Re: [Vo]:New hypothesis about what Steorn is up to
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:06 PM 12/18/2009, Mauro Lacy wrote: You maintain this business as long as you can, and when things are starting to get murky(really murky) and profits are falling, you suddenly fire all your employeess, close offices, and disappear in your private jet, to have a well deserved recess in your private island. Come to think of it, a perpetual motion machine is the ideal project for these kind of business. And now that the world is turning green, time is ripe. That's right. See, those who collected those salaries, high enough to give them plenty of cash to console them for the eventual loss of their high-paying job as the chief executive, didn't make a profit from investment in the company. They may have invested, themselves, they have a loss on paper, but a net profit, a hefty one, from the salaries. If they sold stock at a profit, knowing it was really worthless, they'd be in trouble as insiders, but if they avoid that, what's to prosecute? If they are careful to avoid fraud that isn't merely hype or puffery, i.e., it isn't outright lying to extract cash or property, there is little risk of prosecution. The danger, though, is if some of those investors don't take it lying down. The scenario described involves some big investors who take large losses. Sometimes if they get pissed, they get even and don't care about the law. Yes, that can happen, but it is a relatively remote possibility. As Stephen Lawrence said Startups fail all the time. It is accepted and normal for a company that have raised some investment capital to fail. During the dot com bubble, by example, it was known and accepted that only around 1 or 2 percent of the companies will succeed. In the end, it's related to the fact that during these bubbles there's so much money chasing so few goods. Money is easy to print, but not so easy to redeem. Money is the colonizing tool par excellence, too. Way better than weapons or force. Banks and investment firms are always looking for opportunities to invest its capital, which they abundantly have, with the remote hope that the business will flourish and they'll get more money out than they have put in. The only thing the executives of those firms need is a credible business opportunity. It doesn't need to work in the end. It just has to be credible, so they can cover they asses. And if it doesn't work, that's the normal outcome most of the time anyway. And most of the time also, it's not their money. It is the money of the investors in an investment firm, or money from a line of risky investments from a bank, etc. Come to think of it, it is a really stupid state of affairs. But it's justified because during the process, appropiation of real assets take place. That is, whenever one of those companies or business succeed, the initial investors are now the owners! The original possessors of money have exchanged during the process, in the end, a lot of printed paper for real value. They have buyed value, so to speak.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 03:42 PM 12/18/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: However, bilked may not be it. Rather, he set up a speculative investment opportunity for people, under this particular theory: now that you know we don't actually have anything yet -- we might find the magic wand waving technique! but, you know, those stupid physicists say it's impossible -- you have the option of leaving your money in, and as long as our research program can stay open, you'll get payments from the new people buying in. So you can make some money, if it lasts long enough. That would be a Ponzi scheme. That's against the law, at least in the U.S. If the authorities found out about it they would shut down the company immediately. This would depend on certain details, and, as well, on local law. My sense is that it could be managed so as to not be illegal. Is it legal for them to charge for revealing the reality of the situation? That reality could include investigation of the devices. The leave your investment in option could actually be a reinvestment, i.e., the conversion of a payment for disclosure to an explicit investment in the company, perhaps with preferred stock, which then is paid based on the profits of the company, or perhaps profits within a certain area, such as sales of disclosures. To determine if this would be illegal in the U.S., I'd need to look more carefully at our law. Multilevel marketing, though, runs on a very similar process, and is legal if structured properly.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Advertisement
At 03:46 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Sorry, I wasn't clear. Not the end of the ad, but the end of the sequence of damning quotes. But the sequence of quotes takes up most of the ad, and I found the inclusion of the quote from their own jury as the last one in the sequence more than a little surprising. As it happens the last slot is the most memorable with something like this, because they go by so fast, so a lot of viewers will carry away the message that the jury said no-dice; if they've ever heard of Steorn in the past, that'll mean something to them. Notice that scientific jury is in quotes. They don't disclose that they accepted the jury, that they set it up. So it's easily dumped in with the rest of the comments. I.e., knee-jerk rejection by scientists. It's very sophisticated, Stephen, they are setting up certain conclusions, and it only has to work with a few people, if the product they are really selling is disclosure, which costs them nothing but the marketing cost. That sequence is, as I also mentioned (equally unclearly, mea culpa), followed by a quote from a philosopher, and then they close with the single blurb, Get Real, Get Orbo. (Up until the final screen, I was actually wondering if this was a hatchet job done by somebody other than Steorn.) But as to the Get Real thing, so what? The last screen is the kind of garbage we all learn to filter out -- Get Chevy Get a Winston Get Fat, Drink Milk -- just a meaningless image and an assertion you should get one. It provides name recognition and nothing else. The only content of the ad is in the quotes. Nope. Any reader will wonder who is providing them these quotes and why. They will fill in the blanks. There's absolutely nothing positive in it -- the closest they come is a quote from a philosopher about great truths starting as blasphemies (which doesn't seem like it's ideally chosen for an Islamic audience, but what do I know). But that quote is exactly the point. They are painting themselves as blasphemous. They'd like to be, no doubt. The quotes don't paint them as blasphemous, though -- they paint them as dishonest failures. Not quite the same thing! You've completely missed the effect. When people call others blasphemous, they also toss in every possible criticism they can think of. Steorn only presents one piece of actually damning evidence: the jury, and the way they present it, it makes the jury situation look like just more of the same. It's very clever, in fact. I think if you want to understand Steorn, you should start with the assumption that they are very smart and that they know exactly what they are doing. It's safer, in fact, you are less likely to be fooled. You're suggesting it's a Ponzi scheme? So are they paying off early investors? I wasn't aware of any evidence to that effect -- I was aware of no evidence that they'd paid off *any* of their investors. How would you know? Companies trying to develop new technology don't typically pay dividends. They don't pay off early investors, either, or anybody else, until they finally hit their stride in the marketplace. So, it's hard to see how it could be structured as a Ponzi scheme. How would you know? Yes. It's possible that early investors haven't been paid off, that, instead, they see that this is likely to pay them off. Don't assume that the investors are stupid, though some may be. And please notice: the early investors may be officers who are collecting salaries. You don't think that they are paying salaries? On paper, the early investors may lose everything, but, in fact, they might be walking away with fat pockets.
