Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
Esa, > >From: Esa Ruoho >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 2:08:11 AM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right > >On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:05 AM, 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.. > >Hi, Harry, could you link a forum post or thread? Also, Sean/Steorn's Twitter >notified the world-in-general something on monday, it read: Here is one reference: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62495&page=4#Item_42 >1) Filming experiments all day ... apologies for all the radio silence. >http://bit.ly/7sSk9k >-- >then, later, he got up to his usual (responding to orbo replication videos or >somesuch on YouTube) >>-- >2) Ok, so on your motor when you take more load from it is slows down - the... >(YouTube http://youtu.be/pd1VNFBFPik?a) >>-- >(can't access the full comment, i'm on a machine that crashes whenever audio >(or flash with audio) is used :D ) Is this the youtube video you mean. It is by TinselKoala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd1VNFBFPik SteornOfficial left this comment below the video: "Ok, so on your motor when you take more load from it is slows down - the point here is?" 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
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 01/19/2010 04:37 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: > >> It all comes down to how would you want others to treat you if you >> were in their situation? > > No, it doesn't. It comes down to, what are the odds that they're on the > level? I must say, it's beginning to look like you, Abd and Bill are right about McCarthy. Dr. R. Ian MacDonald was the chair of the Steorn Scientific Jury. Here are some of his publications: http://en.scientificcommons.org/r_i_macdonald He is refuting Sean's claim that it was the Jury which would not let Steorn post the details of the results of their work. Dr. MacDonald has stated that he will be happy to publish detailed Jury results but he needs Sean's permission due to contractual reasons. You might be interested in a new photo on Steorn's flicker page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/steornofficial/4288158590/in/photostream/ Whatcha wanna bet the pump some air out and draw a conclusion about how the spinny thing increases its RPM. T
RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
Exactly, Steven. One of the persons I respect the most on this forum is Horace... He just sticks to the math and data and chooses not to cast dispersions and speculate about people's motives. That's all I'm trying to achieve here is to let the data speak for itself, let the situation transpire as scheduled, and resist the urge to speculate and make derogatory comments about one's motives or integrity until you have enough factual evidence to warrant it. If you can't at least do that, then don't be surprised and cry 'unfair' when you find yourself the target of similar behavior... (Just to be clear Steven, all my comments above are meant for all, not to you specifically.) Personally, I rank the likely outcomes as follows with #1 the most likely: 1) Steorn is sincere, but will be fooled by mother nature; no, not about it being butter or margarine! :-) 4) Steorn's claims prove out to be something truly novel 6) Steorn is consciously being deceptive And no, I didn't forget 2), 3) and 5)... I just think that the difference in likelihood is much greater than a single increment or two! ;-) Off to work... Good day to all. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right >From Mark Iverson ... > It all comes down to how would you want others to treat you if you > were in their situation? I would think that you would just want > people to hold off on any judgements or name calling or derogatory > innuendos until you had the chance to prove your claims... >*** That's all I am arguing for here *** > > And it has nothing at all to do with wanting to 'believe'... I'll > respond to that nonsense when I have more time. As explained before, > I am tired of the claims just as much as any one else.. I've heard > them all for 30 years. But I've also seen good, sincere people > seriously hurt by such careless, premature speculations. Just to be clear on this point, I do not believe Steorn is a scam operation. I see no reason to change my assumption that they have been sincere in their efforts, even though many have disagreed with the step-by-step approach they have taken. The burning question we all want to know is whether Steorn's ultimate OU claims will turn out to be accurate or not. I don't know how others are handling the suspense, but all I can do is sit back and patiently wait for the next shoe to drop. I don't care if I sound wishy-washy on this point but I am in sympathy with Mark's sentiments, especially with the last sentence. As much as I have on occasion expressed my doubts about Steorn's claims I continue to wish the controversial Irish company good luck, or perhaps I should say: Good Honest Fortunes. (Their good honest fortune, would ultimately translate to my good fortune.) The last thing I want to be feel responsible for having caused, when one looks back through the history books, is having been identified as one of the individuals known to have hindered progress in the smarmy controversial field of outlandish OU claims. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 270.14.149/2630 - Release Date: 01/18/10 23:34:00 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 270.14.149/2630 - Release Date: 01/18/10 23:34:00
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On 01/19/2010 04:37 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: > It all comes down to how would you want others to treat you if you > were in their situation? No, it doesn't. It comes down to, what are the odds that they're on the level? If I claimed to have a free energy solution but produced zero proof of it, and years went by and I continued to claim this and continued to produce zero proof of it, and if my claimed solution violated known and well understood and well tested physical laws, I would *expect* intelligent, educated people who have a good grounding in the physics of E&M and who have some understanding of what is sometimes the response of some dishonest people to situations in which everyone desperately wants a solution to an as yet unsolved problem (energy shortage and global warming, in this case) to conclude with near 100% certainty that I was a con man. If I claimed to have a 100% effective cure for cancer that required no drugs or surgery or radiation but I produced no proof, I would expect the same reaction. But I'd also expect a few people to decide I was telling the truth, and defend me against all comers, and maybe even invest money in my company. Some of those people would have cancer, and some would have family members with cancer, and I would expect them to be my most ardent defenders. Mankind springs eternal at Hope's breast.
RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
>From Mark Iverson ... > It all comes down to how would you want others to treat you if you were > in their situation? I would think that you would just want people to hold > off on any judgements or name calling or derogatory innuendos until you > had the chance to prove your claims... >*** That's all I am arguing for here *** > > And it has nothing at all to do with wanting to 'believe'... I'll > respond to that nonsense when I have more time. As explained before, > I am tired of the claims just as much as any one else.. I've > heard them all for 30 years. But I've also seen good, sincere people > seriously hurt by such careless, premature speculations. Just to be clear on this point, I do not believe Steorn is a scam operation. I see no reason to change my assumption that they have been sincere in their efforts, even though many have disagreed with the step-by-step approach they have taken. The burning question we all want to know is whether Steorn's ultimate OU claims will turn out to be accurate or not. I don't know how others are handling the suspense, but all I can do is sit back and patiently wait for the next shoe to drop. I don't care if I sound wishy-washy on this point but I am in sympathy with Mark's sentiments, especially with the last sentence. As much as I have on occasion expressed my doubts about Steorn's claims I continue to wish the controversial Irish company good luck, or perhaps I should say: Good Honest Fortunes. (Their good honest fortune, would ultimately translate to my good fortune.) The last thing I want to be feel responsible for having caused, when one looks back through the history books, is having been identified as one of the individuals known to have hindered progress in the smarmy controversial field of outlandish OU claims. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
> if they have > 2:1 excess:input, it would be a conclusive demonstration, and they > could actually raise huge sums as investments. Apparently, they don't need any more investment. They want people to buy licenses from them.
RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
First, let me say that this is meant for all in this list that have used those, or any, derogatory terms or phrases that imply this is a conscious deception by Sean/Steorn... As I ALREADY stated, a search of the last few weeks, didn't find use of the specific derogatory word 'liar' or 'scammer' written by Terry, but there were at least three others who did use those terms. Terry, who cares if it's a single word or a phrase... It's still unjustified until you have irrefutable proof. In your work with the Sprain affair, from your own admission, you were subject to quite unpleasant treatment which weighed heavily on you... You are walking a fine line, easily crossed, in doing what you yourself were subject to. Those others already crossed it as far as I'm concerned. If this turns out to be what you think it is, a sham, then fire away!!! I'll probably pull the trigger a time or two as well... But that time has not yet come, and there is no clear evidence YET, that Steorn is running a scam. Perhaps they are like Sprain... Sincerely thinking they were on to something novel, but learn the hard way about how mother nature can fool even the best... Time will tell, and soon... I doubt they will survive another failure to prove their claims. Their collective necks are stuck out further than probably anyone on this list ever has done... And I think they know it. For every reason you (all of you) can come up with as to why they must be lying or running a scam, I think I could come up with rational reasons why they are probably sincere... I said sincere, not necessarily right! And as for SJ's comment about what 'credentials' I have that might make my reading of intentions have any weight, I'll also deal with when I have time, but I have probably seen about as much ugly human behavior as most anyone on this list, and have been pressured to 'stretch the truth' to secure 10s of millions in funding... I have NO problem looking myself in the mirror. It all comes down to how would you want others to treat you if you were in their situation? I would think that you would just want people to hold off on any judgements or name calling or derogatory innuendos until you had the chance to prove your claims... *** That's all I am arguing for here *** And it has nothing at all to do with wanting to 'believe'... I'll respond to that nonsense when I have more time. As explained before, I am tired of the claims just as much as any one else.. I've heard them all for 30 years. But I've also seen good, sincere people seriously hurt by such careless, premature speculations. So that's as good as it gets, Terry. If we ever have the good fortune to meet in person, I'll buy the first round! Fair enough? -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Mark Iverson 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. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 270.14.149/2630 - Release Date: 01/17/10 23:35:00
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:05 AM, 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. > Hi, Harry, could you link a forum post or thread? Also, Sean/Steorn's Twitter notified the world-in-general something on monday, it read: 1) Filming experiments all day ... apologies for all the radio silence. http://bit.ly/7sSk9k -- then, later, he got up to his usual (responding to orbo replication videos or somesuch on YouTube) -- 2) Ok, so on your motor when you take more load from it is slows down - the... (YouTube http://youtu.be/pd1VNFBFPik?a) -- (can't access the full comment, i'm on a machine that crashes whenever audio (or flash with audio) is used :D ) the way i see it, they've got 13,5 days to "deliver a punch-line". and try as i might to be positive and all that, i do *NOT* want it to be "just sign up to SKDB and we'll show the 30 hours of video we filmed during the waterways demo with full details on how to build this and be sent one of the 50 kits ClanZeR has made".. altho some might like that, too. i'm more interested in paying off creditcard debts than mucking around with something i need a Steorn USB Hall Probe for ;)
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
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
- Original Message > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" > Cc: "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
