 Yes, Terry, there has been a little discussion on inductance... BillB 
 back on 12/30 or 12/31 goes into great detail of what his understanding is.

 I don't believe any one here criticising Steorn and calling them 
 scammers has made an attempt to replicate their device... Correct me 
 if I'm wrong.  Have you, Terry?  And just because someone has done 
 some experiments with magnets and toroidal coils in the past doesn't mean 
 they've got special
insight into what is going on in the Steorn device...

 Just sit back and relax, and watch and read, and in a very short time 
 we'll see how well the device and explanations hold up to what they 
 are claiming... Just because they choose to reveal their technology and 
 insights in a careful,
methodical manner, doesn't mean they are disingenuous.

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:55 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

 On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum 
 or Overunity.com,

 I read and post on both plus the VofB.  I read all posst here and if 
 YOU kept up you would know that we have discussed how inductance of a coil 
 varies with the
magnetic field.

 Many of us are also experimentalists and speak from experience, Mr. Zeropoint.

 Warm regards,

 Terry

 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 
 01/15/10 23:35:00 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 
 01/15/10 23:35:00




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
23:35:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

Esa:
 
RE: the Rick Friedrich / Sean McC exchange...
 
I watched a few of Rick's YT videos and his device is NOTHING like Steorn's.  
The ones I saw used
simple solenoidal coils and not positioned symmetrically.  Yes, he was lighting 
some LEDs and
claiming to be charging a battery, but there were no instruments in the vids I 
watched... perhaps
there are other vids where he does have adequate instrumentation?  If you have 
one vid that you
think is solid evidence that Mr F's device is novel, pls provide the link and 
I'll watch it...
 
I have also read his comments (more like accusations) and Sean's rebuttal, 
which was unemotional,
unaccusatorial, and based more on facts than Mr F's comments.  Here are just 
three of Sean's
comments:
--
 
Hi Sterling, 
 
This is really my last mail on this subject, but having just read the latest 
long and rambling post
from Rick Friedrich - I guess that I must point out the factual inaccuracies. 
 
First in a long list of errors is his reference to the term 'classic'. As 
anyone who has watched our
latest video will understand we compare a classic pulse motor (a normal 
conservative electric motor)
to Orbo. We make no reference to Orbo being a classic. 
 
2 - The gentleman in question refers to the fact that Orbo contains unnecessary 
parts in order to
'hide' its similarities to whatever three monopole OU motor that he believes he 
has developed. As
seen in the experiments there are no unnecessary parts - all parts are shown 
and Orbo has no
relationship whatsoever to any 'three monopole' motor.
 
3 - Clearly the gentleman in question does not understand the complexity of 
thermal imaging when
conducted under strong camera lighting. The thermal camera equipment, operator 
and advice on use was
subcontracted to Ireland's leading thermal imagery company - Steorn had no 
involvement in the
operation, settings or use (the settings had to be optimized to rainbow mode I 
have been advised due
to the heat from the camera lighting). 
 
[the other 5 not included for brevity]
 
Having read Mr F's post and Sean's reply, Mr. F loses hands down.  Not that Mr. 
F doesn't have
something novel in his device, I don't have enough knowledge of it to make that 
determination, but
it is very different from Orbo.  It is perfectly clear to me that Mr. F's post 
is filled with
emotional accusations and numerous factual inaccuracies, and mixing of 
unrelated observations which
I have seen numerous times from scammers... Bluntly put, my initial impression 
of Mr. F wasn't a
good one!
 
-Mark

  _  

From: Esa Ruoho [mailto:esaru...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:


I see on another list, Rick Friedrich is already digging into Steorn being a 
total Bedini rip-off,
you can see such conversations between Friedrich and McCarthy at:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8199-Breakthrough-Energy-Examiner~y2010m1d13-Steorn-gives-COP-gt-
1-demo

Again, I have no opinion on this, but have a firm feeling that Steorn have 
purposefully kept from
immersing themselves in Free Energy -scene, they also don't know what 
Friedrich/Bedini have, and
thus I would take the net worth of your advice/knowledge, since you give it 
for 0$, is, obviously,
0$ comment from McCarthy towards Friedrich, with a pinch of salt.