[Vo]:STEORN completes first on-line DEMO
Steorn has completed their first real-time lecture/demo concerning the mysterious ORBO device. Sean promises there will be additional on-line demonstrations soon. Since I'm not a trained electrical engineer I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the technical terminology bandied about, other than to say that I am aware that many qualified engineers have commented on the fact that there seems to exist some weird well-documented characteristics concerning things like CEMF and how such effects can apparently alter how Lorenz law would manifest in the classical/textbook case. It is my understanding that the ORBO device allegedly proves that they have somehow been able to mitigate counter electromagnetic forces to a certain extent. By how much, I don't know. If true it implies that their device has introduced an asymmetry of forces into the equation that presumably can be exploited to generate useful work, such as turning a generator to generate electricity. I believe someone from the audience asked if Steorn might try to demo something like a cell phone charging device. Sean's reply was that Steorn is in the licensing business and as a small engineering company consisting of only a hundred or so employees they don't have the financial resources nor the desire to embark on such engineering endeavors. Sean said Steorn is in the business of trying to license the ORBO technology to companies who in turn would hopefully envision for themselves (their stockholders) a bright future in developing and marketing products, like cell phones, that would never need recharging. So... I guess one question worth asking at this pregnant moment in history is whether there are enough companies out there willing to risk allocating a portion of their RD departments and subsequently embark on developing a highly controversial technology that, if true (That's a BIG IF) would likely to make them, their company, their stockholders very rich. Regardless of whether such an endeavor would be considered a foolish quest or not, I bet eventually there will be takers willing to risk it. As for me... sure wish I knew if Orbo really does possess magic juju bean juice or not. I really don't know. Mongo will watch. Wait and see what happens next. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Advertisement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: So, it's hard to see how it could be structured as a Ponzi scheme. How would you know? Yes. It's possible that early investors haven't been paid off . . . If the early investors are paid off, they would be criminally liable, along with the company. Any wealthy person or financial adviser would know that. It is against the law to take investment money out of a start-up company the way you describe. In the Madoff swindle, the investors thought they were making money, and it is not against the law to take money out of an investment fund. So the ones who withdrew more than they invested were not criminally liable, unless it can shown they knew it was a swindle. Even though they are not up for criminal charges, I believe the government and other victims are suing some of them in civil court to get back the money. Some of the scenarios you are describing are very far-fetched, in my opinion. I have seen many inept over-unity ventures and cold fusion ventures such as Patterson. Steorn is an extreme example but not so different from the others that I find it unbelievable. These other ventures were not criminal Ponzi schemes or anything like that. The people running them were not playing sophisticated mind games. They were just what they appeared to be: fools wasting money and time. I see no reason to suppose Steorn is any different. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Advertisement
On 12/19/2009 01:13 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Steorn only presents one piece of actually damning evidence: the jury, I don't agree. They quote a number of well known, well respected sources saying that they have *nothing*. You may not respect the Economist or the WSJ but you can bet your bottom dollar anyone with money to invest knows of those rags, and a lot of them treat them as authorities. They also quoted some number of scientific journals. If the WSJ, the Economist, and Science (which I *think* was on the list, but I'm not sure) all say something is bogus, that's going to carry a lot of weight with a lot of people. People listen to the media. Yes. It's possible that early investors haven't been paid off, that, instead, they see that this is likely to pay them off. Don't assume that the investors are stupid, though some may be. I don't. I'm in the computer business; VCs are the bedrock of our world. I know they're not stupid. However, when it comes to technological issues, they -- many of them -- are appallingly ignorant, with a complete blank where their technical background should go. For that matter, when we get into physics, which is where Steorn is making their playground, even a lot of technical people are seriously ignorant. And, BTW, those VCs, who are not stupid, are also not going to ignore it if a wide array of respectable journals say Steorn ain't got nuttin'. This, too, makes me wonder about that ad -- your strongly held belief that the folks at Steorn are brilliant schemers is hard to square with what I *see* in that ad. As to Steorn's magmo skills, I have a certain amount of experience in judging technical competence, and my general conclusion is that if someone exhibits no technical competence, it's probably because they have none. If you think someone is competent despite the fact that they never show it, that's a matter of faith, not reason. Steorn has as yet exhibited no technical competence. Concluding from this that they must be *hiding* their competency is, as I said, a faith-based, not evidence-based, conclusion.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Advertisement
On 12/19/2009 02:17 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And, BTW, those VCs, who are not stupid, are also not going to ignore it if a wide array of respectable journals say Steorn ain't got nuttin'. This, too, makes me wonder about that ad -- your strongly held belief that the folks at Steorn are brilliant schemers is hard to square with what I *see* in that ad. It strikes me that there's another possible explanation for the Steorn TV spot. It may be that it was not intended to be seen by potential investors. Forget weird conspiracy theories which might explain the apparently strange choice of Al Jazeera; maybe the real reason for choosing an outlet which few potential investors watch was exactly that few potential investors watch it. If that's the case, then the ad was supposed to do something other than advertise -- and one possibility is that it's an additional bit of CYA material. Advertising reports of their failure that way makes it impossible for anyone to claim Steorn tried to hide their lack of a working device from anyone. At the same time, putting the ad on an out of the way network reduces or negates its impact on investor cash flow. * * * Alternatively, Al Jazeera's advert rates are cheaper than other outlets, and Steorn is a bit pinched right now...
