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 Announces Public Demonstration of Orbo Technology

page: 14
83
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
however, over the lifetime of the panel, you will receive MANY times more energy than you put into it.


So you think if you make a solar panel, then keep it in a cupboard it will work and eventually put out more energy than it took to make it....?




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


There's an old scientific law I live by - If it looks like BS and smells like BS - its usually BS...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Wow, I thought this technology was amazing to watch.

Regardless of the jury of engineer's comments. I thought the concept was brilliant.

Using a little bit of energy like a battery to power the magnetic rotor and then harnessing the energy from the rotor to create further and more efficient energy.

Could this be the engine concept of our spinning flying saucers? The electrical power could be from our own atmosphere especially during thunderstorms; like jump-starting a car battery, once it's going the saucers can harness energy from it's dynamo magnetic motor and continue running entirely and providing almost unlimited source of energy to its thrusters. I just can't help thinking about linking the LHC, Magnets to UFOs. Is it possible?

If there are any engineers on this site, I would welcome your thoughts on this subject.

Kindest regards,
E.T



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
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.

Ahh of course, I just haven't been as "advanced" or thought as "deeply"as you have. Well you're right in a way because I couldn't possibly wade as "deeply" into a river of self-indulgent #e as you do without a mighty good pair of hip-waders, and I simply don't have available at the moment.




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.

No, there's pretty much been the one.



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


Hmm didn't you mention something about wiki?


Originally posted by downisreallyup
I am thinking and talking at a much deeper and more philosophical level than you are, for you are merely quoting what anyone can look up on Wikipedia.


Ahh So in other words you are thinking too deeply to need or use wikipedia, except when you use wikipedia.






Downisreallyup = writes a lot, says little.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
People that bash WIKI don't know how to read sources and their opinions should be considered suspect.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
now it is running on a battery! so we have a free energy machine that runs on a battery....


Although I am highly skeptical of the machine, the fact that it uses a battery is irrelevant. If it is producing more energy then it is using then, then the battery is being used to start and maintain the reaction and being continuously recharged by it. You need a match to start a fire.

What would be the point of "free energy" if you did not use something to store that energy? Think about how a car works - it's recharging its own battery using the alternator while you drive it. If your battery dies for good while you're driving, the engine will stall because it needs the battery to maintain the reaction.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by grahag
however, over the lifetime of the panel, you will receive MANY times more energy than you put into it.


So you think if you make a solar panel, then keep it in a cupboard it will work and eventually put out more energy than it took to make it....?


This machine has absolutely nothing to do with solar power. Solar panels don't put out more power than they take in from the sun. They are favored, however, because you don't have to pay money to keep the sun burning. Why would you buy a solar panel and keep it in the dark? That's like discounting the value of the internal combustion engine by pointing out that it doesn't work underwater.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
, the fact that it uses a battery is irrelevant. If it is producing more energy then it is using then, then the battery is being used to start and maintain the reaction and being continuously recharged by it. You need a match to start a fire.


Yes, to START a fire. Then the fire does not need the match - so why do they need a battery?


What would be the point of "free energy" if you did not use something to store that energy?


They started with a charged battery, so what energy are they storing?


If your battery dies for good while you're driving, the engine will stall because it needs the battery to maintain the reaction.


No it does not, once a car is running you can disconnect the battery and it still runs, the generator produces the power for the electrics



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by dereks
now it is running on a battery! so we have a free energy machine that runs on a battery....

If it is producing more energy then it is using then, then the battery is being used to start and maintain the reaction and being continuously recharged by it. You need a match to start a fire.


If it was a true OU machine, the last thing you would want to connect to it would be a battery, as the charge would overload the battery and could cause it to explode.

The fact that there is a battery in this system is actually pretty good evidence that this is not an OU device. Unless of course they are charging them



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by broli
 



That is not a 'news' snippet you have posted. It is an advertisement or a press release maybe, but not a news report.

The 'live' demonstration is ridiculous.

What is so hard to understand about the Law of Conservation of Energy? It is a pretty simple concept. Steorn's comments even tell you flat out that they know their stuff can't work because it violates the LoCoE! Sheesh.