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:07 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 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
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 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
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?" 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
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 i
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
> >From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson >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
>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
Actually it was to Bill, the list owner, quoting: On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:25 PM, William Beaty 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. 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 wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson 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
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Mark Iverson 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
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 wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson > 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
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson 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
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 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
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Iverson 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
- Original Message > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" > Cc: "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
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.
RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
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 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
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
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:53 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 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
>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
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
- 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. 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
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
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
iPoni sent dis message. Esa Ruoho wrote it. On 17 Jan 2010, at 05:40, William Beaty wrote: 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? Fouteenth of December 2009 start Last day of January 2010 end. I've got two weeks, and one-two demos to look forward to. I'm happy. I can wait
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
Since Bill is not objecting to cross-posting, I found this one quite interesting: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62495&page=3#Item_16 Steorn 1 day ago quote littlehaste: "The battery is being charged in the demo units. Only since you brought it up: could you say the charge rate in DC amps or equivalent RMS amps?" We never use RMS measurements.
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:25 PM, William Beaty 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
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 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, 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
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: 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
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 > 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: 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
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 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 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
>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
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 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
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 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 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
No one is starting up a crusade, Esa. I certainly don't think of anyone on this list as bumbling! Perhaps jumping to conclusions a bit too soon, but not bumbling! :-) I really do respect the knowledge that is contained in this group... 'Banned' for what??? Some of the comments made on this list about Sean and Steorn's intentions are far worse than anything I wrote... Granted, perhaps the way I chose to express myself was a bit provocative, but it seems to me that most on this collective get a bit peeved, including myself, when a discovery gets shot down even before it has a chance of proving itself... I think most here are bothered by the cheap shots leveled at LENR, by people who haven't bothered to read the recent research. It just seemed to me that some here are behaving in a similar way. I can understand why some are skeptical now. Steorn had egg on its face in 2007. However, Sean takes full responsibility for that decision because the other engineers at Steorn said they didn't understand the details enough to do a public demo. That was a very tough lesson to learn, and you can bet that Sean wasn't going to make that mistake again! So they took another 2+ years to do the experiments to understand what they were dealing with... and here we are today. Be patient and let them divulge their technology the way they see fit... 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 Each demo is meant to show one or two specific, important elements of the technology, and then to allow some time for a polite, reasonable critique and rebuttal on their Forum so they hope to answer any of the rational criticisms. So far, this is exactly what has occurred. Whether or not one accepts Sean's rebuttals is entirely up to them... but at least he is responding in a direct, polite manner, and giving out some very specific details... enough for replications to be making good progress in a very short time. Just because this plan for demonstrating their technology isn't the way you'd go about it, doesn't mean they are being devious or disingenuous. Yes, agreed... they aren't dragging this out like many others... and soon we'll be thru the demos and better able to make our own decisions as to the reality of it all. -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 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. 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