Re: [Vo]:STEORN completes first on-line DEMO
On 12/19/2009 01:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Steorn has completed their first real-time lecture/demo concerning the mysterious ORBO device. Sean promises there will be additional on-line demonstrations soon. Since I'm not a trained electrical engineer I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the technical terminology bandied about, other than to say that I am aware that many qualified engineers have commented on the fact that there seems to exist some weird well-documented characteristics concerning things like CEMF and how such effects can apparently alter how Lorenz law would manifest in the classical/textbook case. CEMF is not some weird effect. It IS how the Lorenz force law manifests in the classical/textbook case. It's the counter-electromotive force which appears in a coil when you put a current through it and it's as common as fleas. Contrary to any claim that it lets you get free energy out of an electric motor, it's the reason you *can't*. It is just another name for the manifestation of the formula V = -L * dI/dt and in fact it falls directly out of Maxwell's equation Del X E = -dB/dt Any time you try to change the current through an inductor, a voltage is induced which is proportional to the rate of change in the current times the inductance. That voltage -- which results in energy being consumed (or released) by the process -- is proportional to the rate at which you're pumping energy into the B field of the inductor (or pulling it back out). And another name for it is CEMF. And, as I said, it's part of the reason why energy is conserved in motors, which is, in turn, why Orbo is bogus. If Sean is claiming that the CEMF is something strange and/or unusual which Steorn has learned to harness (unlike all those other dunces out there) ... well, I'd change channels. Take nothing Sean says at face value, and only believe it if it's confirmed, in detail, by someone *known* to be honest and competent in the fields of EE and EM.
Re: [Vo]:STEORN completes first on-line DEMO
Even if you totally eliminated BEMF you would not achieve overunity. Terry
Re: [Vo]:STEORN completes first on-line DEMO
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:50:33 -0500: Hi, Even if you totally eliminated BEMF you would not achieve overunity. Terry You have this backwards. BEMF is what makes electric motors efficient. Were it not for BEMF, they would be a dead short and consume vast amounts of power. It's the BEMF which keeps the losses to a small percentage of the work done. If you want OU, then you need to *increase* not decrease the BEMF. BEMF of a motor is also the forward EMF of a generator, which makes it obvious that for a motor to produce more power than it consumes, the generator EMF must exceed the input power, IOW the BEMF must exceed the applied voltage. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
how do we find this On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: According to one of my latest Google news alerts Steorn just made CNN news. However, I can't seem to find the link anywhere on cnn's web site. Does anyone know anything about this? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Clusters in LENR
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:57:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] Shoulder to Shoulder with Chicea: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChiceaDelectroncl.pdf [snip] Quote: The total energy produced by the reactions induced by the collected deuterons is not enough to break the equilibrium of the EV. Assuming that other reactions take place inside the EV, starting from deuterons and leading to the most stable isotopes, that is starting from a binding energy of 2.2 MeV/nucleon to about 8 MeV/nucleon, the maximum resulting energy per nucleon is about 6 MeV, or 3 MeV/deuteron. 6 MeV per nucleon is not 3 MeV / deuteron, it's 12 MeV / deuteron, which leads to a maximum of about 24 MeV for the reaction D + D - He4. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Clusters in LENR
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:51:57 -0800: Hi, [snip] For this to happen as a single event, all must be at the same place at the same time. This condition describes what can be called a super-cluster. For all members of the cluster to enter at the same time, they must be located close together compared to nuclear dimensions and their nuclear charge must be hidden from the target nuclei. These requirements imply existence of an unusual bonding state that can form within a group of deuterons. The nature of this state will not be discussed here, but will be a subject for future papers. END of quote [snip] I have already described this bonding state in a previous post. It occurs because the inter nuclear magnetic bond is stronger for small Hydrino molecules than it is for normal Hydrogen, and the smaller the molecule, the stronger the bond. This means that such molecules can clump together magnetically. It's like a clump of bar magnets arranged anti-parallel so that when viewed from one end the clump looks like a checkerboard of N and S poles. The simplest such clump comprises two magnets. Bar magnets are often stored in pairs with keepers to help them retain their strength over time. If the magnetic field strength goes as the inverse cube of the separation distance, and this in turn goes as the square of the quantum level number, then the magnetic bond strength should go as the inverse sixth power of quantum level number. There is another possibility that I call Russian Dolls, but that can wait for another day. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Clusters in LENR
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com I have already described this bonding state in a previous post. It occurs because the inter nuclear magnetic bond is stronger for small Hydrino molecules than it is for normal Hydrogen, and the smaller the molecule, the stronger the bond. Well, the problem there is that Ed Storms is not using a below-ground-state model, as I noted previously. There is another possibility that I call Russian Dolls, but that can wait for another day. Awkshully, this is more towards Ed's rationale - in that he sees the deuterium as a quasi or temporary BEC (Bose condensate). That would be more of an analogy to Faberge eggs, but I presume that Russian Dolls is a similar nesting thing Wait! Hold the fort ! It strikes me, having written this just now, that there is likely to be a combination of the two, in that the fractional ground state would seemingly encourage a quasi-BEC via the same mechanism as does cryogenics - removal of freedom of movement. This could be the final piece of the puzzle folks You heard it first on Vortex ... ;) Jones
Re: [Vo]:STEORN completes first on-line DEMO
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You have this backwards. That's not unusual for me. BEMF is what makes electric motors efficient. It's what generates torque in an AC motor. Were it not for BEMF, they would be a dead short and consume vast amounts of power. You speak of impedance. Let's not forget plain old resistance. It's the BEMF which keeps the losses to a small percentage of the work done. Steorn's motor is essentially unloaded. If he were killing BEMF on a pulse motor (essentially a dc motor) his RPM would skyrocket. Or I am again confused. :-) Regards, Terry
Re: [Vo]:Clusters in LENR