"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all the time...and that is plenty good odds. My Pappy used to say that."
... Bart Maverick



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





Of course gravity is what keep the water in the trough of channel or whatever you want to call it. But Hydroelectric dams work because of water, not because of gravity. If you take away the water you have no hydroelectric damn. It is the force of the water that causes the turbines to turn. That is why when you look at a hydroelectric damn the water is backed up on one side of damn in order to maintain a constant output.

What I'm saying is that the force of gravity has nothing to do with why Hydroelectric dams work. When I point out that we don't have a devices that uses gravity to produce energy that is exactly what it mean, we don't have a device that works off of gravity.

So no Hydroelectric dams do not work off of gravity, gravity is a force that exerts itself upon everything on earth, there is not one motor that works off of gravity itself and alone.


Sorry, this is just ludicrous. I mean you are right, the 'hydro' in 'hydroelectric' does mean water, and a dam implies something is being dammed, in this case water. So without water you don't have hydro anything. And it is the water that gives the spin to the impeller that turns the generator. So water is certainly part of the machine, a machine that is missing a vital part if it isn't there.

But to say that gravity has nothing to do with it is silly. A hydroelectric dam operates because the water backed up on one side (the high side) has 'potential energy' because it is farther from the center of the earth than the low side of the dam.

Hydroelectric dams work by 'stealing' some of this potential energy and turning it into kinetic energy.

100% of the energy produced by a hydroelectric plant is from gravity. The potential energy stored in the lake backed up behind the dam exists because of gravity and only because of gravity. It is temporarily stored by the action of the dam, thus the lake is merely a convenient energy storage device - exactly analogous to a capacitor in electronics.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by downisreallyup
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.

Ahh of course, I just haven't been as "advanced" or thought as "deeply"as you have. Well you're right in a way because I couldn't possibly wade as "deeply" into a river of self-indulgent #e as you do without a mighty good pair of hip-waders, and I simply don't have available at the moment.




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.

No, there's pretty much been the one.



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


Hmm didn't you mention something about wiki?


Originally posted by downisreallyup
I am thinking and talking at a much deeper and more philosophical level than you are, for you are merely quoting what anyone can look up on Wikipedia.


Ahh So in other words you are thinking too deeply to need or use wikipedia, except when you use wikipedia.






Downisreallyup = writes a lot, says little.


There is nothing more puerile than insulting the intellect as a baseless cause in itself - it merely illuminates your own feckless demeanor. It is so obvious that someone hasn't a clue when they resort to such a base accusation - profoundly self deprecating.

Further it is actually YOU who is masturbating - you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. A cursory reading of science history will quickly tell you this, and to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about - you just look incredibly foolish.

You are fundamentally wrong - you need to do some reading - it is blatantly apparent that you are not well read - perhaps it is time you took stock of yourself and realized that your not as "informed" as you think you are - I can assure you you barely rate above zero to many of the 100 percenters around here - and your rhetoric is humiliating totally - not that you would be aware of that.

But of course - you probably don't care about being humiliated - you dont even have the self respect to appreciate intellect.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Exactly. A hydroelectric dam would not work in zero gravity, regardless of how much water you have. The ignorance of some people is staggering.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
The emotional side of me really hopes they're on to something

The logical side says "not gonna happen"

Therefore I'll remain cautiously optimistic



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
As The Orbo Turns

I suppose we could get further off topic and could add more mud-slinging to the discussion, but that doesn't mean we should.

So, um, anyone willing to talk about the Orbo, Steorn's claims and whether this is a legitimate case of "over-unity" or not?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Def gonna go see it over xmas... definitely!



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Here is a larger design,(Perendev magnetic motor) the magents need to be stagered in such a way that the rotor next to the first rotor is being atracked or repeled at the proper timing to keep the whole rotor spining.
Not surprising there are many na sayers adding comments on the video , some are without a dought paid debunkers.



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Reevster]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
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...