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 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 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
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 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
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson 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
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Iverson 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
"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 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
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 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
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 : > 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
2010/1/16, Mark Iverson : > 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
I sent one post which hasn't shown up yet... Perhaps its awaiting Bills scrutiny before allowing it thru. It had a JPEG attachment of how the inductance of the toroidal coil changes by a factor of 5 as the rotor magnets approach and move past the coil... More quotes from the Steorn Forum to show that Sean is revealing a considerable amount of details, although not all at this time... Can't blame him. -Mark Here is the weblink... http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62495&page=1 and here is how Sean opens the discussion... - Folks, Please post any rational questions/concerns/comments on the second experiment in this thread. We hope that we were able to address several of the concerns expressed about the first experiment during the second one. Again we would like to keep this process as observer led as possible. Please keep the posts on subject, polite and focused. Thanks, Sean [ME: And some specific quotes below...] - Steorn: There is no back emf in any of the coils in the experiment shown - it is not a case of one coils Back EMF cancelling out the other. -- overconfident: What core materials are you using? Steorn: Just a soft magnetic material - I will not go into the details - sorry. -- overconfident: Is there any hard magnetic bias in the toroidal cores? Steorn: No -- Steorn: The magnetic arragement on the rotor is the same in both cases, an N pole above an S pole (or the other way around). The coils in the pulse motor (like the coils on the Orbo motor) are both facing up. -- Steorn: There is no back EMF in any of the coils due to the motion of the rotor. All coils suffer CEMF during the inductive rise and collapse of the field. -- overconfident: Does your "secret" core material demonstrate a significant Wiegand effect? Sean: No -- Steorn: ... but as I keep saying this stuff does take a huge amount of precision positioning to get right. -- They use counter EMF and back EMF... Many were confused by that, including me. Wikipedia has this explanation, however, I don't know if Sean is using these definitions... WIKIPEDIA: The counter-electromotive force (abbreviated counter emf, or CEMF ) is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is caused by a changing electromagnetic field. It is represented by Lenz's Law of electromagnetism. Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position. Counter emf is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current. The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage. [links to references deleted] --- [ME: Here is one observers explanation that is a good start at understanding what's happening...] 1) First stage Rotor magnets are approaching the toroidal coil. They are simply being attracted to the core. Coil's circuit is open. As the magnets' "coupled" flux goes through part of the toroid's core this induces EMF in the coil - an electric potential difference across two open-circuited terminals. The current doesn't flow so there is no Lenz interaction with the rotor. 2) Second stage Magnets reach TDC. Magnets "coupled" flux goes through half of the toroid. Or it's being divided by two - part of the flux goes left side of the toroid and the other part goes right side of the toroid. How it is in fact doesn't really matter. As the magnets reach TDC, we close the electric circuit and fire up the current to saturate the core. As the core is partially saturated by magnet's flux we don't really need much current (this is the main and very important difference with JLN setup). Why don't we see any Back EMF here? Simply because magnet's "coupled" flux will always choose the simplest way to go - the way it finds no magnetic resistance. So magnet's "coupled" flux lines will always align here with the coil's magnetic flux lines. So as these flux lines do not "fight" with each other - we simply have no Lenz Law interaction here. 3) Third stage As the magnets go past the toroid, their flux lines still align with the coil's flux lines but the aid they provide in saturating the core is getting weaker with the distance from the toroid. However, the current input (to keep the saturation) stays constant at some point (in fact very quickly) because of the core's material properties. Remember the graph "Amplitude Permeability vs. Flux Density" for Metglas? What you find in this graph is: The higher the flux density, the lower the permeability. However for metglas the permeability stays constant between
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