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:58:53 -0800: Hi, [snip] Awkshully, this is more towards Ed's rationale - in that he sees the deuterium as a quasi or temporary BEC (Bose condensate). That would be more of an analogy to Faberge eggs, but I presume that Russian Dolls is a similar nesting thing Wait! Hold the fort ! It strikes me, having written this just now, that there is likely to be a combination of the two, in that the fractional ground state would seemingly encourage a quasi-BEC via the same mechanism as does cryogenics - removal of freedom of movement. This could be the final piece of the puzzle folks You heard it first on Vortex ... ;) Jones I may have previously described Russian Dolls. You will remember Faux D? Well, you can bind a proton to Faux D to form a larger molecular ion that in turn can capture an electron to become an atom (with a smaller level number), to which in turn another proton can be added etc. In this way the Russian Dolls are built up from the inside out. The final product looks sort of like a heavy atom from the outside, except that the nucleons are not all bound together in a single nucleus, but rather distributed at a variety of quantum shrinkage levels within the whole. If real deuterons are substituted for protons, then the fusion half life of the innermost layers can be quite short, or the whole thing may react with another nucleus, if it's small enough. The problem I have with both the Russian Dolls model, and the bound magnets model is that it seems to me that DD reactions within the cluster ought to take place long before the cluster can react with another nucleus. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:Kitamura paper uploaded
See: Kitamura, A., et al., Anomalous effects in charging of Pd powders with high density hydrogen isotopes. Phys. Lett. A, 2009. 273(35): p. 3109-3112. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf Prof. Kitamura went to a lot of trouble to get permission from the publisher to allow a manuscript version of the paper at LENR-CANR.org. So let's give it up for the professor and everyone should read this paper. It's important. This plus Kidwell and Arata's own recent experiments make what I consider and iron-clad case that the Arata effect is real. This could well be the most important breakthrough since 1989 because it can be controlled and scaled up, so it may lead to practical devices. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:STEORN completes first on-line DEMO
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:11:58 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You have this backwards. That's not unusual for me. BEMF is what makes electric motors efficient. It's what generates torque in an AC motor. Torque is a consequence of the current that flows. That in turn is driven by the difference between forward and backward EMF. So the greater the load, the slower the motor and the lower the BEMF. That results in a larger difference and a greater current which increases the torque, largely compensating for the larger load, and ensuring that the power supplied largely matches the power consumed. Were it not for BEMF, they would be a dead short and consume vast amounts of power. You speak of impedance. Let's not forget plain old resistance. Yes dead short was a bit of an exaggeration. It's the BEMF which keeps the losses to a small percentage of the work done. Steorn's motor is essentially unloaded. If he were killing BEMF on a pulse motor (essentially a dc motor) his RPM would skyrocket. Yes, but it would always consume maximum power, and rapidly overheat. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Is pycnodeuterium below ground state?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:20:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] Stated simply, much of the expected excess energy was already given up prior to the actual nuclear reaction, via the non-nuclear shrinkage reaction which pushed it below ground state, giving up heat in the form of UV radiation. That is the part that BLP got right wrt hydrogen, and hinted at, back in the early nineties wrt cold fusion, but it took these good experiments by Arata/Zhang to actually document the transition into two distinct steps. The problem with this is that if there isn't nearly enough He4 to explain the heat output, then most of the heat is coming from shrinkage. But if that is so then H should yield the same results as D. AFAIK, that isn't the case. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 04:46 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: -- I think it's unlikely that they're cash positive right now, if we leave cash flow from stock sales off the balance sheet. But, that doesn't really matter much; with repeated rounds of financing, companies can go for years in a cash-negative, money-losing state. With the officers collecting salaries all along the way. There are two basic ways to survive in this situation: loans and investment. Loans are tricky, if a corporation has negative cash flow and failed product launches, my guess is that loans can get difficult to find. But investment can still be managed, if you have something you are doing that is or might be making money. Many of these here assume that this product is Orbo. It might not be, not exactly. It might be peeks at Orbo. And if you don't do anything to seriously upset those who have signed the NDA, the cat doesn't get to jump out of the bag. Thanks for your signing the agreement and for your confidence in us as represented by your $400 payment. As soon as that payment clears, you will get an access code to look at our full disclosure of everything. Let us know what you think when you have looked at it. I'm sorry that you were disappointed in our disclosure. Is there anything there that was contrary to your reasonable expectations? However, we don't want anyone to be disappointed. We require developers to take 30 days to fully review and do not accept termination requests during that period. However, if, after that, you wish to withdraw from being a developer, please let us know within the following 30 days and we will provide to you the termination agreement; upon your signature on that, we will refund your payment in full. As you have provided your signature on the document, your refund will be issued within 60 days as provided in the termination agreement. Thank you for your interest in Orbo. We remind you that all details that were disclosed to you remain completely confidential, and we vigorously enforce the non-disclosure agreement, because confidentiality is the core of necessity at this point. So, they take up to 90 days to return the $400. Meanwhile the mark is highly motivated to remain silent, for sure, knowing that if he breaks the confidentiality agreement, as provided in the original NDA and the termination agreement, the refund will not be issued and, in fact, he may owe more money as liquidated damages, or face a lawsuit. Meanwhile the money is drawing interest if it is put into interest-bearing securities or deposits. Steorn doesn't have to do that, and if Steorn goes backrupt, anyone owed money may be screwed. But if they play it very conservatively, they get three month's interest on $400, or, say, $4.00, enough to pay the costs of running this shell game. But as part of the termination process, they offer an opportunity to become an investor with the money, and they give incentives. The language is such that it appears they are offering investment in the technology, but they make sure that it's pointed out to the mark that even if the technology doesn't work out, because of the basic laws of physics or other nonsense, the