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.

 

The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

page: 16
46
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Whoa! Much to catch up on!

reply to post by Matyas

John Roy Robert Searl, English inventor discredited by a charge that he stole electricity from the power company. I can state that the charge was probably railroaded, because I once had the opportunity to see a copy of the transcripts in his case. No indication of theft of power was presented as evidence. He was convicted on the grounds that he had power and wasn't paying for it, and on those grounds alone. His plea to have the wires physically removed from his property to prove he was not tapping utility power was denied. Lesson learned: always make copies. I didn't back then.


His generator design was definitely unique. So unique, in fact, that a version today would cost upwards of six figures to construct according to his plans. He claimed the molecular arrangement of carefully designed thin layers of sometimes exotic materials, combined with specific magnetic fields superimposed on those materials would create both an over-unity effect and an electrogravitational field. Strangely enough, he also stated that on at least one occasion, the near proximity of a camera caused the device to stop operating.

There are several societies devoted to following his work, but so far no real progress has been forthcoming.

As before, I will not state the device does not work as claimed. I will state that it seems to have many quirks that are unexplained and no specific scientific explanation for how it works. If it does work, the construction costs are astronomical, making it impractical for large-scale production.

That alone is enough for me to consider it a white elephant at best.

TheRedneck




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
If it does work, the construction costs are astronomical, making it impractical for large-scale production.


This also makes it difficult to replicate, which makes the device's claims unlikely to be tested by third parties.

Manufacturing costs can be brought right down for virtually anything if the quantity is sufficent - look at how complex an average car is compared to the price.

I look forward to your call to test whatever you find



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by Matyas
I thought you were referring to the unofficial dead scientists club. You know, when they're friends it hits close to home.


???



I have lost a few. One "put out to pasture", another expired under questionable circumstances, another disappears. I can do the tough talk, and I can be invisible 'cause I am part chicken. They tell me everything tastes like chicken, so I must also.


Yes, she is. What do you mean by that though?


Let's say I know people lie, or certain people that are liars, and Jean isn't the first woman men have lied to.


Just imagine it though. A world-renowned skeptics' site "discovering" Free Energy. If we can make this happen it'll sure make a big splash don't you think?


There is nothing wrong with the dream. I will bring up your rear 100% and insert my own blessings for a goal like this. It is similar to geology, at first ridiculed and mocked, then in 13 years became a full fledged science. I know for a fact I have the essence, and I am debating with LF's recommendation putting it in public domain. Always those magic words, like, what's the worst that can happen? Or never. The sky falls as soon as they are spoken.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
There is nothing wrong with the dream. I will bring up your rear 100% and insert my own blessings for a goal like this. It is similar to geology, at first ridiculed and mocked, then in 13 years became a full fledged science. I know for a fact I have the essence, and I am debating with LF's recommendation putting it in public domain.


I think it's definitely a good idea. If you're sitting there with data no one else has, that could make you a target. As soon as you post it or open-source it, you de-target yourself.

Safety first, profits second!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Yes, very expensive. The cost of an operational vehicle capable of carrying four for two weeks exceeds 40M. I am tempted to go with Dr. Claude Poher's work for interstellar issues...claims he is harnessing the vacuum energy. Tremendous potentials involved. His theory is unique, as it seems most of these are.

Lots of equations too, many more than I have ever seen, more than Prof. Fran DeAquino's work...for those who say no such thing exists.

So what was I going on about, yes, we could do a proof of concept for a lot less. Maybe not a craft or even an alternative energy source, but proof of concept. If you look at I Catt's colleagues they did proof of concept in an educational setting.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas

I am of the opinion that any proof-of-concept that shows conclusive proof of operation will have no problem attracting funds necessary for full-scale production. The problem is getting that proof of concept. Anything that passes scrutiny will have to be totally and completely transparent in operation. I call it the 'knock your socks off' factor, because it will literally have to amaze everyone who sees it operate in person.

Any power source attached to the device, even if necessary for operation and undersized, will be questioned. Any hidden area will have to be exposed. Every wire or conductor will have to be explained. Otherwise there will be those who call fraud, and one cry of fraud will offset 100 cries of success.

It is a steep requirement to be sure. But it is what it is, and it is far from unobtainable with an actual over-unity device.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
I am tempted to go with Dr. Claude Poher's work for interstellar issues...claims he is harnessing the vacuum energy.


Thanks for the info, Poher's site is very interesting, particularly the experimental videos.

This is the first I have heard of his work. I would like to see results from an accelerometer placed above an emitter whilst it is disharged.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


just my opinion - but a far simpler ` hoop ` to jump through is for the prototype to be toally portable - and tested at a location the evaluator controls

as for batteries etc - again not a problem a ` test load ` can be applied that will flatten a battery in 20 minuites - now if the device AND battery are still powering the test laoad 24h later - then ?

as for transparency as long as the encloser was not capable of hiding massive aextra batteries - the exact workings would not bother me - for the firts test phase

what i would be most intent on eliminating would be any EXTERNAL power connection

lastly i would demand a useful prototype - not a toy device - ie a working output of say 1kw - capable of powering an " everlasting " motorised wheelchare for a disabled person

so there you have it - my skeptical criteria for a ` first test ` of OU claims

1 - a potortable device
2 - to be tested at a location of my chosing
3 - to generated a 1kw ` working force ` for 24 hours

that wpould be my first filter for OU testing

any objections , comments or sujjested improvements



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape

1 - a potortable device
2 - to be tested at a location of my chosing
3 - to generated a 1kw ` working force ` for 24 hours

  1. Portability is definitely a plus. Testing in the inventor's lab itself raises questions; testing in an impromptu location is much more convincing.

