Steorn Announces Public Demonstration of Orbo Technology

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


My goodness, this is such an inane conversation about hydro-electric dams. The original statement about this seemed to make assertions about what the source of the energy is in dams, and I rightly pointed out the true original source is the sun.

Let's talk like scientists or other highly-educated people, shall we? We all know that in any chain-reaction, there is a FIRST ORDER cause, and then there are 2nd order, 3rd order, 4th order, etc. When you look at a line of dominoes, you can see each one hitting the next one, and if you ask what knocked over the last one, you can say the previous one, but if you ask "what was the main cause of the dominoes falling?" it is certainly the finger that pushed the first one!

Why go on and on about where the energy comes from in hydro-electric dams? Both evaporation and wind are caused by the sun, and these are what lift the water droplets UP to overcome the gravity keeping them DOWN. Once they are lifted up, they are then converted to work as gravity releases the stored kinetic energy inherent in each droplet.

Imagine an apparatus with a bucket of water on the ground and a trough 10 feet in the air. There is a hose going from the bucket on the ground to the trough in the air, with an electric pump connected. Now, nine feet in the air is a water wheel with a generator attached. To make this contraption work, where do you have to apply energy? At the pump, of course. As you apply energy at the pump, it will raise the water to the upper trough, the water will run out, fall against the water wheel, turn the wheel/generator, and electricity will be generated. Along the way there is various amounts of loss due inefficiencies in the system. This is essentially hydro-electric generation, and the SUN is the pump.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Doglord

 

Sorry, but for every example you give of accidental discovery, I can cite at least, perhaps more examples of men who did dream and were looking for something particular. The fact is, John Goodyear WAS indeed looking for a way to keep rubber from melting, and he accidentally dropped a piece of rubber into the fire and discovered vulcanization.

Perhaps simple lab workers don't dream, but the great scientists/inventors, the ones who did dream and search for answers to their dreams, they are the ones who moved science forward in huge ways. Do you think that most scientists have no passions for a PARTICULAR science? Do you REALLY believe that a man who discovers a new star was not intentionally looking up towards the heavens, dreaming of finding something new? Sure, maybe he was looking for a planet and found a star, but the point is, he didn't discover a new virus because he was following his dream of being an astronomer, not a biologist. And, do you think that the inventors of electronic devices were not dreaming of discovering SOME kind of electronic device? They were not dreaming of discovering a new biological species, that's for sure. Accidentally discovering something by accident does not invalidate the original intent, and I argue that the original intent is fueled by something deeper than observation... it is fueled by a DESIRE TO SEE!

What you are failing to take into account is the component of science that is known as "inspiration", something that many of the greatest scientists talk about. Einstein dreamed of figuring out how the universe works, Edward Jenner dreamed of finding a cure to Small Pox, and I'm many early geneticists dreamed of being the one who deciphered the human genome.

Try as you may, you will NEVER succeed in neutering science, robbing it of it's soul and relegating it to the mechanical exercises of mere technical automatons. Sure, there are lab technicians, but they do not, in any stretch of the imagination, represent the kind of heart that drives the soul of science.

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the scientific method, which is a framework for learning about the universe. You can make all the soapbox speeches you want, use as much purple prose as you want, and pat yourself on the back for your "eloquent" and "stirring" words, but its nothing more than literary masturbation. Observation is the core of science and the first step in the scientific method, not "postulating", not theorizing, not dreaming and certainly not masturbating.

Originally posted by ATS23

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Majic

 

What is confusing about it? Take away water you have no hydroelectric dam. Add water you have a hydroelectric dam. Gravity plays a part as it does on everything on earth, but gravity is not the reason why hydroelectric dams work.

So to clarify gravity has its effect on everything on earth, even water, but gravity is not why hydroelectric dams work.

Uh not quite.

Take away the gravity and the water will not flow down to the turbines

Can't have a hydroelectric dam without both

My dissertation adviser always told me - "Go for the fundamentals."
So, without gravity, no rain. No adiabatic cooling when cooler, denser air displaces warmer, wetter air because of gravity.
No gravity and the rain doesn't fall to earth

Originally posted by gareth01422

See the thing is here in the UK, inventors come up with great ideas and try patent it, they draw the process out for 2 years and by the time they come to grant the pattent it has allready been copied for the big oil companys patent on the sly and then shelved. Ive seen this happen twice.

