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 to demonstrate OVERUNITY PROOF!!! Sat 30th

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I'm not sure what their game is, but I suspect this will be their make or break moment. I'm pessimistically optimistic.


This could be worth billions to them if it turns out to be true and it could bankrupt them if not...

I don't see the point of them putting out an announcement if nothing was going to happen, so lets hope they're loaded for bear this time and come out with both barrels.

Their company and our hopes lie in the balance.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

If you're playing a poker game and you look around the table and and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.

... Paul Newman



There's a sucker born every minute

... P.T. Barnum





You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time and those aren't bad odds!

...Beau 'Pappy' Maverick


[edit on 25/1/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


They wont be taking out a patent because they intend to go down the licensing route instead.

As i understand it, a discovery or invention cannot be patented if it has been open sourced. I'm not sure how it relates to licensing, not my area i'm afraid.

But what i does mean, is that should this device work, and is scaled to generate useful amounts of energy, no person or company (same thing these days!) can buy it up and shelve it.

They are releasing their technology with a keen eye on what has gone before them in terms of patent problems and 'organisations' that would love to keep this kind of thing from general awareness.

The right way, IMO.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


I agree this is probably going to make or break them.

Also, i totally see what you're saying when you reason that why would a successful company, solvent and doing good business take this risk, if they were not certain they had something? I completely agree.

It's one thing for an individual or a small group working in the garages or sheds to claim something like this and be proved wrong, but another thing altogether for a recognised and established company to.

We'll all see it a couple of days, one way or the other.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Do you have an opinion of your own rnaa?

As is fairly obvious, we will all know if it works or not after the demo on Saturday.

No suckering involved.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Is the technology similar to hydroponics? I am intrigued by this, but if I remember correctly didn't they say all this before and then end up flat on their face?



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Well tomorrow is the big moment for steorn (and possibly humanity if they succeed
)

Place your bets now! Somehow i fear the lights will interfere with the bearings and it will fail.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Lets all hope I am just a cynical bastard who is too harsh on the "real deal".

Sadly, I think I am correct in saying-

"this won't happen".

But, I will be very pleased to admit to being wrong if I am proven to be so tomorrow.

But I doubt it.

My bet is on-

"This story is all bunk and junk".



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Even if such a device is to work, there is no such thing as CREATING energy.

Therefore, energy comes from somewhere.

Therefore, the energy that will come from such an invention will take away from...what?

All energy has its place. What are the consequences of redirecting an indefinite amount of energy? Are we going to overload with energy? What is going to go into deficit?

Do you want all vehicles to be able to move at all times without the need for active recharge? Do you want all your appliances to work freely at all times? Do you want crops to be grown 24 hours a day forever on end? With "free energy", will there not come an equally liberal set of regulations? Will everything become so calculated by man that nature no longer seems to have its place? What is it that a man thinks he can do better than nature? Has nature not created and developed more wondrous things than man has? Has nature not contributed to the growth of man?

It is a fool that thinks that we require such "free energy". What is it about your lives that is so dull that you require to absorb more and more energy to do more useless things?

What about the energy of your will?! Or is it that you would like "free energy" so that you can play all day? But how can you play all day if you are going to be the ones who have to work day in and day out in order to keep the "free energy" machines in working order? It can't be easy keeping a "free energy" machine working properly. Talk about a lot of WORK.

Oh, that's right! Work is the measure of how much energy is being used over a certain amount of time. So, does the machine work quickly? How much more quickly must we work to preserve our machine? How much harder does nature work to supply the machine with energy?

We are getting so foolish and dangerous.

I guess as one poster's signature says : "IF a fool persists in his folly, he becomes wise."

Doubly, I find it incredibly ironic that global warming theorists have it in their minds that somehow using solar energy, wind energy, water energy, or the culmination being "free energy", will help to "save the planet". Why? Because those energies, regardless of how much the naive believe, have purpose. The "waste" of these energies isn't waste at all. It all goes on to do something.

It is okay that we redirect some of it for our purpose. We as humans naturally work as conduits for all energies. But now we want to control ALL of it.

Oh, how UTTERLY foolish.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Good for you Mr Mask.

A semi-open mind, is still an open one!

Perfect balance you have there M.M.!



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by above
 


Heh, Yes...the lights..

Fingers crossed here too.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Good for you Mr Mask.

A semi-open mind, is still an open one!

Perfect balance you have there M.M.!



Even if most people who have read of me think I am a closed minded fool, I must stress that I am "open minded".

I just don't go barking and chasing every fire-truck that passes through this crazy pit of wacky ideas and baseless hopes.

Like I said, I am guessing this "won't happen", but will be glad to be proven wrong!

I personally am hoping I am wrong here and that by tomorrow I will be eating crow with a bunch of level-headed nay-sayers who bet on the wrong horse.

But...keep in mind...if I am proven to be "right" in saying this whole thing is a false-flag attempt at gaining attention over "nothing", then I will be hard to shut up in my singing of-

"I toooooold you!".

But, here's crossing fingers!

I would love to be wrong on this one.

Time is ticking...soon we will know.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Hi Fran,

No, this has nothing to do with hydroponics.

Why would you think that? Hydroponics is growing plants without soil.

This is about energy (electricity, heat and torque) generation, and trying to attain something called 'Overunity'.

This essentially means that a device classed as Overunity, will produce more energy out, than is fed into the device to run it. Simply, more out than in.

Of course, this is the reason why physics purists start to foam at the mouth when OU is mentioned, as they view OU as impossible according to certain long held physics 'laws'. The basic principle that they cite (correctly according to the particulars of the various physics 'laws'), is that you cannot get more energy out of a system or device, than is actually fed into it initially to make it run.