now-investor may still make money, and good money. Yes, absolutely, it's a Ponzi scheme, in reality, but probably not, because of the investment-in-technology aspect, not an illegal one. With this device, they have attracted people who might be inclined to believe that over-unity is possible, otherwise they wouldn't bother (other than sheer curiosity, which may trap a few cats as well). If the Orbo investigation is sophisicated enough, the physics of it might be fun. Some people might keep their money in just for that. It's been said that I'm making assumptions. Sure, but probably reasonable ones. However, don't mistake my speculations as to what might be under the NDA covers with assumptions that this is what they are doing. I'm merely pointing out that, from what we see, a very clever and sophisticated and legal scam might be under way. The advertising on al-Jazeera was brilliant. They are taking the most negative material and turning it into a hook. For their target audience, I'd expect it to be very effective. Remember, the ad could fail with 99.99% of the people who see it, who might indeed leave with the impression that Orbo is just plain weird. But they pull the rug out from under critics who respond, in a knee-jerk way, as I've seen on YouTube many times: Obviously you idiots don't realize that what you are doing is completely contrary to the laws of physics. Because obviously they realize that *this will be the opinion of nearly everyone who knows the laws of physics.* By incorporating that into their ad, they create a certain level of rapport with these people, it is a classic trick employed by hypnotists and marketers. Incorporate the possible rejection, then reframe it. -- In the United States, the
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
tl;dr On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:46 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
Esa Ruoho wrote: tl;dr My thoughts exactly. Speculation has indeed run rampant! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
so, is there anything any of you would like me to do at the waterways thingo? i'll be there around tuesday. i've been asked by a friend to take a close-up photo of the battery, and just generally wave my iphone around the motor (since the current cameras arent really closeup enough).. and uhh yeah. On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Esa Ruoho wrote: tl;dr My thoughts exactly. Speculation has indeed run rampant! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 05:43 PM 12/18/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Mongo want to see a light bulb real soon. No light bulb soon, Mongo send candygram to Sean. Light bulb! Light bulb! Light bulb! Steorn response simple: light bulb. Lights up. What does that mean? Or not. Whatever they think will have the maximum effect on delay. They can create whatever appearance they want. It's not illegal to put on a show and pretend that something is what it is not, unless you collect investment without disclosing that there were deceptive statements made in public to fool competitors or for whatever reason. You don't defraud someone specific, there is no fraud. There is, in most places anyway, no law against fooling the public with deceptive evidence. Or else a lot of politicians would be going to jail. Happens all the time. Not just politicians. Companies advertise products with deceptive advertising as to quality. In some places they can outright lie, in others, they have to be more subtle. Puffery, exaggeration without specifics, is legal almost everywhere. Our product is better than theirs isn't specific, it's not a provable statement either way unless far better specified. Perhaps their product makes a better doorstop. They didn't say what it was better at.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 05:27 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 12/18/2009 02:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:02 PM 12/17/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Sounds good. But magicians don't usually start by working to convince everyone that they are incompetent liars. That's a label nobody wants to start with. I have experienced the exact opposite. They are very good at starting with that label, they amplify it and play with it. Eh, hold on -- they do it for a few seconds, a few minutes, perhaps more than a few minutes. They patter away, with an ace of hearts glued to the back of their jacket where all can see it, or whatever. But very soon, far sooner than the timeout after which the audience leaves in disgust, they do something which reveals they are monumentally clever after all. These magicians are playing a longer game, to a far wider audience, with a longer attention span. Imagine, instead, a magic show where the magicians did nothing but show tricks that didn't work, or do slight of hand where all could see the hidden card on the back of the hand, or attempted to juggle but dropped the balls -- imagine that they did this for the ENTIRE FIRST HALF of the show. Then there's the intermission. Then, only after the intermission, they show that they can really pull off some fine stunts. Only problem -- the hall's kind of empty at that point, because an awful lot of folks didn't come back after the break. Timing. When is the intermission for Steorn? Is it scheduled? Scheduling one is part of what they might do. We have decided to close all public activites for X months to give us time to focus on blah, blah. We will open a new public demo, which will reveal far more about our technology than has been previously revealed, on [six months away]. That would be a show where the magician started by CONVINCING the audience that he was an incompetent liar. It's been more than seconds, minutes, days -- it's been years -- Steorn has yet to show the clever part. All they've shown is the boobery. What they've shown is that they can continue to attract attention, and that's exactly what they need. ,.. Sure, sure, sure. The bit about magicians is all true. But what makes you think that Steorn fills the bill of a skilled magician? What EVIDENCE is there that anyone at Steorn is competent to pull off any kind of convincing demo of anything? The level of competence required for the convincing demo -- if we allow actual fraud -- is low. I'm sure I could build it, just give me a little money. Hah! Indeed, I'm absolutely sure you could. But, you're not an average Joe off the street. What makes you think anybody at Steorn is as competent as you? Your definition of a low level of competence probably doesn't match most folks'. There are countless people who could build it. You hire one. They have the money to do it, should it be that nobody already involved could do it. There is a hint, by the way, as to what they intend to do, and are doing: they have a product that is pre-announced or something like that. Very low friction bearings. Now, why would you need very-low friction bearings? Only if you have some perpetual motion imitation that needs to run for a long time on inertia or with extremely low power input. Or, alternatively, you have found, or believe you have found, some tiny effect, an energy anomaly. So to demonstrate it, you need a system with extremely low losses. However, if that is all you have, you are nowhere near having found something that can be exploited for power production, for you aren't producing enough power to overcome losses in ordinary bearings. That isn't much power! And suppose their real product is very-low-friction bearings? They would have, with their