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 Gives Alleged COP > 1.0 Demo Jan. 12 2010

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
There was already a thread where this discussion was waged...

But i will pitch in here since this thread has taken off.

I watched these videos yesterday and had a constant feeling of "something is not right" until he started to answer questions. My impression was he had to lie to every one of them.

In particular when they asked why don't they use the supposed generated power to power the machine instead of a f*--- battery. The man said it needs so precise power pulses that it must have a steady source for them (or something really close to this) and thats why there is a battery. The output of the machine or a capacitor is simply not enough. WTF? Capacitors are used precisely for the reason that they provide instant power output. Maybe he was just simplifying the answer and the real reason a capacitor is not suitable lies in some of its other electric properties?

IDK

I sure hope they are succesfull, but from what i've seen it does really not seem like it.




posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
My theory is that they draw energy from future time frames. This does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, if time is considered a dimension.

Unless you repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics, future states of the system will have less, not more energy to draw upon.

Besides, time travel is widely held to be impossible.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


If this proves possible i think the energy comes from weakening or draining of the magnetic/gravitational field at the point of use, which would equal to draining of the earth's outer core's spin or the gravitational effect of the mass.

This does not sound like something we would want
Hoping to be proven wrong if they prove over unity.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Unless you repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics, future states of the system will have less, not more energy to draw upon.


Provided you are discussing a isolated system. Since isolated systems are strictly theoretical constructs talking about them as if they apply to real world situations very often is inaccurate. Even the idiot 'wiki' people have figured out as much so really...

en.wikipedia.org...


Besides, time travel is widely held to be impossible.


Can't say i am very interested in time travel but given how we presume irreversibility in nature based on the notion of a isolated universe ,and the resulting entropy as 'arrow of time', i do wonder about it.


Regards,

Stellar



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
future states of the system will have less, not more energy to draw upon.


Why? please explain.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by masterp]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Well, what happened? does anyone know? their site is not updated. Did it work?



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Well, what happened? does anyone know? their site is not updated. Did it work?


The site says the videos will be uploaded tomorrow to youtube. Can't wait to see them fail (actually I won't, had it worked ATS would have been flooded with steorn topics by now, so I think I'll skip them).

[edit on 30-1-2010 by daniel_g]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
If it was a failure, they wouldn't show it in the first place, nor would they upload the videos to youtube.

What really happened? It's really strange. A media blackout?



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
If it was a failure, they wouldn't show it in the first place, nor would they upload the videos to youtube.

What really happened? It's really strange. A media blackout?


Or perhaps they just needed that one extra day to modify the videos they'll upload.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
What really happened?


Nothing at all, overunity was not shown, as predicted by many people


It's really strange. A media blackout?


Why should the media be interested in snake oil salesmen trying to sell snake oil?



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Originally posted by Astyanax
Unless you repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics, future states of the system will have less, not more energy to draw upon.

Provided you are discussing a isolated system.

Yes, of course. And I understand the constraints that make a wholly closed (or isolated, if you prefer that term) system impossible in real life. But if the system were not closed, at least theoretically, then it would be drawing energy from an outside source and would not be an over-unity device, but merely a transducer of some kind.


Originally posted by masterp


Originally posted by Astyanax
future states of the system will have less, not more energy to draw upon.

Why? please explain.

If you don't understand, I'm afraid you aren't qualified to discuss this topic.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





If you don't understand, I'm afraid you aren't qualified to discuss this topic.


If you can't explain it, then I'm afraid your hypothesis isn't deserving of anyone's consideration.

Especially if you can't even be civil about admitting to your own ignorance.

[edit on 31/1/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   


Why should the media be interested in snake oil salesmen trying to sell snake oil?


There goes my conspiracy spin...:-)



If you don't understand, I'm afraid you aren't qualified to discuss this topic.


I know a little bit physics. Please explain it to me.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Yes, of course. And I understand the constraints that make a wholly closed (or isolated, if you prefer that term) system impossible in real life.


