It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 15
83
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I
Here is a good article on Zero-Point Energy that might be worth reading:

Article on Zero-Point Energy

Hope you find it helpful

As quite often happens when people engage in pseudoscientific "name-dropping," the term being dropped is being misused. The posters on this thread are misusing "zero pint energy" as a description for the virtual particles thought to inhabit the quantum vacuum. Actually, the term is a translation of the term "nullpunktenergie" as used by Einstein and Stern in 1913 to describe a state of a system from which NO energy can be extracted. Zero-point energy is the energy that remains when all other energy is removed from a system. A harmonic oscillator is a useful conceptual tool in physics. Classically a harmonic oscillator, such as a mass on a spring, can always be brought to rest. However a quantum harmonic oscillator does not permit this. A residual motion will always remain due to the requirements of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, resulting in a zero-point energy, equal to 1/2 hf, where f is the oscillation frequency and h is Planck's constant. In quantum mechanics, ZPE describes the energy state of a system at 0 degrees K. That can not be the absence of all motion/energy, because that would violate the Heisenberg Principle, insofar as that if the system/particle is at rest, we can determine both its location and momentum (0).
The posters here using the term, are using it to describe the sea of virtual quantum particles, and their associated energies, occupying a quantum vacuum. The mathematics describing this is mind-bendingly complex, involving something called lattice Quantum chromodynamics.
The bottom line is, for energy extraction ZPE, as Einstein and Stern invented the term, is a dead end. Quark and anti-quark formation in the vacuum may hold some promise.

Best wishes
Doc

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by gareth01422

What people also need to remember is that up until recently lots of people didn't think anti-matter existed, some scientist up in Harvard proved that wrong.

Not even freakin close to either Harvard or the U.S.. Paul Dirac was never associated with Harvard. He held the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge, the same position now held by Hawking, after he discovered anti-matter in the form of the positron in 1928. See, Dirac, P. A. M. (1928-02-01). "The Quantum Theory of the Electron". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 117 (778): 610–624. In his later life he did come to Florida State University in Tallahassee, where I was lucky enough to attend his colloquia in 1979. The first observation of the positron was at Cal Tech, and not Harvard. Harvard really doesn't have much of a quantum physics reputation, although their astrophysics department kicks rearends.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by rickyrrr

I would suggest looking at what John Bedini has put out so far.

johnbedini.net...

If you have the tools, I would suggest building it, and seeing for yourself what it really does, because that is really the only way to see it personally. He has put up a series of monopole builder groups on yahoo, which they give out the schematics and help you with any questions. If you qualify for the advanced groups (by submitting images of your build and data), you are given the more advanced schematics, although they can be found on the net.

His EFV videos (dvd's) are great, I think they are up to number 15 or something like that, here's a trailer. These type of videos will have you watching over and over, and you will learn something new every time. Not only do they talk about motors, but all aspects of free energy related devices.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Freezer]

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:07 AM

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I
Here is a good article on Zero-Point Energy that might be worth reading:

Article on Zero-Point Energy

Hope you find it helpful

As quite often happens when people engage in pseudoscientific "name-dropping," the term being dropped is being misused. The posters on this thread are misusing "zero pint energy" as a description for the virtual particles thought to inhabit the quantum vacuum. Actually, the term is a translation of the term "nullpunktenergie" as used by Einstein and Stern in 1913 to describe a state of a system from which NO energy can be extracted. Zero-point energy is the energy that remains when all other energy is removed from a system. A harmonic oscillator is a useful conceptual tool in physics. Classically a harmonic oscillator, such as a mass on a spring, can always be brought to rest. However a quantum harmonic oscillator does not permit this. A residual motion will always remain due to the requirements of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, resulting in a zero-point energy, equal to 1/2 hf, where f is the oscillation frequency and h is Planck's constant. In quantum mechanics, ZPE describes the energy state of a system at 0 degrees K. That can not be the absence of all motion/energy, because that would violate the Heisenberg Principle, insofar as that if the system/particle is at rest, we can determine both its location and momentum (0).
The posters here using the term, are using it to describe the sea of virtual quantum particles, and their associated energies, occupying a quantum vacuum. The mathematics describing this is mind-bendingly complex, involving something called lattice Quantum chromodynamics.
The bottom line is, for energy extraction ZPE, as Einstein and Stern invented the term, is a dead end. Quark and anti-quark formation in the vacuum may hold some promise.

Best wishes
Doc

intresting read, star for you.

Gareth

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by gareth01422

What people also need to remember is that up until recently lots of people didn't think anti-matter existed, some scientist up in Harvard proved that wrong.

Not even freakin close to either Harvard or the U.S.. Paul Dirac was never associated with Harvard. He held the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge, the same position now held by Hawking, after he discovered anti-matter in the form of the positron in 1928. See, Dirac, P. A. M. (1928-02-01). "The Quantum Theory of the Electron". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 117 (778): 610–624. In his later life he did come to Florida State University in Tallahassee, where I was lucky enough to attend his colloquia in 1979. The first observation of the positron was at Cal Tech, and not Harvard. Harvard really doesn't have much of a quantum physics reputation, although their astrophysics department kicks rearends.

