----- Original Message ----
> From: William Beaty <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> 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.
