Re: [Vo]: Re: Interesting News About Steorn

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Rhong Dhong wrote:
Here's what I've been able to glean from their site.

It is self-powered. There is no input.

No it's not.

It has a COP>100% which means it produces more power than it consumes, 
but to have a meaningful COP it _MUST_ consume power!  Without input 
COP=infinity.

Second, they have some obscure comments to the effect that the devices 
can't be cascaded.  That also suggests very strongly that there's power 
going in, and power going out (and sounds very fishy IMHO).

Finally, the description makes it reasonably clear that it's a 
magnet-based torque amplifier of some sort.  (Can't cite a page on that; 
sorry, I don't recall where I saw the actual description.)


They won't do demos because, they say, they'll be 
put down as conmen unless a jury of reputable
scientists confirms the OU.

OU is _NOT_ an issue IF the machine is self-powered!!  If you've got 
output and _no_ input, then it's OU by construction.

But again, their machine is not self-powered.


They'll announce their first products the day the jury
announces its verdict.

They have said they continue to file applications for
patents on different implementations of the basic
configuration.

If they had a working model which had no input power, they could patent 
the whole thing.

Perpetual motion machines are patentable in the United States if you 
have a working model, but not otherwise.  But, they don't have a working 
model (in that sense) -- it requires external power to operate.  So, 
they can't patent the closed-loop version.


The basic configuration is simple.

My guess is that if somebody versed in the art were to
have even a cursory look at the device, he could go
home and build his own. That's just a guess, but it
would explain their reluctance to demo it. To put it
another way, whatever good their demo did for them
would be outweighed by everybody and his brother
copying the device and beating them to the market.

They're not struggling or dying for public
recognition. The CEO says they used the economist ad
and the early interviews to get scientists to take up
their challenge. Now that that has been accomplished,
they don't need publicity.

From what I can see, they are doing nothing to seek
publicity; there is almost zero media mention of them
these days.

They claim to have a 550bhp motor, and have tested the
effect for three years. A measurement error seems very
unlikely.

This makes no sense, really.  If they had something that really poured 
out far more power than it consumed, how much "testing" would they need 
to do to verify that it worked?

Certainly if they had closed the loop they'd be _done_ with the 
"testing" phase, because that's a 100% go/no-go test: if you can pass 
that test, you're done, you've broken the First Law.

Instead, they're looking for expert testimony that it works, which 
suggests (to me) the goal is to suck in more investment dollars.


The CEO says no device has stopped running unless a
mechanical part wore out or they shut it down.

They are fully funded and do not need investors to
bring the device(s) to market. The CEO has said they
will not accept investment money.

Steorn have not 'come out of nowhere', at least in the
sense of being a bona fide company, with a track
record of accomplishment.

In completely unrelated areas, I think?

That goes, too, for the CEO, who has been an engineer
since 1989. They have about 20 full-time employees and
several consultants. Their engineers all have
university degress, some of them advanced degrees

An independent observer has visited their offices,
which she describes as extensive and well-guarded,
seen documentation on a couple of the jurors, and
confirmed that they are reputable scientists.

And completely unnecessary, if they actually had a working model that 
did something useful.

How many scientists does it take to determine that something's producing 
power without consuming any?   None, really -- all it takes is a 
building inspector to make sure all the power lines into the building 
have been properly severed.


She has seen a video of the CEO of a European
manufacturing partner of Steorn's as he assembled a
test device and started it running. He said, in the
video, that he left it running over a weekend and when
he returned it was still running.

She looked him up on the internet, and found a picture
of him on his company's website. It was the same man
she saw in the video.

You say:
[**magnetic overunity [or magnets with coils,
pendulums, or some combination of mechanical recycling
of torque with a magnetic boost] will probably be
demonstrated by someone next year - 2007 ! as there
are many groups who are on the verge now. MPI would be
expected to have something next year and/or Sprain in
Atlanta...**]


You think MPI is 'on the verge', but they've been 'on
the verge' for years, and have continually asked for
more money, and have demonstrated nothing.

Sprain has demonstrated nothing that is OU, but
promises to do so soon.

I don't see how you can speak respectfully of those
outfits while deprecating Steorn's claims. You
complain that Steorn has demonstrated nothing, but
neither has MPI or Sprain. It's almost as if you
require 10 times the proof from Steorn that you do
from anyone else.

