On 12/24/2009 12:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:51 PM 12/23/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Some of the snarkier folks at VOTB have observed that Steorn's claim
that all electrical energy goes into heat could be interpreted to mean
their motor is essentially 0% efficient, and that they are "spinning"
this to claim its efficiency is greater than 100%. Be that as it may,
it's interesting.
There are a lot of criticisms which are completely off. For if it were
true that the battery power were going entirely into heat, the motor
would certainly be over-unity, so that "snarkier" person was blowing
smoke.
They weren't; I left out part of the point which was being made.
The trouble with the Steorn claim is that it's (presumably!) not
*exactly* the case that *all* the energy goes into heat. Rather,
*nearly* all the energy goes into heat, and the motor is actually, say,
1% efficient, not 0% efficient. A critical difference.
This came up in the context of the discussion of what Sean's demo with
the scope really demonstrated; the conclusion seemed to be that the
measurements he made didn't actually prove there was *no* back EMF. So,
the skeptical assumption is that there really is some tiny back EMF
which is being ignored, and which makes the difference between a highly
inefficient conventional motor and a miracle motor.