best demonstration -- which hasn't been rolled out, I suspect -- demonstrated these bearings. They would, when ready, pull off the wraps, disclose the trick, and show what a very low power input was necessary to keep the beastie running. All I'm saying is that thinking of them as just plain stupid and incompetent could be quite premature. There other other explanations, for sure, and it seems to me that some of those explanations are more likely than the incompetent boobs theory. I'm serious here. I have seen no evidence of such competence at Steorn. In the absence of such evidence, I see no reason to believe it's present. Elsewhere you contradict yourself. Here you are using competence as the skill to build a convincing demonstration of nothing, a fraud. But you can hire that competence, at a price that they could clearly afford. Assuming incompetence is all staged, and that more apparent incompetence just proves it's staged better -- well, it's an assumption, and I can't really see any reason for retaining it. It's not an assumption, it's an organizing hypothesis. It explains the behavior so far. Got a better one? But this argument of ours
RE: [Vo]:Is pycnodeuterium below ground state?
Hi Robin, JB: Stated simply, much of the expected excess energy was already given up prior to the actual nuclear reaction, via the non-nuclear shrinkage reaction which pushed it below ground state, giving up heat in the form of UV radiation. That is the part that BLP got right wrt hydrogen, and hinted at, back in the early nineties wrt cold fusion, but it took these good experiments by Arata/Zhang to actually document the transition into two distinct steps. RvS: The problem with this is that if there isn't nearly enough He4 to explain the heat output, then most of the heat is coming from shrinkage... JB: Well, most of the excess heat in the unpowered A/Z experiments, the ones with low delta-t is due to shrinkage. In some of these experiments there is a small gain from hydrogen too, but not as much gain ... plus, be aware that in some experiments he does use a gaseous medium which is helium, so in those experiments it is impossible to tell; and in the paper of reference (2005) there is electrical input and real fusion. Plus, as you will be quick to notice helium is an effective Mills catalyst for further shrinkage. IOW for Arata, there are many variations on the theme going back a decade. Maybe it is not wise to try to classify them into groups since the boundaries are cloudy. RvS: But if that is so then H should yield the same results as D. AFAIK, that isn't the case. Correct, it is not the case ... and let me try to explain this, Robin - since prior to an hour ago I would have to agree with your premise, but instead this is now another reason to suspect the stepwise transition: going from fractional deuterium to the quasi-BEC, which is the precise dynamic involved that eliminates hydrogen from working as well as deuterium, since it cannot fuse via the Bose mechanism. If there is no fusion at all, then there is probably a limited amount of gain possible from shrinkage alone, so that muddles the picture. IOW - here is the essence of the prior message, in case you didn't see it yet. It suggests that a combination of the two mechanisms leads to fusion with deuterium, which is a molecular boson, but which mechanism canNOT happen with hydrogen, which is fermionic. IOW only deuterium makes the giant step to BEC-fusion, since it is a boson, but both can produce some excess heat via shrinkage alone. There will be more heat with deuterium, since fusion can happen to 'balance the books' (CoE). Over time, once a population of pycnodeuterium is present, most of the heat will come from fusion, but that could be days or weeks later. In fact Arata at one point suggests what can be described as 'harvesting' the active species (pycnodeuterium) even for hot fusion like the IEC. This takes Ed Storm's boson mechanism a step further, even if he chooses not to acknowledge any below-ground-state contribution. This hypothesis gives the BEC a better pathway to happen, since obviously there is no liquid hydrogen, and every BEC we know about demands it. In contrast, this two step hypothesis proposes that the fractional ground state itself would encourage a quasi-BEC via the same mechanism as does cryogenics - which is removal of freedom of movement. Maybe I am not explaining it well, but it makes sense to me, so far. It is essentially equating the strong magnetic alignment you mention as providing the same effect as ultracold - IF and only if there is a group of highly shrunken bosons present. Jones
[Vo]:Steorn hosting new ads, explanation
http://www.steorn.com/ The al-Jazeera ad is there under the Watch the advert button. And Sean describes the technology, sort of, (absolutely no critical details, and the bottom line is, trust us). Very slick. They are claiming that the battery is merely an energy reservoir. That the generator is producing more power than is being used to run the motor. Sean notes that much energy is dissipated as heat in the coils, so he estimates the over-unity ratio as three to one. Entirely possible it will come out later that the claim is that the battery simply doesn't run down as fast as expected. In other words, they aren't doing the supercapacitor substitute for a battery, with a voltage readout showing charging, because there is no charging, we don't quite have the output up to the necessary over-unity level that would show actual increased charge, but our studies show that more energy is being generated, if we include the Joule heating, than is being input from the battery. Nothing is actually is demonstrated, because the devil is completely in the details, details that aren't being shown. What you see is a spinning rotor. So it looks like a demonstration. However, in order to understand the demonstration, one would have to characterize all the components, know the voltages as they vary at many points in the system, look at the currents in every leg, and then do an analysis of power distribution. And there are lots of places to get it wrong. A simple analysis, not complete, would look at the voltage across and current through the coils, where heat is being dissipated. If the rotor rotation is roughly constant, and if it's very low friction, which is expected, then all that movement is a red herring. How much power is being sucked from the battery, and how much power is being dissipated in the coils? If, with constant rotation, the latter is greater than the former, they have a demonstration, at least a first order one. They could easily have shown that: voltage/current display for a supercapacitor replacing the battery, and power consumption of the coil (voltage times current). Because these will be time-variant, it can get a little tricky, if I'm correct, but it's a standard problem. As the rotor turns, there will be increased consumption of power at certain points in the rotation cycle, and increased generation of power at other points, as energy is dumped into rotation and then sucked out. It would be simple to display all this so it could be seen. If they wanted to. Of course, if they could show steady increase in battery/supercapacitor charge, that would be a real demonstration, but is more than over unity. His estimate of three times unity being necessary may be correct. Or does he say that they are getting three times unity. I'm not inclined to watch it again. At a certain point for me, slickness starts to be perceived as sliminess. Yuck. The Orbo noise, er, music, is starting to grate.
