A Video and a Banning
In the forums today, Sean links us to this fun video exploring Steorn's office:
As Fiksu_Vekotin puts it "The people working at Steorn are actually.. people." It's nice to see some of their labs and the upbeat tempo of the Steorn employees.
On a sad note for some of us, as seen in previous comment posts here at SteornTracker, Thicket and his 11 or so other usernames have all been and his username Thicket_ have been banned from the Steorn forums. Thicket posted a now removed post insulting Sean, and I assume it was the straw that broke the camels back.
edit: I've updated the info on Thickets banning, my mistake. There were others banned also yesterday, and it is unclear why some of them were. We don't have a reason for some of the bannings, and we realize it's Sean's prerogative to ban anyone he chooses. We're almost getting to the point where we need an independent forum ;-(.
38 comments:
SteornTracker, I got banned, I never insult people, and I am NOT an alt of Thicket!
In fact, I only found out I had been banned when I was about to post a comment to Lister's query in the "What's been happening in the SPDC thread" in relation to his question about interest in magnetic viscosity and could not. I thought something was wrong with the forum software, then I saw what happened to Thicket. Then I rechecked my own status...jeez! WTF????
Here is what I was going to post:
Lister wrote:
"I wonder, is the 'lag' (or magnetic viscosity) thing still popular in the SPDC ?
For some reason it had become very popular in this forum even though there is not particularly mysterious about it and the fact that is hardly if ever of any real consequence. The only reason for its popularity here that I can imagine is that it is very difficult to look up information about it on the internet."
Response by me-meta:
Steorn has stated that they discovered their effect while attempting to increase the efficiency of small wind generators. Discussions of brushless vs. brushed, magnetic materials of the rotor/stator and actual propeller or turbine design, etc. aside, the biggest area of exploration for improving a wind generator's efficiency in an environment where the mechanical input (torque) to the generator varies from nothing (in no wind) to considerable (in high -wind) resides in an exploration of what the people in the motor/actuator community call "cogging torque" or "detent torque."
These torques would be especially important in very low wind situations.
Putting on my "It's a measurement mistake" hat and considering what Steorn has said in the past, I tend to think Steorn discovered "effect" while measuring input torques and compared them to the output (electrical) of some "improved" iteration their generator.
IMHO, either the interpretation of their data, or perhaps even a function (flawed) of the data acquisition or analysis software they were using suggested to them the output of the device was "over-unity."
Perhaps they even tried to devise a way to "feedback" the "overunity" energy into their device and the effect disappeared.
Puzzeled, the next step might be to make a linear simulation of what they though was going on, by making a "linear" analogue of their generator. (During the early experiments with that process they came up with their "Linear Actuator", which I think people in the actuator community would call a "Linear Magnetic Coupling.")
This lead to other linear "test" devices, in an attempt to simplify some sort of finite element analysis of what was actually producing the effect. These experiments were/are still leading them to think they have found an over-unity effect.
Again, at any point in this process, feeding back output to the device collapses the effect, because Nature nulls out any assumption or software errors.
Magnetic viscosity, hysteresis etc are all features of cogging, and I am thinking that Steorn thinks they have found a "loophole" via hysteresis they can exploit to go over-unity, people are picking up on that, hence the interest in these things.
As with any simulations, or even with DAC and DSP, the road can be pitfall rich. I am reminded of the situation a few years ago when SPICE models of batteries were at a very primitive level of refinement. SPICE simulations of battery chargers using these primitive SPICE battery models could yield very surprising and unreal simulations.
Anyway, I am becoming convinced that Steorn has made some errors and those mistakes started (and persist) with their inquiry into cogging and trying to manipulate the variables that pertain to that phenom. DrMike has a web page with plots of Steorn data that is consistent with those types of experiments.
Also see:
http://tinyurl.com/389kln
There has been tons of research into cogging/detent torque, both in terms of mitigation of it to reduce vibration, wear and noise and improve power transmission, and also into ways to increase and manipulate cogging/detent torques for use in control applications, stepper motors, etc. There is a lot about this and discussion of ways to measure and analyze these torques on the internet. The Japanese in particular seem to be leaders in this effort.