The problem is quantifying the mechanical energy. With only windage and bearing friction (no excess work) calorimetry is the only way to quantify the output of the Orbomination. T On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 01/15/2010 06:05 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message >>> From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:25:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: >>> Sean may be right >>> >>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >>> >>>> We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we >>>> put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps >>>> B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? >>>> This is the Steorn Mystery. >>> >>> Now we're on the same track. >>> >>> As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the >>> "Keelynet Firefly". There was no FE-source in that device. It >>> just acted to uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed >>> load. As a result, when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T >>> INCREASE! It's FE, it's FE! Not. Instead, with no load >>> connected, the input energy would go into waste heat. But with a >>> load connected, the input energy drives the load instead of being >>> wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being supplied >>> by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. >>> There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to "close >>> the loop" and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. >>> >>> With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the >>> yelling died down, our conclusions ended up being something like >>> this: "Don't waste 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? > > Almost. But say, rather, that it would have to produce MORE waste heat > when it's under load. > > With no load, > > (waste heat[no load]) = energy input. > > When it's under load, waste head DROPS, and we have > > (waste heat[under load] + mechanical energy) = energy input > > and > > waste heat [under load] < waste heat[no load] > > and it's not OU. If the waste heat did NOT drop when it was under load, > on the other hand, then we'd have > > waste heat[load] == waste heat[no load] > > (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) > waste heat[no load] > > and so > > (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) > energy input > > and it would be over unity. > > >> >> 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
On 01/15/2010 06:05 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > > > - Original Message >> From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:25:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: >> Sean may be right >> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >>> We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we >>> put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps >>> B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? >>> This is the Steorn Mystery. >> >> Now we're on the same track. >> >> As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the >> "Keelynet Firefly". There was no FE-source in that device. It >> just acted to uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed >> load. As a result, when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T >> INCREASE! It's FE, it's FE! Not. Instead, with no load >> connected, the input energy would go into waste heat. But with a >> load connected, the input energy drives the load instead of being >> wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being supplied >> by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. >> There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to "close >> the loop" and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. >> >> With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the >> yelling died down, our conclusions ended up being something like >> this: "Don't waste 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? Almost. But say, rather, that it would have to produce MORE waste heat when it's under load. With no load, (waste heat[no load]) = energy input. When it's under load, waste head DROPS, and we have (waste heat[under load] + mechanical energy) = energy input and waste heat [under load] < waste heat[no load] and it's not OU. If the waste heat did NOT drop when it was under load, on the other hand, then we'd have waste heat[load] == waste heat[no load] (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) > waste heat[no load] and so (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) > energy input and it would be over unity. > > 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
- Original Message > From: William Beaty > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:25:04 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the > > same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we > > did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn > > Mystery. > > Now we're on the same track. > > As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the "Keelynet > Firefly". There was no FE-source in that device. It just acted to > uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed load. As a result, > when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T INCREASE! It's FE, it's > FE! Not. Instead, with no load connected, the input energy would go into > waste heat. But with a load connected, the input energy drives the load > instead of being wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being > supplied by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. > There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to "close the > loop" and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. > > With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the yelling died > down, our conclusions ended up being something like this: "Don't waste > 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? 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
On 01/15/2010 02:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 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. Really! My mistake, then -- I thought I had read that the cores used were actually (statically) magnetized. For the last couple weeks I've been wondering about those "magnetic" cores. So if the cores aren't magnetic, then the mechanism for making the motor go around is presumably that the ferromagnetic cores are attracted to a magnet when the power is off, but when the power is on they're saturated, with an internal field which is entirely toroidal, and they don't respond to an external magnet. That would also make sense, I and I suspect it still falls to the same analysis: The cores will get warmer when there's no load. (I *think*.) If I have time on my hands (hah hah!) I may redo my handwaving analysis with the assumption that the cores are non-magnetized, and try to work out all the field directions to see if the energy transfer comes out in the right direction for the "less warming" hypothesis to be correct. [NB -- However the motor works, the nonlinearity of the cores at saturation must be entering into it. Otherwise it's very hard to see how toroidal coils could be interacting with the passing magnets at all, since their fields are entirely contained within the toroid.] > 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 > >