  2. This sort of compliments item #1.

  3. The actual size is really not of that much concern at first. If it powers a small lightbulb or LED, as long as the power cannot come from a traditional source, it is a success.

    What you are really describing here is the 'wow' factor I mentioned several times earlier. If this massive device is only capable only of lighting up an LED, then it may be over-unity but it is not going to gain a lot of immediate attention. But if a small device is running a floodlight, it will get attention. It is the same principle that is used around the world in advertising. Make your product look extravagant and it will draw a crowd. Make it ho-hum and it won't.

  4. I'm also going to address the batteries issue. Just because something uses a battery does not mean it cannot be over-unity. It does mean that more careful testing and verification is needed. I believe it is well-worth the effort on the part of the inventor to have any needed battery removable. The output can be toed back to the input, the battery can be removed after start-up, and then you have something that the average person can look at and understand that it is, in fact, running on its own.

    Imagine if you were given access by a magician to look over the entire stage while he was performing an illusion to prove it is not merely illusion. If he had one box that you couldn't look into, you would be suspicious of that box and not totally convinced. That hidden box is the battery. It may not mean fraud is present, but it can give the impression of such.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   


I'm also going to address the batteries issue. Just because something uses a battery does not mean it cannot be over-unity. It does mean that more careful testing and verification is needed. I believe it is well-worth the effort on the part of the inventor to have any needed battery removable. The output can be toed back to the input, the battery can be removed after start-up, and then you have something that the average person can look at and understand that it is, in fact, running on its own.


I may only be an amateur, but sometimes the simplest ideas are often the best.

Couldn't someone make one of these machines, and then make a super effective electrical motor that runs an identical wheel but purely on battery power, and see which battery runs out of energy first?

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Drexon]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Drexon

EXCELLENT suggestion!


I am actually ashamed I hadn't considered that myself. A fantastic example of how even an 'amateur' can have great ideas.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
So, assuming Orbo works, what is really happening? what do you guys think is happening?

In my opinion, the rotation of a magnetic field somehow produces gravity-related particles, and the extra energy comes from those particles.

Steorn says that it has something to do with time, but since time and space are interconnected, what we see here is a version of space-time warping by the rotating magnetic field that gives off the extra energy.

I am saying all this taking into account the work of Tajmar and DeMatos, which proved that gravity can be altered using a rotating superconductor. Since gravity is altered, the spacetime continuum is warped, and hence it can create a circumstance where output energy is more than the input energy.

This may not invalidate the law of conservation of energy, because the spacetime outside the machine maybe different than the spacetime inside the machine, and hence energy is conserved relative to each spacetime.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Something like that, yeah.

I believe there is a virtually unlimited amount of energy flowing through spacetime, as per the Wheeler and Misner quote I posted earlier in the thread. So if that's true, there should be ways to spend a little bit of energy to get a lot of energy out. I believe permanent magnets are the most obvious example.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp

We don't know what is really happening. That is the problem.

Traditional physics does not like permanent magnetism. It is too hard to explain, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Traditional physics says that energy/matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and that the only way to get energy is by converting it from another form. Yet, magnetism is hard to explain in those concepts. Why would ferric materials be so easy to magnetize, allowing them to perform work, without a respective input of energy?

At this time, the best idea I can conceive of is that energy is relative as well as motion. That means that there is no absolute amount of energy, and it throws a new light on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Please don't ask me to explain this in detail, though; as of now it is only an idea in progress.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I have taken some time to consider this more deeply, and have decided there are hidden costs, values that we cannot measure with money.

We are toying with the idea of increased degrees of freedom. Definitely not absolute freedom, but certainly more than the human race has ever known up until this moment in history. And you know, as well as I, it is coming with a price, one so heavy it will become an intolerable burden...

It is the old story of Prometheus.

But don't let me keep you gentlemen from realizing it, meanwhile I will be in consultation with our people. If it has come of age, then it is meant to be.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
There's nothing in the electrical engineering models used today to explain free energy


because it does not exist like people like Bearden claim....



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Looks to me like you have a permanent magnet x2 in this case spinning past a pair of coils that reintroduce power back into the supply that feeds a stator. If you apply any workable load to power something other than its own motion the battery will discharge quickly and the gig is up. Until you load those wheels up with useful output they will stop almost instantly and its nothing more than a trick of battery discharge time.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


Here are some thoughts for your consideration...

My willingness to be a target is in itself protection.

A man can be snuffed but an idea is harder to kill.

I have nothing to loose so no one messes with me.

Nothing here to see...

I'll take it to my grave...

actually,

there is a "thousand points of light", we are everywhere. Its an old game, and I should hope that I have learned a thing or two how to play it.

So, the upshot is, if the time is right, no one or nothing can stop it from being realized. Why should the universe revolve about me? When the old institutions crumble we can step in to fill the vacuum, and then it will will be our turn to defend our positions against change. Such is the law.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Matyas

I'll take it to my grave...

I have made the same statement before. I believe now I was wrong, however.

What is the value of an idea taken to one's grave? Zero.

What is the value of an idea presented? Potentially priceless.

Who am I to determine whether or not the human race is ready?

By determining such, does that not make me as guilty as others who deny information and thus freedom?

Just some questions to ponder, as I have pondered.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
There's nothing in the electrical engineering models used today to explain free energy



Originally posted by dereks
because it does not exist like people like Bearden claim....


Please read my whole post, dereks.

There's nothing in electrical engineering to allow for free energy - but various physics texts openly talk about energy in the vacuum.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join