Closed and Isolated are not the same thing hence me being so very specific....


But if the system were not closed, at least theoretically, then it would be drawing energy from an outside source and would not be an over-unity device, but merely a transducer of some kind.


I think you have just raised a great point as i think many people actually think of over unity devices as getting energy from nowhere when that is obviously impossible given conservation of energy. What you are suggesting is exactly what happens as these devices/circuits intercept the energy transduced by the common dipole from spacetime. These devices merely more fully exploit a transduction process that is already taking place all around us in every dipole.


Originally posted by Astyanax
future states of the system will have less, not more energy to draw upon.

Why? please explain.
If you don't understand, I'm afraid you aren't qualified to discuss this topic.

I am asking the why in a rhetorical sense as i don't think you know what your claiming and i wanted you to be more specific. What i were trying to suggest is that you keep talking about future states having less 'energy' to draw on while accepting that we know of no isolated systems and that even closed systems are theoretical constructs ( but rather more practical than the notion of isolated one's) which don't occur in nature.

Fact is our local planetary model is a rather fantastic example of negentropy that is our biosphere that allows for the existence of you and me. Yet entropy is all we talk about....

That is why i asked 'why' and why you should perhaps reserve judgement about just how much less ignorant than me you might be.

In conclusion there is a great deal of presumptions going around when people talk about entropy and the universe but frankly speaking they ( the qualified scientist) , and certainly myself, are not nearly as often qualified to make the grand proclamations that they do.

Regards,

Stellar

Edited for spelling and structure.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Would I really make a comment like that if I didn't understand what I was saying?

masterp suggests that the system is drawing energy from a future configuration of itself. This would mean drawing energy backwards in time, but even if we ignore this manifest impossibility, we would have to ask where the future configuration of the system is getting its energy from. Either the system is closed and generates its own energy or it is connected with the rest of the universe and is drawing energy from a source outside itself.

It doesn't really matter which; both scenarios are equally impossible. Consider:

Each future state of the system must draw energy from an even more distant future state in order to exist. Say the amount of energy needed to keep the system running at any given time is e and that this is produced by the system itself. But there is also the incremental output of the system to consider; let's call it e'. The total energy E of the system at the moment when we observe it (call this instant t0) would then be given by

E (t0) = e + e' *

In order to supply this, the system draws energy e' from a future state t1. However, the system at t1 also has both to show a net energy output, again of e', while delivering energy e' to its earlier state (at t0).

Therefore,

E (t1) = e + 2e'

and we can generalize this to

E (tn) = e + ne'.

If the system truly is closed (or isolated, if you will), then this incremental energy is literally being created by it. This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics; masterp's contention was that his hypothesis did not contravene the laws of thermodynamics.

Besides (and this was my point when I so rudely suggested that masterp wasn't qualified to discuss the subject), the system being postulated would have, if closed, negative entropy, which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; one who cannot immediately see this is surely reaching beyond their grasp when they venture to propose a solution to the problem we are discussing.

Well, never mind all that. Let's assume the system is not closed, but is, as StellarX proposes, actually transducing energy from elsewhere in the universe (never mind where).

In that case, equation (3) above gives us a very amusing result. The system can never be shut off; it must keep on running in order to have future states from which past states can draw their energy. If the universe is truly infinite, and contains an infinite amount of energy, then there's nothing, in theory, to stop the system running for ever. But it can never stop, not even after the universe has died around it.

Why? Because if it did, it would have a final state.

Call that state tz. How much energy output will the system have at tz?

Well, it's still the same system, none of the parameters has changed, so its actual output will still be e. But that's not enough; it needs to supply an additional ne' to the n states preceding it. And it hasn't got it.

So those past states can't have had it either. The system could never raise its output above the amount needed to run it. The future, sad to say, does not appear to offer any more free lunches than are currently available to the hungry public.
 

*Unrealistically assuming that the system is 100% efficient.

