It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remember that Irish company claiming they had developed free energy?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I'm keeping my professional skepticism on this one.

I don't know wether it does or does not work, but I will accept either result once proven. I suggest the rest of us do the same.




posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Tomorrow is Friday the 13th, unveiling day. It almost seems like a viral marketing thing or something like a penny stock run-up... they (Sean McCarthy et al) do have a patent at the European Patent Office. Then again there are lots of useless "junk" patents... The Guardian did chew on them pretty good about a year or so ago...

Patent link:
v3.espacenet.com...

As was said by others "I'll dance in the streets" if true... but I doubt it. That First Law of Thermodynamics comes from a pretty high court that demands proof.

I suppose we will find out at some point, perhaps zero.

Vic



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I've been talking with some family about this and it's just not registering. God bless their simple minds, I had to laugh. A world with free energy in it changes a lot in the 'why' we do things. You would be able to build just about anything you could think of yourself given the know how (since you would have the free power to get it off the ground) and your existence would be largely self sustaining. A world of engineers. True sovereigns. Cleaned water, hydroponically grown food, heating, shelter, transportation, communication, weaponry, etc. The reason to leave your created home eventually becomes minimal. What would be the point of a 9-5? Who would bow down to a government body outside of the realm of settling disputes if one could provide oneself with just about everything they want and anything they need? This kind of paradigm shift leaves most of the world's merchants and bullies in the cold at some point. It's the greedy and wicked's WORST NIGHTMARE. I couldn't see the old buggers laying down for Steorn if they really have something. Look at the response when one person publicly declares they're going to stop giving taxes to these monsters (i.e. unplug themselves from the matrix), they send everyone but the UN after you! It's the fury of a thousand suns! Could you imagine how the elite would react to their fiat currency empire being threatened on a large scale by the masses running to free energy?

[edit on 13-4-2007 by massexodus]



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Welp, the clip is out, and according to Steorn, we'll be seeing a demo in July, live in London if you're there, and on the net if you're not.

Again, I'd love to believe it. I have a pair of street dancing shoes ready. But it's just sort of tough to stomach.

Hell, I might combine a go-see-the-inlaws/grandparents trip with a go-see-the-demo trip. I wonder how hard it will be to get in.



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
If it turns out to be "285% efficient" and affordable. SEASPOWER will be in a bad way. I hope Orbo is revolutionary and not all spin. I await the overturning of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. I wonder if they can keep the ball spinning until then... or whether they'll push it back further? Ramp up the investment interest? Hmmm.

Vic



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
They have released a Q1 update in video form. You can see it on You-Tube here: www.youtube.com...

They also released some "technical specifications". But these weren't much (I suppose they want to keep a tight wrap on the tech until the jury members have validated it).

In summary - it is a magneto-mechanical device, that uses time-variant interactions to generate energy. And the amount of energy, well they have the figure of 0.5W/cm^3

However they also have said that is for V1.0 of the tech, they are currently working on V2.0 of the tech and say that this gives a "significant" improvement.

The 0.5W/cm^3 is for a device including an electrical generator - as the output of the device is actually mechanical.

I'd give you links - but it looks like the Steorn site is down at the moment - possibly due to being hit by lots of visitors.


Oh. As for investment - they have said, until validation - all offers of investment will be refused.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by win 52
Physics and Science are based on known data.

They must constantly evolve as new discoveries are made.

There is so much on this planet alone that we don't have known data about, let alone the universe, one has no choice but to think physics and science is a shaky position to stand on, at best.

To me, Scientifically proven is only a position to start from, not by any means a final position to take. This is true of the past and has not changed.


I'd have to agree with Win here. Most learned scientists have stated publicly that all theories are eventually proven wrong. I'm of the opinion that there is alot more energy in this "." than in the gas tank of my car. I simply don't know how to harness it. Yet.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
There is a new video of Sean Mcarthy giving a lecture on this free energy claim or device. I haven't watched it yet though. Just do a search on Youtube for Steorn Lecture or go here. youtube.com...