Because of all of this, it seems to me that the only valid way to show any "coefficient of performance" over unity would be the classic test for PM machines. If the validation is to be provided by simulation or data analysis alone, I cannot see how it could be valid, since I am sure that is where error is being generated. Using software that is operationally equivalent but independent and different from that which Steorn is using might be acceptable until full thermodynamic characterization of the system can be done, depending on how heat generated by the system is being accounted for, but that is still not a "real world" indication.
Therefore the only valid test that I can imagine, short of the classic PM test, is a full thermodynamic analysis, similar to what Hal Puthoff does. This is the only way I can see to eliminate the effect of bias and entrenched errors, no matter how inadvertent or subtle those errors.
BTW, here is a link that shows ways permanent magnets, magnetic shields and hysteresis is being used now, along with some simple, but enlightening maths (think heat!):
http://tinyurl.com/2tdhvo
nleseul wrote:
"All "honest measurement mistake" scenarios run into the same problem, as far as I'm concerned.
If Sean is being completely honest and not trying to be misleading, Steorn is having 100,000 units of a demo product manufactured. That product is supposed to clearly demonstrate perpetual motion under load.
Prototypes of that product have already been made, and Sean sent at least one back,requesting cosmetic changes to it.
If there are actual, physical prototypes of that product in existence, and if Sean can examine them and decide that they're the wrong color, then surely he would have also noticed that they don't actually, you know, work"
I agree with you! Except if I am right, Sean may not be able to tell if the device is really over-unity.
In spite of that- that would have to mean they think they have in hand a device that already fullfills the requirements of Phase 1, "Shows coefficent of efficency greater that 100%."
And such a device could and should be sent into a thermodynamic "full up" test.
Does anyone know if Steorn has sent a copy of this device to Hal Puthoff (I doubt Dr. Puthoff will mind any cosmetic or asthetic lacks) for such a test?
Can anyone justify why that should not be done?
But my point is, the prototype of the product is intended to run under load, with no input energy, for an indefinite period. Test data can be misinterpreted, sure, but there's no way even a total layman could fail to notice that a product intended to do those things doesn't work as intended.
nleseul said...
"But my point is, the prototype of the product is intended to run under load, with no input energy, for an indefinite period. Test data can be misinterpreted, sure, but there's no way even a total layman could fail to notice that a product intended to do those things doesn't work as intended."
I understand your point, and agree within the limitations of your assumptions. Can you direct me to a place where Steorn stated that this demonstration device will "run under load, with no input energy, for an indefinite period"-or something that is equivalent to that? You realize that I and many others advocated doing this from the beginning and were met with much resistance.
You did not answer my question, which is: "Can anyone justify why this device, one Steorn asserts exists right now, should not be sent into a thermodynamic "full up" test? Seems like that would answer all questions in the most efficient way.
My point was to point people to resources related to what I think Steorn is involved with, and discuss when, and where error could develop, and also that test data, simulation data, etc. alone will not prove anything unless all raw data, code, procedure, etc. are all also open to scrutiny. Even then if all looks well it will be only supportive, not definitive. Massaged data, simulations and extrapolations are only the map, they are not the territory.
In any case, when this device becomes available and gets into independent hands much will become clear. Until that happens, and a proper thermodynamic characterization of this hardware is done, an over-unity effect cannot be proved or dis-proved.
meta, you just don't get it. Your logic is twisted into pretzel knots. It's truly embarrassing.
Are you familiar with Goebbels's theory of the Big Lie?
If Steorn do not have what they claim, they are lying. Pure and simple.
There is no way to explain away what they have been talking about with "measurement error."
Either they have what they claim or they are part of the most complex scam/hoax science and industry have ever seen. They are going to rewrite either science or criminal enterprise.
Your "middle path" is going to get you run over.
They sure know how to do marketing. Nice video with nice music, though.