I didnt write that information.!!!!!1

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

You're absolutely correct, of course. The term, however, has been used for quite a long time by the 'free-energy' community to refer to the entire sea of miscellaneous energies and particles (yet discovered or not) that surround us. It's probably wrong that the term is misused like it is but most understand what is meant when it's used. They should coin another.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:57 PM

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....?

If left in total darkness, I think it's wattage recovered is pretty low.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by 4nsicphd

I really do suggest that you take a look at what Bedini has been doing with Zero-Point Energy. He is using negative energy, where the circuits operate in the exact opposite from what is typically done.

Put simply, normal electronics works on exploiting positive energy flow, where impedances in the circuit cause a reduction in output of the circuit. In negative energy circuits, the equivalent of impedances cause an increase in energy output because the impedance draws more radiant energy in the ZPE vacuum. Bedini circuits, including the single-pole motor, work on negative energy from the ZPE. According to Bedini, the radiant negative energy is always trying to get into the circuit, as compared to the positive energy of "normal" circuits, which is always trying to get out.

I realize it is very hard for someone who has spent their entire professional life thinking they have the model all figured out, and if you understand standard electronics well, you do have that SIDE of the model figured out. What they don't teach in standard electronics curricula, however, is the other side of the coin - the negative energy circuits. That is because it never occurred to anyone (except perhaps Tesla) that there is a completely inverted way to think of electronics that will produce inverted results with inverted behavior.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by 4nsicphd

You're absolutely correct, of course. The term, however, has been used for quite a long time by the 'free-energy' community to refer to the entire sea of miscellaneous energies and particles (yet discovered or not) that surround us. It's probably wrong that the term is misused like it is but most understand what is meant when it's used. They should coin another.

I agree... I like the term Radiant Energy, and particularly Negative Energy...

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by downisreallyup
I really do suggest that you take a look at what Bedini has been doing with Zero-Point Energy.

Pity he still has not got a over unity device working...

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by dereks

John Bedini has at least 2 US patents on these types of motors. Steorn's motor looks so close to Bedini's design that I wonder how they'd be able to market it in the US.

Patent 6392370

Patent 6545444

They're not overunity but they consume microamps to run and use a high voltage/high frequency pulse (back EMF from the coils) to charge the battery.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by OrganizedChaos

John Bedini has at least 2 US patents on these types of motors. Steorn's motor looks so close to Bedini's design that I wonder how they'd be able to market it in the US.

Having a patent means nothing, you can patent virtually anything

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by dereks

Granted, but his machines DO work! He's been building pulse motor/generators since the 80's.

There's really no mystery to them that I can see. Thousands of people have replicated his free designs. Simply Google him!

They are very efficient motors when you consider the extra energy returned to the batteries that would normally have been shunted to ground.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by dereks

Dereks, what's with this intense negativity you always seem to display? Do you even know anything about Bedini? Here, why don't you watch this excellent set of videos and then come back and talk about it with something more than naysaying:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by OrganizedChaos

No, these ARE over-unity motors, in that they output more energy than what is required to make them work. Just watch the videos in the previous post and you will see this is true.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by downisreallyup
No, these ARE over-unity motors, in that they output more energy than what is required to make them work. Just watch the videos in the previous post and you will see this is true.

No, perpetual motion devices do not work! If they do work why doesnt apply and win the JREF \$1million challenge?

[edit on 17/12/09 by dereks]

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by dereks

Don't tell me what doesn't work... that is just 100% bias, and not scientific at all. Take a look at it and see if perhaps there is something you don't understand. These people who want to cram the universe into their own little box are just ridiculous! You act as if you believe that man understands everything in all it's completeness, which we do NOT!

You judge these things by whether a man enters and wins a financial prize? You must think that everyone cares about money. Obviously he had the money he needs to do what he wants to do. Just open your mind... you might be surprised at what you find.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by dereks

Also, these machines are not paranormal at all, so what does the prize have to do with this?

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Try to understand that this is just the next stage of understanding PHYSICS, and only very smart people can see the next stage before everyone else catches on. Please, try to look at it, even though it violates all your preconceived notions.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:13 PM

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Also, these machines are not paranormal at all, so what does the prize have to do with this?

Perpetual motion devices qualify for the prize. If he does not need/want the money why not give it to a charity etc? Because he knows they do not work!

Try to understand that this is just the next stage of understanding PHYSICS, and only very smart people can see the next stage before everyone else catches on.

So which peer reviewed journal has he published in? He has published, hasnt he?

[edit on 17/12/09 by dereks]

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by downisreallyup

No, these ARE over-unity motors, in that they output more energy than what is required to make them work. Just watch the videos in the previous post and you will see this is true.

OK, I watched it. Can I have my 10 minutes back please? Do you now win a bet that you can sucker someone into watching it or something?

What don't you get about the part that it is driven by a battery?

If it was generating more energy than it used, they would just disconnect the start-up battery once it was going.

If is was anything other than a scam, they would be in every physics department in every university in the world getting them to research it and ensure they were at the top of the list for candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Are you kidding me?

[edit on 17/12/2009 by rnaa]

top topics

83