I can totally see a Schuman resonance energy harvesting device as feasible. But until somebody comes up with a formal description of what zero point energy is, or radiant energy, and how it interacts (if at all) with magnets and motors, I'll have to wait and see until somebody comes up with something repeatable. I'd gladly read with an open mind any links you can send though.

-rrr



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas
There is nothing more puerile than insulting the intellect as a baseless cause in itself - it merely illuminates your own feckless demeanor. It is so obvious that someone hasn't a clue when they resort to such a base accusation - profoundly self deprecating.

Further it is actually YOU who is masturbating - you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. A cursory reading of science history will quickly tell you this, and to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about - you just look incredibly foolish.

You are fundamentally wrong - you need to do some reading - it is blatantly apparent that you are not well read - perhaps it is time you took stock of yourself and realized that your not as "informed" as you think you are - I can assure you you barely rate above zero to many of the 100 percenters around here - and your rhetoric is humiliating totally - not that you would be aware of that.

But of course - you probably don't care about being humiliated - you dont even have the self respect to appreciate intellect.



Insulting the intellect? Was sat meen? I is no deep theenker so I does not no. Me am big dummee who no reed so gud. I duz like dik and jayn tho. See dik run, run dik run. See dik wank himself on message board aboyt beeing hundread perrcenter.

Bottom line, you and down can wank off to the "inherent dreaminess" of science all you want. You can wax poetic about the burning desire to discover, about the insatiable curiosity and child like sense of awe and wonder scientists have of the universe till the second coming of Einstein, and it doesn't change the fact that observation of the world we live in is the very core of science. Before one can theorize, hypothesize, or test said hypotheses, one must have observed the world and the phenomenon being hypothesized about. Before one can question a phenomenon one must have observed said phenomenon in order to form questions. And while I have immense respect for the intellect, I have little for those who waste what intellect they have in self aggrandizing philosophical discussions designed to impress the easily fooled. I have even less for those who argue with an a objectively true statement on such dubious grounds while accusing the other side of "not thinking deeply enough"

By the way "auras" or should I saw Down, you do know that sock-puppetry is against the T&C right?


As to the Orbo itself, there's really no way we can tell if this is a legitimate over unity device or not. Yes its spinning, but so what, my washing machine is also spinning right now, that doesn't make it over unity. The question of "does the Orbo do what Steorn claims it does?" can't be solved by watching a web-cam of a device. There are simply too many data points we don't know. How much energy is being drawn from the battery? How much is being returned to the battery? How much of their charge are the "permanent" magnets losing and at what rate? Simply showing a device which spins is actually worse than useless.
Based on the setup, and the absolute lack of any clearly defined data, I am of the opinion that this is a scam. This seems like nothing more than a show designed to fool the gullible. Why else would there be no displays tracking the power generated and the power used, or the heat being produced (since they count that in their materials as part of the energy produced). Voltmeters aren't expensive, and could have easily been attached to the Orbo showing in clear terms exactly what the numbers are, ye instead they went fora visually impressive yet data deficient display, which screams "scam" to me.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I'll repeat a very early, and obviosuly ignored, post in this thread. There are ONLY three possibilities with this whole Stoern issue:

1. It's an intentional hoax/fraud

2. The Stoern people are simply self-deluded and believe it's real

3. Somehow it works

Some relatively simple measurements can rule-out #3. Then it's only a matter of determining whther it falls into #1 or #2 which, as far as I'm concerned is immaterial.

An abreviated summary of the scientific method simply says:

1. Make careful consistent and repeatable observations of a phenomenon

2. Explain the phenomenon within the context of accepted scientific principles (laws)

3. If #2 cannot be achieved (that is, the phenomenon cannot be explained using accepted scientific principles), develop hypotheses (theories) that can explain it.

4. Work to prove these theories.

Paraphrased for clarity but accurate. Scientific laws are NOT immutable. That fact is incontravertable. The probability that the Orbo device is a real phenomenon is highly unlikely. We ALL undertsand that. But, in the interest of REAL scientific methods, NO ONE can say that until the necessary measurements are made and published. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join