"meta, you just don't get it. Your logic is twisted into pretzel knots. It's truly embarrassing.
Are you familiar with Goebbels's theory of the Big Lie?
If Steorn do not have what they claim, they are lying. Pure and simple.
There is no way to explain away what they have been talking about with "measurement error."
Either they have what they claim or they are part of the most complex scam/hoax science and industry have ever seen. They are going to rewrite either science or criminal enterprise.
Your "middle path" is going to get you run over."
ummm perhaps, but Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
BTW, I am not asserting measurement error alone, no- if you look close you will see I am asserting systematic errors of assumption also, and am using a limited frame.
Point about Goebbels is well taken, I doubt that is not in the back of everyones mind.
SteornTracker
I want to correct misinformation you have posted.
My account Thicket and Thicket_ were banned yesterday. I have no other alts. Oakthicket was banned many months ago.
The other accounts such as Meta, The Pope, Stormbringer and PCSTRU(sp?) are not mine.
Thicket
I just read about this forum over on Steorn's forum:
http://fizzx.com
It might be a good place to continue some of these discussions. Are any of you registered over there?
Thicket here. Different computer, different google account.
I’ve been reviewing the financial reports filed with the Irish government by Steorn. Over the next few days, I’ll be reporting my findings
Today’s topic is, Who Are The Steorn Investors?
Despite superficial appearances, all the Steorn investors seem to be private individuals. There are no institutional investors.
All investors are Irish, with one possible but unlikely exception in the Patmore Group from Channel Islands.
At the end of 2005, there were 123,813 Steorn shares.
30% of the shares are held by Sean McCarthy. Please note that this does not necessarily mean he put in 30% of the money that Steorn has. This is a separate topic for another day.
The Governor & Co. of the Bank of Ireland, BES scheme holds 2.7% of the shares. These shares have a nominal total value of 34 Euros, but cost 77,420 Euros to buy. While this appears to be an institutional investor, this is not the case. This is one or more private investors who have taken advantage of the government’s BES (Business Expansion Schemes) program to get tax writeoffs for investment in Irish companies. BES schemes are very interesting and put some conditions on Steorn that have not yet been discussed. This topic too is for another day.
Patmore Group Limited could be an institutional investor, but I don’t think so. They hold 3.7% of the shares. Their contact information is a post office box number in the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands are popular as a tax haven. The only reference I’ve found to the Patmore Group is a late 80’s/early 90’s gold property in British Columbia. I doubt it’s the same group. The Patmore Group is clearly not a public institution. Patmore is a common Irish name.
Sadbury Pension holds 4.5% of the shares. I can find zero other references to Sadbury Pension, so it’s likely the personal or estate pension of someone named Sadbury.
Goodbody Stockbrokers is a large Irish firm holding 0.04% of the shares. This too isn’t an institutional investor. Stock brokers buy, sell and hold stock for individual investors.
I found out lots of interesting stuff about some individual investors, but I prefer to honour their right to privacy.
That’s it for today. In the coming days I will cover things such as;
• Why a separate shell company called Steorn Nominees?
• Who originally set up Steorn, and what other businesses did they launch?
• How do you raise almost 6 million Euros in 2005, when the stock is only worth 1238.13 Euros?
• Did Steorn screw up the financial numbers on their website? (aka the difference between balance sheets and profit/loss statements)
• Sticking it to the same investors year after year. Did they finally get tired of paying annual premiums just to hold on to existing stock?
Very interesting info... I'll try posting it to the Steorn forums (if that doesn't get me banned...)
@Thicket
Way to go! Looking forward to your posts. In fact, I think this is more interesting than the Steorn Q1 announcement.
I think Magnatrix has made a mistake. Remember, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Now I suspect Thicket will have new resolve to pick Steorn apart.
As for the excuse that Thicket was rude, anyone who spends a little time reviewing the Steorn forum will be able to see that anything short of a death threat is acceptable if you are a Bleating Believer. But question Sean and your days are numbered.
