Steorn Gives Alleged COP > 1.0 Demo Jan. 12 2010

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by masterp
If Orbo is fraud, why do they insist and for 6 years? they don't sell a product, so why do they insist on it?

Many OU inventors run on and on for the rest of their life with the same non working device. For example Joe Newman/

Steorn do sell products just not OU generators.

What do they sell exactly? I don't see any products in their site.

They may sell licenses, but that is not something that will make huge profits for them. Especially if they are fraud.

Originally posted by masterp
What do they sell exactly? I don't see any products in their site.

On their homepage there is a link to their USB hall probes. If you click the SteornLab or ZeroF tabs which are on their homepage you can see: Hall probe, Torque measurement system and their magnetic bearings, all for sale.

When Steorn were first mentioned I was sure they were described as a conventional generator manufacturer and that during R&D they had discovered an unusual effect.



[edit on 16/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by masterp
What do they sell exactly? I don't see any products in their site.

On their homepage there is a link to their USB hall probes. If you click the SteornLab or ZeroF tabs which are on their homepage you can see: Hall probe, Torque measurement system and their magnetic bearings, all for sale.

When Steorn were first mentioned I was sure they were described as a conventional generator manufacturer and that during R&D they had discovered an unusual effect.



[edit on 16/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

But those are just conventional tools, unrelated to Orbo.

Originally posted by LightFantastic
When Steorn were first mentioned I was sure they were described as a conventional generator manufacturer and that during R&D they had discovered an unusual effect.

"Steorn was founded in 2000[8] and, in October 2001, their website stated that they were a "specialist service company providing programme management and technical assessment advice for European companies engaging in e-commerce projects"."

So they are a marketing company, and are making a "documentary" on how they were able to market snake oil to the gullible....

Originally posted by dereks
So they are a marketing company, and are making a "documentary" on how they were able to market snake oil to the gullible....

That is a very good analysis. I can't see them making much money with their current product range so who is bankrolling them and why?

Steorn claims this Saturday they will demonstrate overunity.

I am very curious.

Source: The psychology of perpetual motion machine seekers

...
The questions one must put to the inventor are these: Aside from a conviction or suspicion that PMM is possible, and the realization that existing physics isn't perfect, what reason do you have to think your particular approach or your assumption will work? Are you just blindly tinkering, hoping something you desire will happen? Do you have experimental evidence that a particular physics law isn't quite right? Have you really found some prediction of conventional physics that no one before you has noticed? Or are you just acting on a "hunch"? If it's only a "hunch", why are you so passionately convinced that there's something to it? Is your faith in this idea rational, or emotional?
...
Some inventors assume their own physics principles, principles unknown to conventional physics. It's often hard to ferret these out, for they are used without consciously thinking about them. Often these principles, if true, would demolish all or most existing physics theories and laws, including those that have been thoroughly tested experimentally and found to be reliable. One must ask the person if he is willing to throw out all of that and rework physics from the ground up to make it account for all of the phenomena that physics has experimentally studied and verified. The PMM inventors can't, and usually don't, care about any physics beyond that tiny portion that affects their pet idea. They are often totally unaware of the far-reaching consequences of their explicit or implicit assumptions, and unaware of how comprehensive and interdependent are all physical laws.

Usually PMM inventors have no reason or even a clue where conventional physics might be wrong. They just hope that it will be wrong in such a way as to make their pet invention work. They are like the Hermetic philosophers and alchemists of old, who thought that if one were pure of spirit and purpose, one could achieve power over nature's laws, even the power to bend them to one's will.
...
Perpetual motion machine inventors generally exhibit these characteristics:

• He has supreme confidence in himself and his (faulty and superficial) understanding of physics and engineering.
  
• He has no appreciation of, or confidence in, the powerful general principles of physics that apply universally to all systems, even systems not yet invented or tested.
  
• He thinks that you can't declare the possibility or impossibility of something on the basis of known and well-established physics.
  
• Usually the inventor's own calculations are obviously based on equations and principles of well-established physics. He's just done them incorrectly. He usually overlooked something.
  
• He thinks that the laws thermodynamics are no more than dogmatic assertions. He doesn't understand that they are based on a solid foundation of more fundamental laws, such as Newton's laws.
  
• He doesn't realize that if his device did violate the laws of thermodynamics it would necessarily also violate more fundamental laws, such as Newton's laws of force and motion.
  
• He doesn't grasp that if his calculations, based on Newton's laws, reached a conclusion in violation of the laws of thermo, then we know that he simply made a blunder, neglected something, or misapplied a law. And we can know this without bothering to check the calculations to find the specific error(s).
  
• So does he accept established physics or not? Only when its conclusions suit his preconceptions, beliefs, or desires.
  
• In short, even if he "knows" some laws and principles of physics, drawn from textbooks, he's missing the bigger picture of how they interconnect, and how they are properly applied. He wears very large blinders.
  

...

Does any of this sound familiar?

I encourage you to read the entire article.

