On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM, <jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> wrote: > On 11/12/2011 11:50 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > I think Steorn stumbled upon a real anomally but they erred in assuming > that measurement alone was sufficient to demonstrate the reality of energy > creation. > > > Since there seems to still be some belief around here that "Steorn > stumbled upon a real anomaly", I feel that I should point out some recent > postings that may have gone unnoticed. > > Also since Mary Yugo has just joined us (and very welcome you are Mary, > with your sharp mind and tongue to match), who took a lot of interest in > the Steorn affair in the early days - I am sure she will appreciate this > information, if not already aware of it. > > About a month ago Steorn released four apparently significant supporting > documents to Stirling's news service (www.pesn.com) which were reported > on > here<http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/>. > PESN was not allowed to post the actual documents or reveal the authors > names, but it turned out that one of the documents (a pretty important one > it seems describing measurement of the "Steorn Effect" in detail) was found > to be available on Steorn's website > here<http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf>! > Anyway sometime later someone calling themselves "Dr Quack Pot" picked up > on this paper and wrote some comments on the results reported in it (see > comments after the PESN article) which make pretty revealing reading! To > save people having to chase the links and read through the discussions, > here is a summary of the facts as I understand them. > > The available document is a Consultant Engineer's (John Rice) report > describing energy balance measurements made on an Orbo mechanism while it > was displaying the "anomaly". In each case the torque is measured as a > function of angular position, in some cases using a step, stop and measure > method, and in other cases the torque is sampled during continuous rotation. > > One of the measurements (chart 5 orange curve) shows the torque resulting > from the interaction between a fixed (stator) permanent magnet and a soft > ferrite core rotated on an armature (rotor) in its vicinity. Since we know > that this interaction is always attractive, this allows the sign of the > torque to be determined. Another measurement (chart 4259 red curve) shows > the torque between the same fixed magnet stator but with a permanent magnet > on the rotor. The sign of this curve indicates that that the force between > the permanent magnets was primarily repelling. A third measurement (chart > 4259 blue curve) then shows the result of having the soft ferrite and the > permanent magnet stuck together and rotated together on the armature. > > The energy balance in each case is obtained by subtracting frictional and > gravitational effects (measured during calibration runs), and then > integrating the remaining magnetic interaction torque over a complete > revolution - which of course gives net energy gained or lost per revolution > (see chart 4260). In a linear system one would expect that > (PM<>ferrite effect) + (PM<>PM effect) = (PM<>(PM+ferrite) effect) > But this is not what is measured! Using the first measurement as a null > calibration, the energy balance from the second measurement is very good, > while the energy balance from the third shows a highly significant (~1 mJ > per rev) discrepancy. > > So there we have it - the "Steorn Anomaly"! > > But the million dollar question is of course, was it an energy gain or an > energy loss! What was the *sign* of the discrepancy. With some simple > logic and knowing the sign of the torque, it is very easy to determine that > what was measured was an energy *loss*!!! "Orbo technology" is a method > of turning mechanical energy into heat using magnetic interactions! WOW! > > Even if it is a "loss", why is one direction better at turning motion into heat?
Conventional theory predicts the same "loss". Harry > So here you have at last the key to understanding the amazing puzzle of > the Steorn $75k "challenge", the SPDC excitement and discussions, the > scientific jury, the "Steorn 300" engineering companies, the SKDB > investors, etc, etc, etc! An amazingly long lived buzz of discussion and > activity and money changing hands, all resulting from a simple sign error > that seems to have only very recently been noticed! (Of course Steorn must > have made the error way back before their challenge of 2006, and then > induced John Rice to repeat and document the same error in 2008). > > I am guessing that this Rice report might have been made available to the > SPDC (under NDA, maybe someone could confirm or deny that?), almost > certainly to the Jury, and more recently to the engineering companies and > SKDB, and finally after no more gain was to be had from it, it was (maybe a > month or so ago) released to the public. How is it possible that out of > all the investigators provided with this report, not one bothered to check > the sign of the well documented anomaly. That is now the biggest puzzle! > Someone should update Wikipedia to reflect this additional information! >