RE: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
Abd sez: Mongo want to see a light bulb real soon. No light bulb soon, Mongo send candygram to Sean. Light bulb! Light bulb! Light bulb! Steorn response simple: light bulb. Lights up. What does that mean? Mongo sez: Abd not serious! Even Mongo KNOWS what Light bulb means! [And then, during another rare pensive moment, Mongo adds:] Mongo not sure Abd knows what light bulb means. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Need help with AIP posting
I deleted the Richard Feynman quote and the blog entry was sent forward for censoring. It will be interesting to see if my one sentence makes it through. On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Using: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/12/opinion-scientific- integrity.html http://tinyurl.com/y8p69r6 I attempted to post the following: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Richard Feynman concluded his report on the shuttle Challenger accident: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. It is regrettable the AIP has no enforceable code of ethics, especially one that proscribes unethical censorship by means such as eliminating a brief polite blog statement because it is in conflict with the censor's views, or eliminating brief supporting references or the author's title and degree. Horace Heffner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I immediately received the following error message: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Comment Submission Error Your comment submission failed for the following reasons: Text entered was wrong. Try again. Return to the original entry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Anyone know what I did wrong? I did provide my name and email address. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
On 12/19/2009 05:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:46 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: -- I think it's unlikely that they're cash positive right now, if we leave cash flow from stock sales off the balance sheet. But, that doesn't really matter much; with repeated rounds of financing, companies can go for years in a cash-negative, money-losing state. With the officers collecting salaries all along the way. There are two basic ways to survive in this situation: loans and investment. Loans are tricky, if a corporation has negative cash flow and failed product launches, my guess is that loans can get difficult to find. Sure can! This is when honest entrepreneurs who are having problems often sign personal notes. It gets the cash flowing again, and with luck it may keep it flowing long enough to get the product out the door, to get the next job to the state where we can bill for it, to clean up the mess left from our mistakes last year, whatever I've known a couple guys, my father included, who, long after the corporation had done a chapter 7, were still paying off loans they'd signed for back when they thought they just needed to chase the wolf away from the door for a little longer and things would be OK. But investment can still be managed, if you have something you are doing that is or might be making money. Many of these here assume that this product is Orbo. It might not be, not exactly. It might be peeks at Orbo. And if you don't do anything to seriously upset those who have signed the NDA, the cat doesn't get to jump out of the bag. Thanks for your signing the agreement and for your confidence in us as represented by your $400 payment. As soon as that payment clears, you will get an access code to look at our full disclosure of everything. Let us know what you think when you have looked at it. I'm sorry that you were disappointed in our disclosure. Is there anything there that was contrary to your reasonable expectations? However, we don't want anyone to be disappointed. We require developers to take 30 days to fully review and do not accept termination requests during that period. However, if, after that, you wish to withdraw from being a developer, please let us know within the following 30 days and we will provide to you the termination agreement; upon your signature on that, we will refund your payment in full. As you have provided your signature on the document, your refund will be issued within 60 days as provided in the termination agreement. Thank you for your interest in Orbo. We remind you that all details that were disclosed to you remain completely confidential, and we vigorously enforce the non-disclosure agreement, because confidentiality is the core of necessity at this point. :-) I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. OTOH I wouldn't be surprised if most investors decide to stay in the pot rather than pulling out. But as part of the termination process, they offer an opportunity to become an investor with the money, and they give incentives. The language is such that it appears they are offering investment in the technology, but they make sure that it's pointed out to the mark that even if the technology doesn't work out, because of the basic laws of physics or other nonsense, the now-investor may still make money, and good money. Yes, absolutely, it's a Ponzi scheme I don't think so; not as you described it. Only if investors get out more than they put in is it a Ponzi scheme. Otherwise it's just scrambling for new investor dollars to replace the old ones who got cold feet, the same way all companies without income must do. A Ponzi scheme is specifically a scheme for allowing *investors* to make money even though the company has no source of income. It's the lure of assured high return on the money which pulls in the investors. In particular, investors who pull out before a Ponzi scheme collapses make a profit. The (very plausible) scheme you describe doesn't earn anything at all for investors which pull out; they just break even. The *only* winners are salaried employees. That's just business as usual in the startup world -- save that in an honest startup, when things start to go sour, the officers often stop drawing salaries, in an effort to bolster cash flow... With this device, they have attracted people who might be inclined to believe that over-unity is possible, otherwise they wouldn't bother (other than sheer curiosity, which may trap a few cats as well). If the Orbo investigation is sophisicated enough, the physics of it might be fun. Some people might keep their money in just for that. It's been said that I'm making assumptions. Sure, but probably reasonable ones. However, don't mistake my speculations as to what might be under the NDA covers with assumptions that this is what they are doing. I'm merely pointing out that, from what we see, a very clever and sophisticated and legal scam
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