[edit on 31/1/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   


If the system truly is closed (or isolated, if you will), then this incremental energy is literally being created by it. This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics; masterp's contention was that his hypothesis did not contravene the laws of thermodynamics.

Besides (and this was my point when I so rudely suggested that masterp wasn't qualified to discuss the subject), the system being postulated would have, if closed, negative entropy, which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; one who cannot immediately see this is surely reaching beyond their grasp when they venture to propose a solution to the problem we are discussing.


You have a mistake in your calculations, and your conclusion is based on that mistake.



[edit on 31-1-2010 by masterp]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Hi again Astyanax,


Originally posted by Astyanax
Would I really make a comment like that if I didn't understand what I was saying?


I can attest to the possibility that one can make statements and comments that you do not fully understand as i have done so myself. But perhaps you are not like the rest of 'us'?
Either way i put i put my foot in it when i failed to see that you were not directing that judgement at me....

In fact i don't understand the notion of trying to get energy from a future state any better than you seem to ( perhaps because it's just patently impossible, i just don't know) and would probably have asked MP what he was talking about if i had enough time after responding to you....



If the system truly is closed (or isolated, if you will), then this incremental energy is literally being created by it. This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics; masterp's contention was that his hypothesis did not contravene the laws of thermodynamics.


It does seem unnecessarily complex, to rob peter tomorrow to pay Paul today, but admittedly i am far from qualified to follow your argument.
What i can add is that you, and too many physicists, get carried away with the notion of conservation of energy as if it is somehow a cornerstone of this universe, when NO ONE can prove whether it's open or closed or isolated. We know the Earths biosphere is a hopelessly compromised open system and yet the notion of open generator type systems that can draw energy from their own sun's ( as in the earths example) is disparaged and maligned as if there are no massive white sun's in the room. This sort of omission makes me wonder about whether we should just abandon the term 'over unity' as it clearly gets self declared closed minded people such as yourself hopelessly and uselessly worked up.

The serious engineers working on 'over unity' systems are not questioning whether energy is conserved ( on which level? Over what span of time given a isolated universe, etc) but instead focusing on tapping existing sources of energy that may or may not be currently exploited. It's something like arguing whether the wind disappears in a certain locality because no one has built a wind generator yet. The absence of usage does not indicate the absence of potential.


Besides (and this was my point when I so rudely suggested that masterp wasn't qualified to discuss the subject), the system being postulated would have, if closed, negative entropy, which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; one who cannot immediately see this is surely reaching beyond their grasp when they venture to propose a solution to the problem we are discussing.


Closed systems can be negentropic as such systems allows for the transfer of energy, but not matter, across it's boundaries. Provided that the intercepted energy can somehow counteract the entropy in said closed system that is.

Again it seems to me that you do not understand the text book definition of a closed system which is certainly a significant omission for someone who should clearly know better.


Well, never mind all that. Let's assume the system is not closed, but is, as StellarX proposes, actually transducing energy from elsewhere in the universe (never mind where).


Who said anything about from elsewhere in our universe? Again your presumptions are what is leading you astray when you assume that we know that this is the only universe, that it's isolated ( or closed) or what may or may not exist beyond it and what form it may take. I DID read the same books you did ( no one starts off having these contrarian notions; and if they do there is something very different going on with them) and i do know what the cosmological big bang theory postulates but that does not mean i accept all of it or even that it has any relevance in this argument.

Your insistence on conservation of energy in the universe itself ( presumptive but lets move on) hardly makes any difference on local scales where negentropic effects are easily observed despite being so studiously ignored. Why conservation of energy of energy has such a captive audience when we are only sure what 5-10% of the mass of universe consist of should bother many more people other than myself but it's not obvious from reading about our current cosmological models.


In that case, equation (3) above gives us a very amusing result. The system can never be shut off; it must keep on running in order to have future states from which past states can draw their energy. If the universe is truly infinite, and contains an infinite amount of energy, then there's nothing, in theory, to stop the system running for ever. But it can never stop, not even after the universe has died around it.

Why? Because if it did, it would have a final state.