[edit on 27/1/2010 by rnaa]

Source: Free energy with wires and magnets

Prepared by Tom Napier. Copyright � 1999, All rights reserved.

Some months ago I posted a detailed analysis of the forces between magnets and
current carrying wires. (See "The basics of magnets and wires for free energy
buffs.") For the benefit of those who found its 3400 words a bit much to wade
through here is the "executive summary." See my earlier article if you want more
information.

Point 1. Under ideal conditions the electrical power output generated when you
move a conductor through a magnetic field is exactly equal to the mechanical power
input needed to move the conductor.

Point 2. This applies to every microscopic piece of conductor, no matter in which
direction it moves, at what speed it moves or how strong the field is.

Point 3. The sum of the output electrical power round any closed loop is equal to
the sum of the input mechanical power, less any resistive losses in the conductor and
frictional losses in the moving parts.

Point 4. Thus the output power from a electrical generator of any type is always
less than the input power. No external devices such as commutators, tuned circuits
or diodes can change this.

Point 5. Under ideal conditions the mechanical power output generated when you
pass a current through a conductor in a magnetic field is exactly equal to the
electrical power input applied.

Point 6. This applies to every microscopic piece of conductor, no matter in which
direction it moves, at what speed it moves or how strong the field is.

Point 7. The sum of the output mechanical power round any closed loop is equal to
the sum of the input electrical power, less any resistive losses in the conductor and
frictional losses in the moving parts.


Point 8. Thus the output power from a electric motor of any type is always less
than the input power. No external devices such as commutators, tuned circuits or
diodes can change this.

Point 9. When you test a motor or a generator it can be very difficult to measure
both the mechanical and the electrical powers with sufficient accuracy to compute the
real efficiency. The calculated efficiency may be either higher or lower than the
real figure.

The bottom line: You don't have an over-unity system until you can demonstrate a
stand-alone device which drives itself and simultaneously generates a non-zero output
power.
...

What about systems involving batteries?
Putting an occasional back surge of voltage in a battery can help get a temporary increase of performance. Also, most batteries after being discharged and disconnected can revive a little on their own. FE claims involving batteries never are operated indefinitely which would show if they are just running down the batteries. Most demonstrations I know of (like the farces Joe Newman puts on) involve pathetic means of comparing input and output energy levels. Motors/generators with big sparks are only wasting excess energy and likely creating illegal noise on radio frequency bands.

Sound familiar?

Hi everyone,

Since i have had this discussion a few times over the last five years i will but say that putting your faith in people or , god forbid, companies is begging for much grief. The only thing worth buying stock in is principles and EM theory in general as it does , and always have had, large holes easily seen but ignored.

These comes from rather old files of mine so hopefully the links all still work.

In the battery, the Poynting vector is outward, indicating
the direction of energy flow. ~Note the sensitivity of this
result to the sense of the current through the battery.! In the
vicinity of the conducting wires and next to the positive terminal
of the battery, S is parallel to the wire. Perhaps surprisingly,
S is directed from the battery on both sides of the
battery. Along the resistor R, the change of direction of E
outside the resistor causes S to change as well, gradually
turning from parallel to perpendicular to the resistor axis
~and entering it!, at its middle point ~zero surface charge!.

sites.huji.ac.il...

This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

I have discussed this fallacy in detail in the proceedings of a previous workshop (Sefton, 2002) so
I will give only a short explanation here. The idea that an electric current, or the electrons which
constitute the current in a wire, pick up energy from a source and carry it along wires to some
load such a light globe is an attractive one but it is clearly wrong. It’s wrong because the
electrons don’t actually get far enough fast enough. In an alternating current the electrons don’t
go anywhere at all, they just jiggle about and in a direct current they just drift along very slowly
indeed. In view of these well-known ideas, it is a surprise to me that writers of school-level texts
can still get away with perpetuating this fallacy.
The origin of the fallacy may be traced to a common but spurious derivation about the power
(VI) delivered by a battery. The argument involves following a charged particle from one
terminal of a battery to the other and calculating the change in PE of that particle. That is fallacy
1 (above)! The particle does not own the PE – the whole system does. The derivation is also
spurious because, as already pointed out, charges in circuits don’t behave like that. (Nevertheless,
P = VI is a valid equation; it’s just the common derivation that is a fudge.)

science.uniserve.edu.au...

Objection 3: although some books say that you have to have a complete conducting loop before a
current can exist, that is just another misconception. Electrons do not travel across the insulating
gap in a capacitor nor do they jump across the space between the primary and secondary windings
of a transformer. This is so even when the energy source is a battery; I have constructed circuits like
those in figure 2 that show that the lamp lights up briefly when the switch is closed. No matter how
the energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space. (It is true that if
you want to maintain a steady current in a circuit, then a continuous conducting loop is required.)

science.uniserve.edu.au...

I hope everyone finds those at least somewhat illuminating and i would really appreciate some commentary as to what a few of you think is really being discussed ( or more conspiratorially, admitted ) above.

