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.

 

Steorn's Orbo "free-energy" machine demonstrated!

page: 13
68
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
BBC news article about steorn fiasco:
news.bbc.co.uk...

You can see the 'Orbo' clearly in the second pic. Its 8 cylindrical magnets (slanted) on the stator and 4 tiny button magnets on the rotor's rim (thats clear from another pic at freeenergy blog). Pretty simple.

If you think of those slanted magnets are water jets, forcing water out in one direction, you can see that it CAN push the wheel forever in one direction. But I'm not so sure....

Magnetic fields can be seen as jets of Aether blowing out of a magnet's pole (and returning back via the other side which is low 'pressure'). The electrons spinning in the metal can be seen as little pumps, pumping the Aether forward. Picture them as little twisters in the vast atmosphere of Aether.




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
"that is a damming indictment of this technologies durability / reliability / portability and flexibility . "

they created a version of the machine that is made clear so observers can see there is no battery or any other power source.

They should have had an actual model along with the clear one, maybe the real would have worked????



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
What a waste of time and energy and still no real demonstration - lots of free publicity though - hhhmmmmmmmmmm.

Con or Yawn?

Con.

Standard boring degaussing device anyway.....................



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
BBC news article about steorn fiasco:
news.bbc.co.uk...

You can see the 'Orbo' clearly in the second pic. Its 8 cylindrical magnets (slanted) on the stator and 4 tiny button magnets on the rotor's rim (thats clear from another pic at freeenergy blog). Pretty simple.
Well, they've reinvented the magnetic motor then? They'll be in for a rude awakening when they figure out that even "permanent" magnets lose their magnetism. So then you'll have to replace them. And the cost of the magnets will certainly be higher than the value of any energy the device may produce.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
When did anyone ever get more out than they put in?


Originally posted by omelette
As for "You can't get more out than what you put in" - that's what mainstream science has been feeding us since year dot, personally I don't believe it.

Does your own personal experience tell you any different? Have you, for instance, ever managed to pour more liquid out of a cup than was in it in the first place? Have you ever come home from the supermarket to find more groceries in the bag than you remembered checking out?

What about other thread participants? Come on now, tell us. You needn't be shy. What real-life, everyday experience makes you think 'something from nothing' is possible?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Well, they've reinvented the magnetic motor then? They'll be in for a rude awakening when they figure out that even "permanent" magnets lose their magnetism. So then you'll have to replace them. And the cost of the magnets will certainly be higher than the value of any energy the device may produce.


If their claim is legitimate, I assume they would have taken this into account, for if they did not they would be fools. I would assume that they found a way to make some of the energy generated go back in to charging the magnets.

But the more I keep thinking about this device, the more I am realizing that it is probably a farce. And that is sad, really, because they did have good implications for its use -- you know, energy sources for developing nations, to better humanity, etc.

Unless Mr. McCarthy publishes some diagrams on the internet for all of us to see, or show us some video evidence of the device working for prolonged periods of time, how can he expect anyone not to challenge the validity of his claims?

[edit on 7/10/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Does your own personal experience tell you any different? Have you, for instance, ever managed to pour more liquid out of a cup than was in it in the first place? Have you ever come home from the supermarket to find more groceries in the bag than you remembered checking out?

What about other thread participants? Come on now, tell us. You needn't be shy. What real-life, everyday experience makes you think 'something from nothing' is possible?

Well, before Tom Bedlam pointed out that 'tapping' useable power from HV lines was impossible, I would have answered NO. But having seen with my own eyes exactly that, I'm not sure now.

I'm curious as to why you only picked up on what is stated to be a personal view but ignored the rest of the post - you are looking for 'hard evidence' are you not?

Again, how is it that there are so many devices successfully patented that are clearly in voilation of physical laws? Are the Patent Officials throughout the world really that incompetent? A little research will show you that any invention that has ever even hinted at being a 'Perpetual motion machine' is immediately rejected. Phrase it so that PMM principles are not in evidence AND have a device that does what it claims and you will usually get your patent, though often not without a struggle. The Johnson motor for instance was initially rejected outright as a PMM device. It was only on appeal and with the aid of several simplified models that he was granted his patent - with the evidence of the Patant Officials own eyes.

Hell, you do not even have to concentrate on 'impossible' devices to realise that something sinister is going on here. There have been at least half a dozen carburettors patented successfully in the past 75 years that claim to improve engine mileage by at least 50% - not one of them has been allowed to be marketed. There are also many vastly more efficient engine designs available but we are still chugging along in 100 year old technology which is huglely in-efficient.