You also say:
[**Steorn does not yet have the "tin cup" stretched
out -- as the less-sophisticated scammers like to do
early-on.**]

It sounds like you are flat-out calling them scammers.
Amazing




Jones Beene wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Esa Ruoho

they can't say why  its  overunity - who would
believe them? that's 
why they went public and are picking out a row of
skeptical scientists 
to prove once and for all if its overunity or not.
Forget all that. Can you answer the single critical
issue of self-power 
(or lack thereof) ?

If a self-powered unit exists now - where is it? -
regardless of any 
explanations/ skepticism - a self-powered unit is
all the evidence which 
in needed by anyone, skeptic or not.

Why not just call the BBC in to film it running
under self-power, while 
those supposedly skeptical scientists are debating
the underlying 
modality, which is probably related to ZPE/Casimir
in some fashion? Is 
that too much to ask from a company which is
seemingly struggling and 
dying for public recognition - and paying dearly for
much of it instead 
of putting those resources into development ?

Let me say at the outset - that magnetic overunity
[or magnets with 
coils, pendulums, or some combination of mechanical
recycling of torque 
with a magnetic boost] will probably be demonstrated
by someone next 
year - 2007 ! as there are many groups who are on
the verge now. MPI 
would be expected to have something next year and/or
Sprain in Atlanta, 
and five or six lesser and "fringier" efforts which
include Perendev, 
Minato, Torbay and Steorn etc. I would put Steorn
firmly at the tail end 
of this list, due solely to the way they have
handled the announcement - 
but a single self-running demo will immediately
change that. Not that it 
matters. Proof - not PR - is all that matters.
Self-running = Proof.
If Steorn were not so PR-oriented - and highly
desirous of every 
kind-word of public recognition - why else did they
announce this in 
such an expensive way, characteristic of a PR blitz
(or the "Czech 
Dream") ? shouldn't a company which apparently has
not paid their 
corporate licensing fees have saved the 100,000
pounds for the expensive 
advertising and just called up Oxford/Cambridge for
a private showing? 
It just does not make sense - the way they have
handled it, unless they 
have been hired to do it as a stunt of some kind.
Maybe Branson or some 
other drama-queen is hiding in there somewhere.

Apparently (or if) it is not a self-runner, then
that narrows the issue 
considerably, as **measurement error** is very
common in this type of 
device. Almost anyone here, especially the
"consultants" - if that was 
said in a derogatory fashion - could have explained
this issue of likely 
measurement-error to Steorn - and in great detail.
That is, had Steorn 
not "come out of nowhere" --- which is yet another
problem for their 
credulity. There is a community of creative but
careful scientific 
people involved heavily in this field, and no one at
Steorn was not part 
of it - prior to recently.

And look at the wasted time. Steorn has wasted
infinitely more precious 
time with mundane PR details, endless press
questioning and facility 
tours, etc then a single BBC filming would have
accomplished on day-one  
---IF---  Steorn has a device which will self-run.
If not - the most of 
us will agree that it is likely measurement error.

Skeptics who want to go on record with the "told you
so" thing should be 
focusing solely on that issue: is it self-running or
not. If it is not, 
then Steorn has a monstrous problem on their hands
and will probably 
look like fools in the end.

Plus - did not someone at Steorn actually claim that
they had a device 
self-running for an extended period, but that they
could not show it for 
some strange reason --- like it had been
disassembled to make an even 
better model !

Ha! Sounds very much like the English crank
scientist who claimed to 
have invented an anti-gravity device but he cold not
show it to the 
skeptics because his wife had inadvertently turned
it on - and it 
blasted through the roof of his home and escaped
into space ! He could 
show the hole, however.

Suspension of disbelief has its limits.

Jones

(not a Steorn skeptic yet -- just stating the
obvious inconsistencies 
with their story, and the sad way in which they have
handled what could 
be a monumental discovery, if it could be believed)

Let me repeat - This is NOT the way science - even
fringe-science is 
handled, and that is why all the suspicion is
warranted - even though 
Steorn does not yet have the "tin cup" stretched out
-- as the 
less-sophisticated scammers like to do early-on.





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr
MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Assoc
http://yahoo.degrees.info