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-16 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Terry:

 I am relaxed, Mr. Iverson; but, Steorn's claims of OU are unjustified.
  He has not quantified the  output energy in any way, form nor
 fashion.  I have been working with saturated cores since 2006 and have
 a full understanding of what Steorn is doing.  I do certainly hope
 that he has found something miraculous; but, it is obvious from his
 responses that he has not done a proper energy balance calculation for
 his spinny thing.  So far, all I have experienced is a smoke enema.
 I have been banned from his forum for asking revealing questions as
 have many others; however, I am registered under another alias and
 have learned a different approach to getting my messages through.
 ;-)


Pardon the intrusion.

Terry, could you give more details as to what you believe are the kinds of
specific energy balance calculations that remain lacking from Steorn's last
two demonstrations - calculations that I suspect you believe COULD have been
revealed had they actually achieved what they claimed to have achieved.
What, in your opinion, does Steorn's little spinny thing need to reveal in
order to be taken more seriously? I'm not trying to be flippant here. I'm
just trying to get a better understanding of what specific kind of
unmeasured energy is in dire need of being measured more accurately from
this little spinny thing, be it heat, electricity, torque, or some other
manifestation.

Regards

Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Mark Iverson wrote:


If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or


I would have said the same thing about Joe Newman, and about the MRA 
device in 1995.  And about the SMOT device a couple years later.  And the 
Russian water vortex heater.  And the Gravity Capacitor.


But today I know that the first question is: is the device a total waste 
of time?  Does the device even exist?  Before doing anything else, first 
figure out the answer to that question.  FE inventors have proved to be 
fooling themselves time and again.  Or sometimes proved to be outright 
liars.


The MRA inventors seemed competent and honest.  That they'd make a 
beginners' mistake seemed out of the question. Fortunately in that 
instance the inventors released all secrets.  After a few weeks, their 
mistake was discovered.


Was the enormous MRA controversy a waste of time?

YES.   Man-years of wasted time, considering the number of people
involved.   And their mistake was a trivial one: they thought their
true-RMS voltmeter was accurate to 1MHz.   They were basing their FE claim
on measurements alone.

That's when the FE community of the time came up with the simple rule:

  If your FE device puts out significant energy, then you should have no
  trouble in closing the loop and building a self-acting device.  If
  you cannot, then something is terribly wrong.

Just like the Patent Office: if you claim to have a FE device, then you'd
better actually have an FE device.   (To detect delusions and con men,
require that the FE device actually exists.)

Steorn is keeping secrets.  That's very bad news.  They're not publicly 
revealing a self-acting device.  That's worse news.  THey're not even 
showing a secret self-acting, scientist-convincing device to their NDA 
group of researchers.  That's worse.  They're charging big bucks for in 
group membership and paying themselves huge salaries.  Worse again.  And 
they're giving confident replies for the long list of complaints people 
have.  That's something con-men always do: never letting believers' 
confidence slip.



and speculating and accusing here


The 'accusation' is simple: Steorn has failed all tests to date.

They don't even have a controversial blurry video of a self-acting 
closed-loop device.  Why should anyone devote any time to a group who 
behaves like they do?


The problem is that STEORN almost certainly another SMOT.


you just might have a different opinion.  Sean is responding to 
questions on the Steorn Forum, and many guys on the Steorn thread on 
Overunity.com are making very good progress towards a replication.


Has anyone from Steorn been straight about whether they've build a 
closed-loop self-acting device?   (And I don't mean one with any

Joe Newman batteries included to keep things clouded.)



(( ( (  (   ((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

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Harry Veeder wrote:


time with possibly self-deceiving measurements.  Since your net output
power is apparently so large, GO AND CLOSE THE LOOP.  You haven't bothered
to try closing the loop?  Then you're just fooling yourself.  Please shut
up and stop bothering everyone.


So for the orbo to be overunity it would have to produce less waste heat 
under NO loading, i.e. with the revolving magnets removed?


Which is waste?   If the whole thing was inside a calorimeter, then
the stirred air of the moving rotor would be part of the heating.  For it 
to be a FE source, it would have to be a FE source (with output heat flow

from the calorimiter far greater than input electrical wattage.)

