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 "
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
ay 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 o
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,
>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...
>***
> 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.
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
T
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,
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, t
- 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 Loma
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
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 o
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 end
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 b
>
>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
>c
>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
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 pe
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.
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
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 ex
l 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 a
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
defende
- 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
>
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,
or 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 Vincen
e 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 wit
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.
Un
>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
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 ar
- 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 r
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
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 t
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?
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
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
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
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 w
#x27;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'
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
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 mig
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
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. Beaty
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."
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 th
>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
> tha
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 Bedin
nt: 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 si
_
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,
d 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:hohl
...@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 o
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
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
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
-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 h
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
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 cons
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 s
der 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, Steph
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 20
- 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&#
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) Toroid
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 s
"couldbe" :-)
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 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
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
65 matches
Mail list logo