The Tesla Turbine is nearly this old and is superior in every respect - stronger, lighter, simpler to build, cheaper, more reliable and can use a wide variety of fuels as a power source - and yes, I know this is a pump, but it can be easily adapted to run as an engine.

So where are all these, if not 'impossible', at least vastly superior technologies?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by omelette

Again, how is it that there are so many devices successfully patented that are clearly in voilation of physical laws? Are the Patent Officials throughout the world really that incompetent?


That answer is a resounding YES. Especially on technical issues. Companies sail patents through that as far as I can tell are very arcane geek jokes. Others are just technically incorrect. That doesn't keep them from being patentable. A good examiner (there are some) may keep the more untenable ones from going through but in a lot of cases if you make it sufficiently obtuse they apparently don't notice.

I'd give you examples of the geek joke sort but no one would understand it. Maybe DragonDemesne.

It's actually a real problem, some companies are using obfuscation to sail incredibly broad claims past the examiners, afterwards you have to fight it in court, very expensive.

Also, in at least some of the examples you gave, MEG is one, the patent filer is not trying to patent the perpetual motion bits, they're trying to patent the other aspects of the thing in order to gain some minor amount of protection.

The examiners are looking for gross similarities to other patents, mostly. The first round of claim rejections are generally amusing in their inaccuracy. You have to argue a lot of stuff where you have to explain very basic physics to the examiners.

Then there's the "other stuff" that will net you a referral to the "special board of examiners". Those guys tend to be a lot more competent. So if your patent is for, say, a new and more efficient way to make organophosphates, you'll get a better class of examiner.



A little research will show you that any invention that has ever even hinted at being a 'Perpetual motion machine' is immediately rejected. Phrase it so that PMM principles are not in evidence ...


Well, that doesn't really seem to support your argument but it's true, as I said. Remove the PMM aspects and obfuscate. So as you point out yourself, you can fool the examiner.



Hell, you do not even have to concentrate on 'impossible' devices to realise that something sinister is going on here...not one of them has been allowed to be marketed.


In some cases it's not enough of an improvement to retool the engine/transmission production lines for it. In others the designs aren't dependable. Some have emissions or safety issues. And some of them don't work as well as the inventors thought. The existence of a patent doesn't mean it works.



The Tesla Turbine is nearly this old and is superior in every respect - stronger, lighter, simpler to build, cheaper, more reliable and can use a wide variety of fuels as a power source - and yes, I know this is a pump, but it can be easily adapted to run as an engine.


When the Tesla turbine was patentable, no one could build one - the metallurgy of the time wasn't up to it. Now that they can be built to run at efficient temperatures, they aren't patentable. That's part of it I'd suspect. Also what do you intend to power with it? It's a turbine. They're not all that adaptable to stop-and-go driving unless you run a generator with it.



So where are all these, if not 'impossible', at least vastly superior technologies?


You typed your post on one.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
...They'll be in for a rude awakening when they figure out that even "permanent" magnets lose their magnetism. So then you'll have to replace them. And the cost of the magnets will certainly be higher than the value of any energy the device may produce.


I really don't think this is a valid argument. True, magnets do weaken but from what I read somewhere, quality Neodymium magnets lose about 1% field strength every 10 years. Even if this causes the device to stop working, you are after getting ten years of free energy from it.

Nobody expects to be able to get a refund on a new car 10 years down the line on the grounds that its condition has deteriorated!



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
BBC news article about steorn fiasco:
news.bbc.co.uk...

You can see the 'Orbo' clearly in the second pic. Its 8 cylindrical magnets (slanted) on the stator and 4 tiny button magnets on the rotor's rim (thats clear from another pic at freeenergy blog). Pretty simple.


you can clearly see the object that the orbo device would have powered. what you are looking at in that picture isn't the orbo device itself.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by omelette
I really don't think this is a valid argument. True, magnets do weaken but from what I read somewhere, quality Neodymium magnets lose about 1% field strength every 10 years. Even if this causes the device to stop working, you are after getting ten years of free energy from it.

Neodymium magnets loose 1% field strength every 10 years... in the absence of an external magnetic field (the 1% comes from interaction with the Earth's magnetic field). If you take two neodymium magnets and move them back and forth over each other, as would happen in a magnetic motor, they loose their magnetism much, much quicker. The interaction of the magnetic fields rearranges the magnetic domains in the magnets. Eventually, they will average out such that both magnets will become demagnetized. This will be much, much quicker than a neodymium magnet that's just sitting by itself.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by omelette

Again, how is it that there are so many devices successfully patented that are clearly in voilation of physical laws? Are the Patent Officials throughout the world really that incompetent?