There as as far as we can prove nothing outside the universe and as far as i remember that is basically the definition of a universe however wrong that might be.

I would add a conclusion by i think i touched on everything i wanted to. I think it may be time for me to simply stop using the word 'over unity' and 'free energy' as these terms are just about vague enough ( even if they accurately describe local results and practical implications) to drive those who hate the idea of a free lunch, despite themselves being the result of the sun's 'free energy', to lose their grip on any modicum of contemplative discourse.

It's too bad really but we must all make scarifies to further the understanding of the natural sciences....

Regards,

Stellar

[edit on 31-1-2010 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





Would I really make a comment like that if I didn't understand what I was saying?


Many on ATS do.



Besides (and this was my point when I so rudely suggested that masterp wasn't qualified to discuss the subject), the system being postulated would have, if closed, negative entropy, which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; one who cannot immediately see this is surely reaching beyond their grasp when they venture to propose a solution to the problem we are discussing.


I was just pulling your chain, mostly. My fault for not making it more obvious. Sorry.

The pulling the energy from the future idea is just silly idea, pure and simple. Now I'm being rude, too bad.

Bottom line, as Don Lancaster said back in 1998:



Finding a source of " Unlimited free energy" would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity. For it would inevitably turn the planet into a cinder. Hastening an isoentropic heat death. If you find a free energy source, you damn well better find a new free energy sink as well. Even then, the relative flux rates will still nail you.

Source: Guru's Lair: Blatant Optimist #49


I don't think I'll get tired of quoting that in Free Energy discussions.



[edit on 31/1/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
You have a mistake in your calculations, and your conclusion is based on that mistake.

Nice comeback. I like a guy who tries it on, just to see if he can prove P.T. Barnum right.

You'd have gulled more people, though, if you'd said the systems pulls energy out of the past. Superficially, that sounds a bit more plausible.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

Well, Stellar, the thing is, I had a scientific education and I know some science, especially physics, but I am not a scientist. In debate, therefore, I prefer to stay well on the safe side of the shifting border between science and speculation.

References to energy being channelled from other universes and so on lie on the far side of that border. Indeed, scientists have speculated upon such matters and even published papers on them; but they must stay in the realm of speculation until experimental evidence is found.

It is quite right and proper for acknowledged experts in a field to speculate thus, to argue, write monographs and so on, even in the absence of solid evidence; they are merely engaging in the work for which they are qualified. As experts, they and their colleagues are well placed to distinguish from speculation that which is accepted as fact.

It is not right and proper for lay folk such as ourselves, who are not so placed, whose understanding of these matters is of a purely amateur degree, to pronounce upon the veracity of experts' speculations, arguments, etc. And we certainly cannot claim such speculation as evidence for our own quasi-scientific views and opinions.

As amateurs in these matters, we may appeal only to that body of professional scientific knowledge which is generally regarded as well-founded; to enlist speculative ideas (such as multiple universes, string theories, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and so on) would be foolish, for no-one can be sure they are real. Such ideas have to be evidentially founded before they can be made the basis of further speculation--especially by amateurs like us.

As for refusing to accept the truth of such cornerstones of science as the laws of thermodynamics, that is--for a lay person--a deeply unwise course. That way lie error and superstition, not truth.

Accordingly, I prefer to base my ideas and opinions on what some might sneeringly call scientific orthodoxy. I believe that to do so is not only wise if one wishes to avoid falling into error, but also correct professional etiquette.

That you disagree with all of the above goes without saying, though I am confident that will not stop you from saying it anyway. You are, like me, an ATS member of fairly long standing, so I have a pretty good idea of how you think and react. I also know that you are no more a scientist than I am, though like me you are deeply interested in matters that lie within the magisterium of science. But as you are no scientist, for you to accuse me of presumption, simply for knowing where the limits of scientific knowledge lie and staying within them, is a bit rich: I'm sure any fair-minded person would agree that the boot is very much on the other foot.

[edit on 2/2/10 by Astyanax]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join