But heat flow issues are a distraction.  It isn't a CF device!  Where is 
Steorn's closed-loop demonstration unit?  If they haven't shown one, but 
also haven't said Uh, ...we don't actually have one  then someone isn't 
being honest.   Also someone has taken in huge amounts of money for a

FE device company, but without having an FE device to demonstrate.



(( ( (  (   ((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

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Mark Iverson wrote:


Thanks Michel!
I'll repost with a link or smaller pic...


I just upped the limit to 60K.   I notice that some members' headers
have grown to about 10K of text!




(( ( (  (   ((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

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Mark Iverson wrote:

If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or 
Overunity.com, as guessing and speculating and accusing here, you just 
might have a different opinion.


Part of my bad opinion comes from Steorn keeping everything secret, yet 
then helping people to replicate.   Is everyone CRAZY?   How can you 
replicate a secret device?   And if they're going to release the secrets, 
why aren't they ...releasing the secrets?!


Or has Steorn now released all info on Orbo so everyone can build exact 
copies?   Part numbers of toroid cores, number of turns of which gauge of 
wire etc?




(( ( (  (   ((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

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

2010-01-16 Thread Harry Veeder



Until the orbo is patented they will have to keep some aspects a secret.

Then again the patent pending status may just be part of an elborate FE shell 
gamethey are playing...


Harry


 

- Original Message 
 From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 10:01:22 PM
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
 
 On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Mark Iverson wrote:
 
  If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or 
 Overunity.com, as guessing and speculating and accusing here, you just might 
 have a different opinion.
 
 Part of my bad opinion comes from Steorn keeping everything secret, yet then 
 helping people to replicate.   Is everyone CRAZY?   How can you replicate a 
 secret device?   And if they're going to release the secrets, why aren't they 
 ...releasing the secrets?!
 
 Or has Steorn now released all info on Orbo so everyone can build exact 
 copies?  
 Part numbers of toroid cores, number of turns of which gauge of wire etc?
 
 
 
 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci comhttp://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci



  __
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your 
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Mark Iverson wrote:

I don't believe any one here criticising Steorn and calling them 
scammers has made an attempt to replicate their device... Correct me if 
I'm wrong.


What is the website link for complete Orbo details?

Just sit back and relax, and watch and read, and in a very short time 
we'll see how well the device and explanations hold up to what they are 
claiming...


The short time began, what, in 2006?Why do you think it's going to 
be short?  Seriously.  When did Steorn say any such thing?


Again, what is the website that gives Orbo details?  Before anything else, 
I want to see what Steorn has to say about the toroid core material and 
the number of turns, source of neo magnets they used, etc.



(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb amasci comhttp://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

When the hell did Steorn ever say they are open-sourcing it!  Geez! They have 
investors and this is
a commercial venture... Evil capitalists!  Gimme a break...

FYI, the design of the unit is so simple, and replicators have been able to 
deduce most of the key
elements of the device, including the number of turns on the coils (~37) from 
the videos!! From the
measurements of inductance AND the measurements of magnet strength (0.47T) that 
WERE IN STEORN'S
DEMO, replicators have determined the most likely core material (MetGlas?) and 
its characteristics,
as well as other key things like POSITIONING of the coils being very precise, 
which is necessary to
eliminate CEMF; and more that I don't have the time to spoon feed you... Go 
read the material on
Overunity.com about the replication attempts... Don't underestimate them!  They 
are quite a
resourceful bunch and have figured much of it out... Mostly due to the FACT 
that Sean has made very
specific statements in his demos, and has gone out of his way to answer 
technical questions on the
Steorn Forum.  Replicators have made very significant progress in as little as 
two to three WEEKS!
That's more than I can say for any other claims of this kind.

And no, the short time did not start in 2006, it started exactly when steorn 
said, which was the
first Demo in December.  And the schedule goes thru January.  They set the 
schedule back then and
have held to it; they have done exactly what they said they'd do.  As explained 
in one of my
previous posts, Sean made the call to do the public thing in 2007 and ended up 
with egg on his face;
the other steorn engineers were not yet ready to demo it as they didn't have a 
good handle on what
all was going on.  So they spent the last two to three yrs doing experiments to 
understand enough of
it where this time they are confident that things won't blow up in their face! 
Do you really think
that they will risk global ridicule a second time???  No freakin way, and if I 
was one of the
engineers, I sure as hell wouldn't hang around to risk that level of 
ridicule... 