That answer is a resounding YES...


Well, if this is the case then it's beyond sad. True, some rediculous patents are granted (the MS double-click springs to mind) but given a choice of believing that either all Patents Offices are staffed by imbeciles or that the rich-and-powerful are doing and will continue to do everything in their power to become even more so, I choose the latter.



Also, in at least some of the examples you gave, MEG is one, the patent filer is not trying to patent the perpetual motion bits, they're trying to patent the other aspects of the thing in order to gain some minor amount of protection.


I am sure you are aware of Tom Bearden and his philosophies - free-energy etc. As I alluded to already, he knows that had he tried patenting the PMM aspects, his application would have immediately been rejected. So the only option is to patent other aspects.



In some cases it's not enough of an improvement to retool the engine/transmission production lines for it. In others the designs aren't dependable. Some have emissions or safety issues. And some of them don't work as well as the inventors thought. The existence of a patent doesn't mean it works.


So, are you saying that if I was to come out with a carburettor design tomorrow that was 500% more efficient that Exxon etc. would rush to nominate me for a Nobel Prize? I do not believe that any impartial observer would believe that. The Fish carburetor was one that managed to get manufactured and available by Post only to find that the post office wouldn't deliver them (if memory serves!).



When the Tesla turbine was patentable, no one could build one - the metallurgy of the time wasn't up to it. Now that they can be built to run at efficient temperatures, they aren't patentable.


This part confuses me. Wouldn't the fact that the patent has expired be even more of an incentive to develop these?



Also what do you intend to power with it? It's a turbine. They're not all that adaptable to stop-and-go driving unless you run a generator with it.


No less than Tesla himself believed that it would replace the internal combustion engine. Who am I to doubt him...



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by omelette
I really don't think this is a valid argument. True, magnets do weaken but from what I read somewhere, quality Neodymium magnets lose about 1% field strength every 10 years. Even if this causes the device to stop working, you are after getting ten years of free energy from it.

Neodymium magnets loose 1% field strength every 10 years... in the absence of an external magnetic field (the 1% comes from interaction with the Earth's magnetic field). If you take two neodymium magnets and move them back and forth over each other, as would happen in a magnetic motor, they loose their magnetism much, much quicker. The interaction of the magnetic fields rearranges the magnetic domains in the magnets. Eventually, they will average out such that both magnets will become demagnetized. This will be much, much quicker than a neodymium magnet that's just sitting by itself.


If this is indeed true then it would be a real impediment to making Perpetual Motion machines viable (ignoring feasability itself for the moment). However I must admit that I have not seen this written before so if you have a link to support this, it would be appreciated. Nevertheless, I shall try to track it down myself.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

What about other thread participants? Come on now, tell us. You needn't be shy. What real-life, everyday experience makes you think 'something from nothing' is possible?


You've never been married, have you?


And it seems safe that you have never changed a diaper.


Even in the "real world" there are times........



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by omelette
...but given a choice of believing that either all Patents Offices are staffed by imbeciles or that the rich-and-powerful are doing and will continue to do everything in their power to become even more so, I choose the latter.


But what I'm saying is that a lot of stupid patents are granted, not that some evil examiners are denying them. A lot fewer patents should be granted than are, based on my limited experience with the sort of crap the examiners use in the first round of denials on our patents.

When Hitachi can patent two D flip-flops as a synchronizer in the mid 80's, the examiners don't know what they're looking at. Grant you, it was a very masterpiece of bullcrap. But it was a stock synchronizer found in every digital design class.

In a similar way, TI tried to re-patent the concept of DMA (and got it!) in the late 80's using a combination patent trick - their claim was that they were patenting the concept of direct memory access, but only when used in conjunction with a processor and memory. As I say, if you're not a designer you won't have that "WTF!?" reaction. But trust me, it's as bogus as trying to patent corn flakes, but only when served in a bowl with milk. To the best of my knowledge, TI was never stupid enough to try enforcing it. But it's the sort of dreck you patent in order to use for trading cards with other companies.

Getting a patent is not that tough if you've actually got a decent idea. I don't think there are a bunch of Rockefellers on the patent examination board stealing carburetor patents.

At any rate, there's no way they can keep you from marketing a patent either, one of your examples was that all these things you name were patented and then somehow prevented from being sold. The patent board has diddly to do with that.