People have been pursuing the goal of OU for literally centuries.
While there are a few noted designs throughout history, none (TMK) has proof of OU in the public domain, although in at least one case, royalty have vouched for a device. (it was a large wooden wheel, with hidden mechanism enclosed a couple of centuries ago).
Royalty or not, word of mouth is not proof.

My opinion is (for what it's worth), that these 'laws' - while applicable to conventional physics (as conventional physics have been modelled and designed in a fashion that is in agreement with those laws, so obviously follow the law's tenets) new approaches and methodologies together with a new mindset will necessitate a rewrite of the laws.

Just as the understanding of physics changed with the development of these 'current' laws (if you can call centuries old laws current) and associated practices, our understanding will change again with further discovery and innovation.

When i say the existing 'laws' will change, of course the laws as they stand won't actually change, they will still hold true for the physical processes and device designs that utilise accepted processes, but our interpretation and implementation of laws will change. An update to the paradigm really rather than an out and out 'rewrite'.

In short, laws are a human concept and are essentially codes of practice that instil limitation. The universe we derive our physics from, and operate our physics in, is not organised to follow human conceptions and codes of practice, and as far as we are aware, is without limits, unlike the limits we place on our interpretation of physics.

I hope you see what i mean...i have a odd handed way of getting my views across sometimes, which i apologise for.

[edit on 29/1/2010 by spikey]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Good premise, but lets see if they can follow up with the promise?.

Not holding my breath though.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


I think that is a sensible approach and you're perfectly right to be cautious in what you put your faith in.

Especially considering all of the 'also ran devices' that have claimed similar things.

I am still on the fence too, but i'm teetering over to the positive side...almost falling off, hoping my head off that something comes of this attempt.

If it does work as advertised, or even close to advertised you won't be 'wrong' and no crow will need to be eaten. You're not saying it absolutely won't work, just that you fear it won't. Big difference.

Not long to go now, and we'll have a clearer picture and finer points to all argue over!


[edit on 29/1/2010 by spikey]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Hi Fran,

No, this has nothing to do with hydroponics.

Why would you think that?


I saw this and I thought of hydroponics.



Crops could be grown 24 Hrs a day, under lights and heated and ventilated by free energy generators. Even in unheard of places and areas.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Thanks for your reply TarzanBeta,

Let me see if i can address some of what you ask;

The 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed' claim, is one that comes up quite a lot in these topics. Understandably so, considering it is a long accepted tenet.

I don't claim to know the intricate details of advanced alternative physics.

But i do know humanity and human history, and understand the linear path to advancement and higher knowledge. Advances sometimes happen very quickly, especially with a prime mover driving the innovation and experimentation. A sad example of this is war. War tends to see quantum leaps in technological understanding and design, through necessity and well...fear of death.

I don't know if energy can or cannot be created. I do know though, that it cannot be created or destroyed according to conventional physics, only changed from one form to another.

I find it hard to fathom that humanity claims 100% impossibility, in an area we actually know very little about! We have absolutely NO idea what most of the Universe actually consists of!

Up to 95% of it is totally unknown to us. It is considered 'dark' by scientists. (up to 70% 'dark' energy, up to 25% 'dark' matter and up to 5% known matter)

What this actually means is that we currently only 'know' what 5% of the Universe actually is! The 5% is made up of all the stars, planets, nebulae, ice, dust and gas. The other 95% is...not currently known.

Familiar practices and procedures (and results) on Earth and local space aside, how can ANY scientist or physics lecturer claim 100% impossibility of ANYTHING only knowing at most 5% of the physical Universe?

Perhaps the 'additional' energy is not being created at all! It may not be beyond the realms of possibility that the energy is being converted to an as yet unknown form of energy, similar to conventional recognised energy, yet somehow changed..stretched or elongated. If this is similar to what is happening, then energy is not being created or destroyed, just changed.

Maybe it's not that at all, and some other process is applicable.

Science has theorised that there may be many, many more dimensions in existence, than we currently recognise. As many as 20 has been proposed. Since we know very little about these additional dimensions, it naturally follows that we know very little of the physics that operates contained within them. It could be that the energy is coming from one of these, who knows.

My argument would be such that, Not understanding does not automatically mean 'impossible'. Physical tenets do not rely on human understanding to operate, it just takes human understanding for us to make use of those tenets.

All the while people are shouting at the top of their lungs that this is heresy, is against the 'laws', is impossible and so on, real research is not going to be a popular choice to attract funding or grants, so any discovery or alternative methodologies remain out of reach.

If the Universe is Infinite, then energy will be too. We won't 'run out' of it.

There is an obvious reason to obfuscate knowledge in this area, apart and separate from the financial and economic reasons to shelve or bury this kind of physics, and that is misuse.

With as much energy as we would need or want, come the possibility that the technology will be used for bad as it will be used for good.

A weapon with enormous energy potential would be a fearful thing..and the governments of the world know this.

I don't think wanting control of energy is wanting control over nature.

At least not on an individual basis.

The bottom line for me is that i am certainly in no way an expert regarding ANY of issues. Nothing approaching it actually!

Let's see what happens tomorrow and take it from there.



[edit on 29/1/2010 by spikey]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


I agree...it seems that most people who have a view on this, think pretty much the same way. Doubtful but hoping for the best.

Great way to look at things i think.

Hope that doesn't sound patronising, it's not meant to be.

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Ahh, i see what you mean!

No, i meant the energy to power the lights and water evaporators and heat and ventilation for them would come from devices based on this phenomena.

Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


I wouldn't advise holding your breath DW, your head will explode by 16:00 Hrs tomorrow!

Short, intermittent panting and occasional tongue hanging will be safer.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join