There are a few parts to it.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Here are some videos of interest:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

These are the concepts steorn is based upon.
There is more if you google.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
All- Update.

Steorn are demonstrating their new free energy technology to the media and the general public .

The demonstration will begin in the first week of July 2007 somewhere in London, UK.

The announcement of the location and start date will be made on the start date itself.

The demo will run for 10 days.

There will be a 24/7 streaming webcam on the device(s) at all times accessible from the Steorn website (www.steorn.com)



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keeval

The demonstration will begin in the first week of July 2007 somewhere in London, UK.

The announcement of the location and start date will be made on the start date itself.

The demo will run for 10 days.


I've already made a pitch to Springer that Simon ought to attend on behalf of ATS.

Just in case it actually works, I also recommend that Simon wear his bullet-proof undies and practice doing the shoulder-tuck roll under tables.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Just an FYI on this. There is supposed to be a public demonstration going on at the Kinetica museum soon. This week I believe.

I haven't been able to get much from the Steorn website or the Museum's website, but there are apparently a lot of people on the forums going. Anyone from ATS in the area to stop and take a look?

Steorn Discussion Board

Kinetica Museum Website



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Sometimes I am truly amazed at people. It seems that the human race is just about as dumb as rocks, once their mind is made up.

Now I have no way of knowing how this test will turn out. I hope it works, because I can bet you that even if it's years before we can really start using the technology, the price of oil will drop like a rock, and the need to fight over it will cease to prompt so much conflict.

But the amazing thing is everyone jumping on this idea not working because there is no such thing as "free energy". What the hell are you talking about? If you put up a windmill, is that free energy? If you put a turbine in a river, is that free energy?

The way some of you discuss this it seems like you think everything gotten out has to be put in by the person using it. So to get hydro electric we would all need to stand at the headwaters of that river with a cold Bud in one hand and you-know-what in the other creating this river.

The use of magnets, provided this works, would be just like using gravity which is making a river flow. What damn violation is there? You don't need to re-write anything. All you need to do is amp up your monkey brain to include the existing power grid that is part of the universe.

Now is using this power drawing down on the overall power in the universe? Most likely. But such considerations haven't stopped us from using fossil fuels. Considering how vast the universe is, and how pervasive this energy grid would be, then everything we could use from it in the next 50,000 years might knock ten seconds off of the lifespan of the cosmos.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

ngc2736:
All you need to do is amp up your monkey brain to include the existing power grid that is part of the universe.
Ok, here goes NGC! Would this grid be generated by the earth? Solar system? Galaxy? Universe? Could you tap into it anywhere? What does it look like? What type of energy is it? After years of being told it isn't there it is hard to conceptualize!



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Wow, everyone wants free energy, but no one is intrested in doing a little research for it...
Free energy has been on the net for sometime now,.

400 years of Free Magnetic Energy

Endless Free Hydrogen

Anti-Gravity



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Sometimes I am truly amazed at people. It seems that the human race is just about as dumb as rocks, once their mind is made up.

Now I have no way of knowing how this test will turn out. I hope it works, because I can bet you that even if it's years before we can really start using the technology, the price of oil will drop like a rock, and the need to fight over it will cease to prompt so much conflict.


Yeah, baby, which is why you should be taking the short side on some energy options, just in case.




But the amazing thing is everyone jumping on this idea not working because there is no such thing as "free energy". What the hell are you talking about? If you put up a windmill, is that free energy?

If you put a turbine in a river, is that free energy?


It's free in the sense that you didn't pay a utility for it. It's not free in the sense that it comes from nowhere. In both cases, you're tapping the energy of the Sun.



The way some of you discuss this it seems like you think everything gotten out has to be put in by the person using it. So to get hydro electric we would all need to stand at the headwaters of that river with a cold Bud in one hand and you-know-what in the other creating this river.

The use of magnets, provided this works, would be just like using gravity which is making a river flow. What damn violation is there?


Actually, while gravity makes the river flow, it's solar energy that's putting the water into the river upstream in the form of rainfall. The energy you're taking out is coming from the Sun, however indirectly.