The only time that happens at all is if you get a 35USC181 citation, which is a totally different animal. You wouldn't for a carburetor.



I am sure you are aware of Tom Bearden and his philosophies - free-energy etc. As I alluded to already, he knows that had he tried patenting the PMM aspects, his application would have immediately been rejected. So the only option is to patent other aspects.


Yeah, I actually know him somewhat, he lives in a big red brick house at the end of Big Cove Road in Huntsville. It's more of a friend-of-a-friend thing, we had lunch some years ago when we used to be out of Huntsville.

I'm not sure I believe that the MEG really works. A lot of these gadgets that supposedly produce free energy but can't be looped are really an example of mis-measurement. It can be extremely difficult to measure actual power when you've got a lot of reactance and weird-arsed pulse waveforms.




So, are you saying that if I was to come out with a carburettor design tomorrow that was 500% more efficient that Exxon etc. would rush to nominate me for a Nobel Prize? I do not believe that any impartial observer would believe that. The Fish carburetor was one that managed to get manufactured and available by Post only to find that the post office wouldn't deliver them (if memory serves!).


What I'm saying is that if you made one that was 10% more efficient but cost 2x, no one would buy it. Exxon can't keep you from selling anything. Wasn't the Fish story (pun intended) related to him running into postal fraud issues?

If you said you had a carburetor that was so efficient that it violated thermodynamics, I wouldn't believe you, but a lot of other people might be taken in. I don't recall the name of the thing, but someone was selling magic symbols you could stick to your gas tank which supposedly got you better mileage. People actually paid hundreds of bucks for them. Sad.



This part confuses me. Wouldn't the fact that the patent has expired be even more of an incentive to develop these?


You can't patent it. You can patent any updates you make.




No less than Tesla himself believed that it would replace the internal combustion engine. Who am I to doubt him...



Has it?

Tesla believed a lot of stuff that wasn't true. He believed he could build the turbine with the metallurgy of his day, that didn't work. He also believed it was beneficial to bombard your brain with massive doses of x-rays too, but that may have actually contributed to his dementia at the end.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
You've never been married, have you?


And it seems safe that you have never changed a diaper.

I have indeed been married.

I don't believe I've ever changed a 'diaper', as you call it. We used a different word.

So you believe a baby is 'something from nothing'. You're ignoring all the mass and energy inputs, so presumably you're talking about a 'soul' or something of that kind.

I don't do souls.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by justyc

you can clearly see the object that the orbo device would have powered. what you are looking at in that picture isn't the orbo device itself.


How do you know?
Do you have some inside info? Lets know



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
If they are really playing the magnet game, I'm sorry folks - no "free energy".... Why:

Friction (bearings and air). To get rid of either takes energy and likely far more than they will get out. Can magnets make a wheel go round - sure - for a while, and then that darn second law keeps coming back to bite you. Magnets also lose energy over time - there is no free lunch there and I'm pretty certain nobody has ever gotten one to re-magnetize itself magically....

At best they've been able to rearrange the fields to either provide some level of feedback or to simply maximize the run time. But as they say, the jury is still out....



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
One of the things I find fascinating about this thread is all of the conjecture on free energy. As far as I know, oil used to be practically free. There was a time in the past when the powers that be thought that oil would last eternally. Of course, we now know that that's not true, peak oil and all. The problem with free energy is, it will never exist. Why? Because in order for the free market economy to function, industrialists, entrepreneurs, business men and pretty much everyone else in society needs to make money, needs to earn a living and that means bottling everything up, putting a label on it in advertising on TV and making damn sure that Billy Bob and Betty Sue go out and buy this stuff. It's called capitalism. Not trying to be glib here, just trying to make to point. Frankly, when you add up all the pluses and minuses, it makes perfect sense that nothing should be 100% free, otherwise no one earns a living. (I can already hear the typing from the keyboards of the anarchists. Please don't hurt me, I'm just discussing this, not making the rules.) But do you guys get what I'm saying?

If at one point in history oil was ostensibly free, and now is strangling our economy, and we know that history repeats itself, does it not stand to reason that today's free energy may just become tomorrow's burden as well?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain

Originally posted by justyc

you can clearly see the object that the orbo device would have powered. what you are looking at in that picture isn't the orbo device itself.


How do you know?
Do you have some inside info? Lets know


i seem to remember seeing a picture of the device somewhere several weeks ago.

also, at the 3pm q&a session they stated that the device was elsewhere being repaired and the object in that picture was still in the room so therefore it isn't the orbo device



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join