Care to name those 2 patent numbers that happened to?

No, I did not think so!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by gareth01422

See the thing is here in the UK, inventors come up with great ideas and try patent it, they draw the process out for 2 years and by the time they come to grant the pattent it has allready been copied for the big oil companys patent on the sly and then shelved. Ive seen this happen twice.

Care to name those 2 patent numbers that happened to?

No, I did not think so!

No numbers But the products were a self leveling spirit level which my farthers friend design years ago, then had it the idea stole by Do It All. and the whitworth thread.

Look for the numbers yourself, sure you could manage that.

I would rather spend my time working on ideas than trolling through patents to satify you. Do the work yourself.

Originally posted by gareth01422

and the whitworth thread.

pity that was not patented by anyone, it is a standard!

reply to post by gareth01422


You made the calim, you provide the numbers.
Making up lies isn't rocket-science.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

My goodness, this is such an inane conversation about hydro-electric dams. The original statement about this seemed to make assertions about what the source of the energy is in dams, and I rightly pointed out the true original source is the sun.

Let's talk like scientists or other highly-educated people, shall we? We all know that in any chain-reaction, there is a FIRST ORDER cause, and then there are 2nd order, 3rd order, 4th order, etc. When you look at a line of dominoes, you can see each one hitting the next one, and if you ask what knocked over the last one, you can say the previous one, but if you ask "what was the main cause of the dominoes falling?" it is certainly the finger that pushed the first one!

Why go on and on about where the energy comes from in hydro-electric dams? Both evaporation and wind are caused by the sun, and these are what lift the water droplets UP to overcome the gravity keeping them DOWN. Once they are lifted up, they are then converted to work as gravity releases the stored kinetic energy inherent in each droplet.

Imagine an apparatus with a bucket of water on the ground and a trough 10 feet in the air. There is a hose going from the bucket on the ground to the trough in the air, with an electric pump connected. Now, nine feet in the air is a water wheel with a generator attached. To make this contraption work, where do you have to apply energy? At the pump, of course. As you apply energy at the pump, it will raise the water to the upper trough, the water will run out, fall against the water wheel, turn the wheel/generator, and electricity will be generated. Along the way there is various amounts of loss due inefficiencies in the system. This is essentially hydro-electric generation, and the SUN is the pump.

Yes and is so very inefficient as the sun pumps out every second the same energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs! In one second, our sun produces enough energy for almost 500,000 years of the current needs of our so-called civilization.

That's a hell of a lot of energy to run your hydro electric dam dont you think How much energy does the dam gives us back

[edit on 16-12-2009 by wmd_2008]

They're brave... just hope the you-know-whos don't whack these guys like they usually do!

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by gareth01422

 

You made the calim, you provide the numbers.
Making up lies isn't rocket-science.

No you find them.

Lies, tell you what guys, I am a total BS artist, Please dont listen to me anymore as you can clearly see that what ever I say is just BS.

next you will be telling me gravity plays no part in hydroelectricity? OH crap weve had that one for the past 3 pages.

Anyway back to the topic, its a smokescreen.

reply to post by Doglord


I really shouldn't even give your response any credence, since it is surely fueled by a defensive tone and not any desire to understand anything but your own limited view.

As far as the use of English is concerned, I'll be happy to lower the level a bit so as to not cause you discomfort. And in case you wondered, I don't make posts ONLY in response to the one addressed, for this is a PUBLIC forum and others may indeed wish to read the "masturbation" as you call it (making them intellectual "voyeurs")...or some may actually wish to participate (and I will leave that analogy as an exercise to the imagination).

Any thinking man will clearly see that before one can observe, one must choose at least what general direction that observation will occur. This is self-evident and consistent with simple first-order reason. Any attempt to debate this is futile and counter-productive. If some "scientists" wish to do this with a "roll of the dice", that is certainly not the norm, for every scientist I know has some passionate thing he/she is trying to achieve.

That being said, however, it seems that you are indeed mistaken about "observation" being the first step of the scientific method. Here are the actual steps:

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results

So how shall one ask a question unless there is some postulate? What are the parameters of the question? What should it be about? Will any question do, or must it have some basis in PRIOR understanding, which in reality are the ASSUMPTIONS or GIVENS.

