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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 01/15/2010 06:05 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: >> >> >> >> >> ----- 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? > > 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. >> > >