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the > same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we > did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn > Mystery. Now we're on the same track. As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the "Keelynet Firefly". There was no FE-source in that device. It just acted to uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed load. As a result, when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T INCREASE! It's FE, it's FE! Not. Instead, with no load connected, the input energy would go into waste heat. But with a load connected, the input energy drives the load instead of being wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being supplied by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to "close the loop" and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the yelling died down, our conclusions ended up being something like this: "Don't waste 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, the magnets warm up *less* when the motor is running than they do > when the motor is not running. But, the back EMF is identical in both > cases. Essentially, when the motor is running, some energy which would > have been wasted as heat goes to mechanical work instead. Yes, that's exactly the effect of an uncoupled input-output achieved through nonlinear switching. With the "firefly" device, a pulse was launched into a long piece of coax cable, then the input was switched into high impedance. If nothing else was done, then the pulse would bounce back and forth inside the coax until it died away. No doubt the cable heated very slightly. If instead a load was switched in, then the load absorbed the pulse. Either way, the input power supply watts were totally constant regardless of whether a load was present or not. (( ( ( ( ((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
"couldbe" :-) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 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
[Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
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. 2) Current on => field of core is *rotated* so that it becomes entirely toroidal. At this point, the field outside the toroidal coil/core combination *vanishes*. The external magnet is no longer attracted to the core, and can be moved away. 3) Current turned off again => field of core rotates back, and the externally visible field returns. Magnets are once again attracted to the coil/core combination. So exactly what happens when we throw an external moving magnet into the mix? Here's an approach to visualizing it: Real magnets are complicated but we can imagine something much simpler which may clarify this. Imagine that the magnetic core consists of a myriad of tiny magnetic dipoles mounted on gimbals. A lot of little springs hold them in the orientation which produces the externally visible field. Furthermore, the gimbals can be locked and unlocked, using negligible energy. Now let's look at some interactions. * * * First, no external magnet: A-1) In field-on position, springs are "relaxed". A-2) Turn on the coil. Dipoles rotate against the spring force until they are parallel to the applied field; at that point the external field vanishes. Springs being conservative, if we don't want our dipoles oscillating, we need to add some friction, which damps the motion; that results in nearly all the energy we just pumped into the system turning into heat. The rest of the energy went into the springs, which are now tense. There was back EMF on the coil during this step, and it is caused by the rotating fields of the dipoles. That's where the energy comes from to turn the dipoles. A-3) Turn off the coil. The energy of the springs comes back out and turns mostly into heat (through friction) as the dipoles rotate back into their "field on" positions. There's more induced EMF in step (3), as the energy of the springs turns partly into electrical energy. * * * Now let's add an external magnet to the mix. B-1) In field-on position, with gimbals locked so the dipoles don't jiggle, bring an external magnet up to the toroid. We get useful energy out as it's attracted to the toroids. B-2) With the external magnet *stationary*, turn on the coil (and unlock the gimbals). The dipoles rotate to line up with the coil's field. (Assume they line up *essentially* exactly with the field of the coil, which is assumed to be far stronger than the field of the external magnet. Alternatively we can run the experiment other-way-around, with field turned off in step (1) and magnets repelling each other in step (3), and avoid the misalignment problem entirely.) The external field vanishes. What's the back EMF in this step? It's the SAME AS IT WAS IN STEP A-2. That's because the back EMF is caused by the *change* in the B field inside the coil, and that's the same in B-2 as it was in A-2, due to linear superposition. Current the same, voltage the same, means we the energy dumped into the coil is THE SAME in B-2 as in A-2. B-3) Pull the external magnet away (against *zero* resistance from the toroid, which has no visible field at this point). Then, with the external magnet far away, turn off the coil. The induced EMF in B-3 will be, once again, identical to that in A-3. * * * We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn Mystery. Here's what I think is the answer, in the Gedanken I just described: The effect of the external magnet's field in step B-2 is to reduce the total torque on the dipoles. Consequently they gain less energy as they swing into "field-off" position, and as a result less energy is turned into heat in that step. (They move a little more slowly, by the way.) So, the magnets warm up *less* when the motor is running than they do when the motor is not running. But, the back EMF is identical in both cases. Essentially, when the motor is running, some energy which would have been wasted as heat goes to mechanical work instead. Of course, this is an analysis of a gedanken experiment, which may or may not apply to Steorn's motor. None the less it's a gedanken which was bugging me, so whether the result applies to Steorn or not I still found it interesting :-) .