The use of magnets is like having the river run in a big circle on the ground, with a waterfall in the middle somewhere. Wouldn't you think that odd, if you saw it?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Tom, I have no way of knowing, but the idea I got from reading in this area is that the energy is there, and "moving" in some way. and it does these things no matter if we tap into it or not.

When you look at something that seems to be universal, in essence that mass "warps" the fabric of space and we are right now near a large mass, then the energy released or caused by that "warping" is there no matter if we do anything with it or not.

Maybe gravity is the fabric of the universe straining against the mass of the bodies in the universe. But if that energy is there, then there would be no violation of any law to tap into it.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Tom, I have no way of knowing, but the idea I got from reading in this area is that the energy is there, and "moving" in some way. and it does these things no matter if we tap into it or not.


I know a lot of people talk about this, but its also apparent that a lot of those have no scientific background either. As someone said upthread "What sort of energy?"

Newton et al aren't really just saying it to be mean, there's a lot of really solid theory that came about basically by applying the assumption that you can't get something for nothing to another theoretical framework. Theory that generates predictions that work, at least in the systems they're tested in.



When you look at something that seems to be universal, in essence that mass "warps" the fabric of space and we are right now near a large mass, then the energy released or caused by that "warping" is there no matter if we do anything with it or not.


But it's not really energy in that sense, thus my example with a river running in a circle with a waterfall in the middle. You have to get the water uphill somehow in order to have a waterfall. You'll find that the energy it takes to put the water back to the top of the fall is equal to that you gain by the water going over the fall, minus the parasitic losses such as the friction with the river bed.

The gravity field of the Earth can thus be used for storage, but not as an energy source per se.



Maybe gravity is the fabric of the universe straining against the mass of the bodies in the universe. But if that energy is there, then there would be no violation of any law to tap into it.


The problem is that it ISN'T there, though. It's like a spring in a way, yes, springs can do work when they expand. But you don't have an endless supply of compressed springs. You have to recompress them, which will take as much energy as you got out and then some.

With gravity, once something's fallen to earth, you've gotten all the potential energy there was. In order to do that again, you have to raise the mass again, which requires as much energy as you got, and then some.

What you could hope for in the case of Steorn is that there is some facet of this that everyone's missed, a "but not under these conditions" that has been overlooked.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Tom, I agree. All I'm saying is that the laws of physics that we have now are not the end of all laws and adjustments.

As you may have guessed, I'm not a scientist. But it is fairly obvious from history that we need to question facts. And that even long standing facts are subject to change and refinement.

It is not good for progress when every new idea is shouted down with old facts before it has a chance to be tested.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Tom, I agree. All I'm saying is that the laws of physics that we have now are not the end of all laws and adjustments.

As you may have guessed, I'm not a scientist. But it is fairly obvious from history that we need to question facts. And that even long standing facts are subject to change and refinement.

It is not good for progress when every new idea is shouted down with old facts before it has a chance to be tested.


On the other hand, it's most likely also a waste of time going over ground that's been pretty thoroughly examined. Part of science is that you want to develop as good a foundation as you can - conservation of energy is one that's been rehashed constantly since Newton wrote the Principia, and just tons of other theories are based on it, and they seem to be pretty solid too.

So when someone comes up with yet another perpetuum mobile, the reason you see serious scientists not even bother reading it is because millions of people have said that before, and so far it's not happened. Being open-minded as a discipline is necessary, but you also have to balance it with efficiency - if you constantly had to retest every foundation assumption over and over and over you'd never make any progress. Yes, the next time I do a sum, I might suddenly find the magic combination of numbers that violate the commutative law. But number theory says no, and no one's ever found an example, so I don't really think about whether it might be true or not.

Not to say that if someone makes a really good case, Steorn for example, it wouldn't be great fun to look at it. And I'd love it to be true - then you would have to figure out what was wrong and how to account for it.

In the case of quantum theory, there were holes in classical theory that everyone knew were there, but no one could explain, mainly with the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' issue.

In the case of conservation of energy, I don't know of a lot of holes. Some head-scratchers, but no black-body radiation level issues.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join