Mongo is right. harry - Original Message From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 7:10:47 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Steorn Demo Abd sez: Mongo want to see a light bulb real soon. No light bulb soon, Mongo send candygram to Sean. Light bulb! Light bulb! Light bulb! Steorn response simple: light bulb. Lights up. What does that mean? Mongo sez: Abd not serious! Even Mongo KNOWS what Light bulb means! [And then, during another rare pensive moment, Mongo adds:] Mongo not sure Abd knows what light bulb means. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks __ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
Re: [Vo]:Need help with AIP posting
The error message is from the Captcha Turing test. I ran into that too. I may have used the back button? I'm not sure. At 07:17 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote: I deleted the Richard Feynman quote and the blog entry was sent forward for censoring. It will be interesting to see if my one sentence makes it through. On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Using: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/12/opinion-scientific- integrity.html http://tinyurl.com/y8p69r6 I attempted to post the following: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Richard Feynman concluded his report on the shuttle Challenger accident: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. It is regrettable the AIP has no enforceable code of ethics, especially one that proscribes unethical censorship by means such as eliminating a brief polite blog statement because it is in conflict with the censor's views, or eliminating brief supporting references or the author's title and degree. Horace Heffner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I immediately received the following error message: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Comment Submission Error Your comment submission failed for the following reasons: Text entered was wrong. Try again. Return to the original entry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Anyone know what I did wrong? I did provide my name and email address. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Demo
At 10:56 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote: A Ponzi scheme is specifically a scheme for allowing *investors* to make money even though the company has no source of income. It's the lure of assured high return on the money which pulls in the investors. In particular, investors who pull out before a Ponzi scheme collapses make a profit. The (very plausible) scheme you describe doesn't earn anything at all for investors which pull out; they just break even. The *only* winners are salaried employees. That's just business as usual in the startup world -- save that in an honest startup, when things start to go sour, the officers often stop drawing salaries, in an effort to bolster cash flow... I wrote that it's a Ponzi scheme as an analogy, not as a literal Ponzi scheme. I've also called Wikipedia a Ponzi or pyramid scheme. Steorn has a source of income: those who pay for access to the technology. That, in fact, is their core business plan, and they have disclaimed any interest in making Orbo products. They also have products: stuff used to test Orbo (or maybe other magnetic devices). I've been reading over the history. Remarkable. There are a lot of details, if you read between the lines. For example, very low-friction bearings are crucial to the technology; they are offering them and they make this statement about them. Now, what does that imply? It implies that if there is any excess energy here, it is very low, and that ordinary bearings aren't good enough. The 2007 demonstration allegedly failed because the special low-friction bearings got fried. Now, if they believe that they have found some anomaly, they may also know that the anomaly is clearly small. Any attempt to extract energy from the rotor, of course, will act to slow down the rotor more than an ordinary bearing would, so what this implies is that they haven't succeeded in scaling up the effect they see or imagine. And that, then, explains their business plan. They aren't going to market practical devices. They are only selling licenses. So if they can convince someone that the anomaly is worth researching, they make their money selling the technology to produce the anomaly, as well as bearings, hall sensors, and torque measurement equipment. Never mind if it's totally impossible to scale it up, whether because it is actually non-existent, is some kind of artifact, or even if it exists. Scaling up cold fusion, as an example, even though the reactions are clearly real, is an entirely different problem, and solving it is really where the money will be, if that happens. Steorn may well know that scaling up is extremely difficult, that is, they do know the effect is very small, or they would not be stating how important ultra low friction bearings are to Orbo. And then that means that when they talk enthusiastically about applications, powering cars with Orbo, etc., they are truly blowing smoke, pure speculation. And if you read the licensing info that they have, you'll discover that a whole series of applications aren't available for commercial licensing, including automotive applications. If you become a developer, the cheapest license, apparently, you gain no rights at all, you can't market what you develop. Interesting model, if I've read it right. So: they ask for a scientific jury, they get, they claim, a thousand applications, they send out contracts to a few and end up with over twenty scientist for the jury. There is some rumor I came across that Michael McKubre was on the jury And then, after something like three years, the jury announces that it is quitting, that Steorn had not shown any evidence of energy production. And Steorn doesn't exactly announce that. They announce that they understand why the members of the jury were frustrated, but now Steorn has solved the problems and will be going ahead. And then they use this jury that they picked in their ad, lumping it in with knee-jerk rejection. It's highly deceptive. Today there was a talk by Sean on the technology and the demonstration. He showed an oscilloscope display of the coil voltage and current, and claimed that the traces showed the absence of back EMF, and that therefore all the battery power was going into Joule heating, and that therefore the rotation was entirely free energy. There is an immediate YouTube rebuttal up that shows another motor, similar concept, with a hall sensor that pulses the coil voltage, and he showed that the lack of variation of voltage and current with rotor velocity was totally normal for a pulse motor. In other words, the demonstration, even with some instrumentation, was pure smoke.