All of science begins with the following 16 basic postulates, by which higher-level postulates are formed:

Sixteen Basic Postulates of Science

1. Science is logical (utilizing the appropriate form of logic), reasonable, and rational.
2. Science makes well-defined claims based upon the best available evidence.
3. Scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.
4. Scientific experiments should be repeatable under similar circumstances.
5. Science requires that claims be examined by qualified peers.
6. Science views unexplained gaps in theories or evidence with suspicion.
7. Science requires caution both in performing experiments, and in examining and evaluating evidence.
8. Science requires efforts at objectivity, both in control of variables and of biases.
9. Science does not accept coincidence or unlinked or unproven correlations as proofs.
10. Science does not accept undocumented anecdotal evidence as good proof by itself.
11. Science demands extraordinarily good evidence for extraordinary unconventional claims.
12. Scientific favors parsimony: that the simplest adequate explanation is preferred.
13. Science assumes that the Laws of Nature are universal, if relative.
14. Science demands the honest use of the scientific method and truthful reports.
15. Science demands every effort be made to control or assess all variables.
16. Science needs the uninhibited exchange of ideas and greatest possible discourse of the material.

The Scientific Method assumes these things and indeed depends on them, so yes indeed, holding to the postulates IS the unspoken first step. These are the foundation for science itself, but each branch of science also has its own set of postulates as a starting point for inquiry.

But even before the postulates there is something that is much more fundamental, and that is the "desire to know about the universe in some particular way." You can't escape the fact that this is the first step, for without the basic curious desire, no question will be asked and no observation will be made, except perhaps in a normal casual manner.

No, in order for funding to be released so that investigations can be made, the question and consequent method of investigation must fulfill some desire on the part of the stake-holders to understand more about that particular area or topic. To deny this is to deny the whole purpose of science.

reply to post by DGFenrir


Here is the patent number, and if you care to look at the dates of filing to actually getting the patent. 2 years has past. This doesnt prove anything but then again its not a standard at all. Patent: 4237948

Gareth

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by dereks

 

dereks, please stop being ignorant... ATS is for people to practice behaviors that deny ignorance, so instead of telling us silly notions, why don't you prove that you know something besides high school science, and then come back and let's have a real conversation. Also, when you make assumptions in every statement you write it makes it hard to actually have a meaningful debate with you, so please try to limit your comments to what is truly known.

For example, you say that removing the battery will cause the thing to stop.... well if you break the circuitry, of course it will stop. And until you or I know for 100% certain why a battery was used instead of a capacitor, it is pure conjecture, so why don't you just admit that you DON'T HAVE AN OPEN MIND, and that any conversation with you is like trying to convince the Pope that Jesus didn't exist.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

If the device was putting more energy into the battery than what it drains, then *necessarily* one could bypass the battery with a capacitor large enough, then remove the battery. Or one could bypass the battery with a discharged battery, then remove it with a few hours later with a net charge and repeat.

-rrr

reply to post by downisreallyup


You just love to read your own words don't you?

None of what you said there, except for maybe 10% was actually relevant to the conversation. So Ill address that little bit, and just ignore all the self aggrandizing rhetoric designed to make you feel smart OK?

"ask a question" nope.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

physics.ucr.edu...

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

teacher.pas.rochester.edu...

Now I figure your probably just going to respond with another 4000 characters worth of blah blah blah, so Ill just stop here. Feel free to keep posting though, I wouldn't want to take away the massive sense of satisfaction you get from posting irrelevant dribble that doesn't actually say anything.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Majic

 

Like I said, the SOURCE of energy for hydro power is the SUN. The sun is the SOURCE of the power because without the sun, there would be no evaporation, and without that, the rivers would run dry, and no more hydro-pressure. So, the main source of the energy (heat) is the sun. Everything else is just a storage and conversion of that energy into other forms.

But the main point in all this is that WE ARE NOT TALKING about getting energy from no where. We are talking about getting the energy from the vast amount that resides in the air around you, and indeed all of space.

How many times must this be said?


[edit on 16-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

Actually, if we want to get super anal about it, (and apparently we are already going down that road) the ultimate source of energy for the sun is the big bang, because all energy was created in that instant.

But hopefully it's pretty obvious to anyone a pedantic statement on my part done in sarcasm

-rrr

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
It isn't possible to take more energy out of a system than you put in. It is a simple observation that is totally logical and true. Sorry guys, but the best chance for new energy technology is being able to convert a unit of matter to its equal counterpart unit of energy. 100% conversion to energy so that the mass/energy conservation law is satisfied.