Schlichting (1991) provided a striking example of how students do not see what actually is to be seen but what their conceptions allow them to see, so to speak. He presented the experimental setup shown in Figure 6 to a grade 10 class and asked where the thin wire starts glowing when the circuit is closed. There were three different predictions. (1) The wire will glow first at the left or the right side depending of the assumption of direction of current flow taken as current enters the wire there. (2) The wire will glow up First in the middle as two kinds of current (see above) will come together in the middle. (3) The wire will simultaneously glow up at all places (the correct view). After the prediction the experiment was carried out. Almost everybody saw what he or she expected.

www.physics.ohio-state.edu...

I particularly like the last quote and have renewed my efforts not to let my expectations and wants lead me as far off track as i have gone in the past.

I think the guy is full of it!

He keeps saying his motor doesn't have any back EMF, that's a lie! I can visually see that he has magnets moving past coils.

That means if he rotated the magnets they would generate electricity in the coils.... that is back EMF. That is basically how an electric generator works.

Motors act like generators because of back EMF.

When he claims "no back EMF", he is basically denying that his motor (which I see is just magnets and coils) could generate any electricity.

Every single time the magnet passes the coils it produces back EMF. He can't get rid of that. To say "no back EMF", is a joke.

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.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Every single time the magnet passes the coils it produces back EMF. He can't get rid of that. To say "no back EMF", is a joke.

Actually I think the design doesn't generate back EMF (or much of it anyway) from the rotation because they have two magnets side by side with opposite poles facing out and a large air gap to the coil. This design means the net flux on the coil will be close to zero.

The rotation appears to be produced by the magnets' attraction to the toroidal core. When the coil is energised as the magnets approach the coil the core becomes saturated letting the rotors inertia carry it past.

They still get back emf from the coil itself however.

Even if what I say is how their device operates it still isnt gong to be OU.

reply to post by LightFantastic


It doesn't matter how they arrange the magnets. There is multiple rows of magnets passing multiple coils, each creating EMF. The coils would have a voltage created by the passing magnets, no matter what. That is EMF.

The only way to not have EMF would be to have a non-magnetic coil and core which he doesn't have, and it wouldn't work.

Every time a row of magnets approaches a coil it will create a charge. And every time the row of magnets departs from that coil it will create another charge in the opposite direction. As the magnets approach, the magnets attract to the coil. And when the magnets depart, the magnet is still attracting that coil but from the opposite direction.

No matter what, he has EMF. So he is full of it.

The only real demonstration would be if they gave a machine to some real scientists, and let them examine it. Anything else - thousands of YouTube videos, public demonstrations, Elvis coming back from the dead and endorsing it - anything - simply doesn't mean it works.

reply to post by masterp


That's a hypothesis, not a theory

reply to post by davesidious


Indeed.

A few hours left...oh the agony!

Hmmm double post from an edit....

[edit on 29/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by LightFantastic

 

It doesn't matter how they arrange the magnets. There is multiple rows of magnets passing multiple coils, each creating EMF. The coils would have a voltage created by the passing magnets, no matter what. That is EMF.

The only way to not have EMF would be to have a non-magnetic coil and core which he doesn't have, and it wouldn't work.

Every time a row of magnets approaches a coil it will create a charge. And every time the row of magnets departs from that coil it will create another charge in the opposite direction. As the magnets approach, the magnets attract to the coil. And when the magnets depart, the magnet is still attracting that coil but from the opposite direction.

No matter what, he has EMF. So he is full of it.

A toroidal core coil doesn't really have an external field so the magnets aren't attracted to the coil via a field to field interaction.

You need flux, movement and a complete circuit to induce current in a conductor. Lose any and there is no induced current. Even with an open circuit coil I suppose it could be said that a Potnetial Difference is created.

Even a straight conductor will exhibit back emf when the current changes so it cannot be said that any physical system is totally free from back EMF so in a way you are right.

That said I agree that Steorn are peddling snake oil, either deliberately or through ignorance.





[edit on 29/1/2010 by LightFantastic]

Just to make the altruistic purposes of these guys trying to build Free Energy devices perfectly clear:

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.

Don Lancaster 1998

Source: Blatant Optimist #49

(by the way, it ain't gonna happen)

[edit on 29/1/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 29/1/2010 by rnaa]

I wonder what excuse they will give when overunity is not shown....

reply to post by broli

buddhasystem, debunkers (if you even qualify for that) like you should be ignored without further notice. You're the type that will deny something even though you are experiencing it just to either protect your delusional sense of pride or worse get your paycheck from debunking.

So let's keep this simple. Ignore my posts and I'll ignore yours.

No.

Sorry.

It doesn't work like that.

You can't post faith-based rubbish here and expect to get away with it. It's buddhasystem's right (and mine) to subject your statements to scrutiny and tell the rest of the membership when you're talking nonsense. As you are.

By the same token, you have the right to scrutinize and criticize other members' statements.

So tell us, then, why do you disagree with buddhasystem's assessment of the desirability of an over-unity device to venture capitalists?