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Mark Iverson wrote:

 I don't believe any one here criticising Steorn and calling them 
 scammers has made an attempt to replicate their device... Correct me 
 if I'm wrong.

What is the website link for complete Orbo details?

 Just sit back and relax, and watch and read, and in a very short time 
 we'll see how well the device and explanations hold up to what they 
 are claiming...

The short time began, what, in 2006?Why do you think it's going to 
be short?  Seriously.  When did Steorn say any such thing?

Again, what is the website that gives Orbo details?  Before anything else, I 
want to see what Steorn
has to say about the toroid core material and the number of turns, source of 
neo magnets they used,
etc.


(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb amasci comhttp://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
23:35:00

RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right


On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Mark Iverson wrote:

There are MANY things that Steorn is doing that is quite different from 
scammers:
1) They SPECIFICALLY laid out EXACTLY how they were going to proceed to 
demonstrate their technology
2) They have followed that plan, with one minor delay due to very bad weather.  
No other excuses...
3) They have instruments to show their measurements; they don't just expect you 
to take their word
for it.
4) They will be letting people bring in their own instruments and make their 
own measurements; I've
never seen this before, well except perhaps with Thane's work.
5) The thermal imaging was done by an objective third party
6) The calorimetry will also be done by an objective third party


Scammers aren't visible because of what they do.  If they were, then 
anyone could see a con game for what it was.  Scammers only become obvious 
in what's missing: those things honest people do, but things scammers 
avoid doing.


Has Steorn at any time stated that they have built a simple stand-alone 
device which produces energy?





(( ( (  (   ((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

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 Pardon the intrusion.

 Terry, could you give more details as to what you believe are the kinds of
 specific energy balance calculations that remain lacking from Steorn's last
 two demonstrations - calculations that I suspect you believe COULD have been
 revealed had they actually achieved what they claimed to have achieved.
 What, in your opinion, does Steorn's little spinny thing need to reveal in
 order to be taken more seriously? I'm not trying to be flippant here. I'm
 just trying to get a better understanding of what specific kind of
 unmeasured energy is in dire need of being measured more accurately from
 this little spinny thing, be it heat, electricity, torque, or some other
 manifestation.

Steorn has no idea how much energy is consumed by the bearings' heat
and the windage heat.  He has not done calorimetry.  He is
conjecturing.  Since there is really no way to measure heating due to
windage or bearings without calorimetry his conjecture is unfounded.
He SAYS he will perform calorimetry in the future which means he has
not performed it in the past.

Bill states it well in earlier posts.  I say it's a smoke enema.

And as the endearing Mr. Iverson states we have only a few weeks to
wait.  I'll predict, however, that his results will be inconclusive.
I hope I am wrong.  But, I have 33 years experience as an electrical
engineer and will admit that I did not catch the measurement errors in
the Sprain motor for over 2 years (they were mechanical, not
electrical - I had that down :).  When I did, I was ostracized by
several PhD's who believed in the motor and supported by one, the
oldest, who agreed with me.  Ultimately, my conclusions were accepted
by all after several months of testing without the bloody instruments
(lifting weights).  I won a bitter victory and the loss pained me more
than anyone.

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:25 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 Scammers aren't visible because of what they do.  If they were, then anyone
 could see a con game for what it was.  Scammers only become obvious in
 what's missing: those things honest people do, but things scammers avoid
 doing.

 Has Steorn at any time stated that they have built a simple stand-alone
 device which produces energy?

Of course not.  They would tout a self-runner to high heaven.  But,
Bill, as Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, ie they are
laboring under ignorance.  Otherwise, there is a chance they will wind
up in jail.

The Sprain managers were always careful to state to the unit holders
that their investment was highly speculative and that it was possible
that they would lose all.  I wonder if Steorn's legal advisors have
been as astute?

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right