Explain the return on a solar panel. It takes a certain amount of energy to build and maintain a solar panel, however, over the lifetime of the panel, you will receive MANY times more energy than you put into it. Granted, not all at once, but I just wanted to show that blanket statements don't normally hold water...

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by downisreallyup
For example, you say that removing the battery will cause the thing to stop.... well if you break the circuitry, of course it will stop. And until you or I know for 100% certain why a battery was used instead of a capacitor, it is pure conjecture, so why don't you just admit that you DON'T HAVE AN OPEN MIND, and that any conversation with you is like trying to convince the Pope that Jesus didn't exist.

Well this is just a hunch, but John Bedini has stated several times, that a battery is much more effective at accepting radiant energy than a capacitor, which is why a lot of his setups use batteries. I could imagine that if you had a bat/cap or capacitor with electrolyte, you could possible see some of that effect. What needs to be done is testing, which unfortunately most people don't even bother. I have built Bedini motors, and I think this Steorn device shown, is probably very similar.

This is a Bedini/cole variation which has been on the same batteries for years.

video.google.com...#

This one uses just uses a capacitor.. This motor is open source btw, so anyone can get the schematic and test it..For those saying they're putting their money where their mouth is, built it..

video.google.com...#

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Freezer]

You know... I suspect that the bedini motor just may work..... there is an electric field of about 7 hz all around earth. So if it was picking this field up and converting it to energy that would mean it works, So I put it in the plausible bin.

It *would* take some big ass coils to pick it up in any substantial amounts.

However, if this is the case, then some bedini motors would work and some would not, and it depends on the speed for which they are designed. Those that have an RPM that is a multiple of this field's rate (or exactly the same) would tend to work better.

The excessively large coils shown on that video led me to this hypothesis.....

For the record, I am a skeptic of ZPE, but I know one can get small amounts of energy from electric fields around us, so, sure, I can believe that a perpetual motion machine could harness those fields to supplement its own friction losses, but probably not more energy than that.

Any thoughts?

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr


Well, the so-called "big bang" is not by any means proven, so it is a theory in every sense of the word. The sun however does seem to be REAL

reply to post by Doglord


Only one more post on this subject of the scientific method, and that will be it for me. You may think that I am just writing in order to write, but I am not. I have all along been trying to get you to discuss this matter on a deeper, more philosophical level, much like advanced thinkers would do, but I can see that you are content with promulgating a more sterile view of things. The fact is, there have been MANY scientific methods and ideas for nearly 1000 years, but according to you, that is neither here nor there.

As one final note regarding all this, I quote a portion from the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject:

Thomas Samuel Kuhn examined the history of science in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and found that the actual method used by scientists differed dramatically from the then-espoused method. His observations of science practice are essentially sociological and do not speak to how science is or can be practiced in other times and other cultures.

Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn have done extensive work on the "theory laden" character of observation. Kuhn (1961) said the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that the "route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward". This implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961, p. 166) to argue that "once it has been adopted by a profession ... no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed".

Paul Feyerabend similarly examined the history of science, and was led to deny that science is genuinely a methodological process. In his book Against Method he argues that scientific progress is not the result of applying any particular method. In essence, he says that "anything goes", by which he meant that for any specific methodology or norm of science, successful science has been done in violation of it. Criticisms such as his led to the strong programme, a radical approach to the sociology of science.

In his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally. He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science - that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method.

Source

You are certainly free to see things how you wish, and I will also exercise that liberty for myself, and that is one thing I'm sure we can agree on... that we are fortunate to be able to have that liberty of conscience and thought, since not everyone in the past has always enjoyed the same.

Peace!

reply to post by rickyrrr


Well, the way I think the Bedini motor works, is utilizing radiant energy, which some call the zero point, and many other names. Bedini has said that current kills radiant, so when you push current through, the radiant is gone. So the monopole uses pulses, or high voltage spikes, and in between the radiant appears. I think this is why that guy who first threw the switch for tesla's generator was fried. Before the current came, there was the radiant. I think it was at that moment tesla realized what he had.

As far as harnessing the schumann resonance, I'm not sure. Look at this link. We don't always need something huge. Boyd Bushman alluded to something like this, which he said acts like a virtual lens.

amasci.com...