I don't know if Steorn is a fraud but I do know that Sean has a pretty thin skin for someone who decided to challenge the entire scientific community.
To those left on the forum, let me put it in terms you will understand: Baaaahhhh, Bahh Bahhh Bahhh Baaaahhhh.
OMG BANT!!1
For what it's worth, I was about to post this in the forum thread in response to Crank:
"I'm not posting anything by proxy. I only post legal information that I find interesting and which I think the community would like to see. And like nleseul said -- if the information will be available on ST anyway, wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion about it here, where people can use their forum handles and not have to worry about anonymous posters crashing the party?"
Reasonable enough, I'd say. But I guess I can't say anything, now.
Doh Rhaomi.
Sorry that you got banned. Seems like the Steorn forums will be reduced to talking about hobbit hats.
@Rhaomi
Welcome to the club.
A big thanks to you for asking why I was banned of the Steorn forum, I can detect a pall has come over that place, and no one will even touch that question.
@Thicket
Well, well, well. What a can of worms. I concur with your analysis.
Note the fixed tangible assets?
Low for a tech company.
Also did you catch the note about the 3.5M, some of which will not become visible until the 2006 returns?
To Steorn
Your reason for banning me was???
I think that the lack of accountability in the Steorn forums is absurd. Whoever is doing the bannings is bein extremely overzealous, especially given the general lack of warnings or even any explicit forum rules.
The way I see it, there are two possible situations at work here, both of them problematic:
* The Steorn-appointed moderators are banning people, in which case Steorn needs to rein them in.
* Steorn itself is doing the banning, in which case they are doing severe harm to their claim of wanting to generate skepticism and open debate.
This situation needs to be addressed. The Steorn forums are supposed to be a place where Steorn and its claims can be discussed and debated freely. If public, legal, accessible information is suppressed and censored, and the people who attempt to bring it to light are banned, then how is the forum supposed to function? I understand banning people who are rude, or who try to circumvent the NDA's. But when civil, unobjectionable content that questions Steorn is banned... well...
A bunch of yes-men debating the same tired information over and over again hardly makes for a healthy community.
This is the dr. that has supposedly validated their claims, this was announced to the SPDC
http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/Magnetism/Profiles/mazhar.php
It hardly matters, but here’s what I think happened when Steorn dropped the ban hammer.
Sean banned a number of skeptics on Sunday. There was little active posting going on at the time except on the Hobbit Hats and April 15 thread. I hadn’t posted yet.
I get on my Thicket_ account and find that I can’t post. I regret not checking to see if it was banned, but I now believe it was. I suspect others like Meta, Pcstru4 and The Pope were banned at the same time.
Since I can’t use the Thicket_ account, I try my old Thicket account. I hadn’t used it in months, because there was some kind of login bug. Surprise, surprise… it works. I post on the April 15 thread with my old account, check the Hobbit Hats thread, come back to see my post deleted and my account unable to post. Lol… Sean must’ve been surprised to ban me, and then see me post.
Sonoboy and Lister are the only forum members who say they recall seeing my post. Sonoboy says that I called Sean a bare-faced liar. That’s not true. The relevant sentence was “Calling April 15 the end of the first quarter is bald-faced, bald-headed (formerly) Irish blarney.” I also called Sean a “pathological BS’er”.
There is a difference between a liar and a bull-shitter. A liar is specifically trying to deceive you. Maybe Sean is a liar, but I’ve no evidence of that. A bull-shitter tells you something that he doesn’t expect you to believe. There’s all sorts of evidence that Sean McCarthy is a bull-shitter. April 15 is the end of the first quarter, we have a 550 BHP unit, magnets that move at the speed of an artillery shell. Heck, bull-shitter Sean even states that he doesn’t expect anyone to believe the Steorn free-energy claim.
At any rate, it’s all water under the bridge. Sean decided to ban a number of skeptics as he has every right to do on his boards.
It’s actually a relief not to have to pussy-foot around the Steorn forums. They are decidedly skeptic-hostile.
"This is the dr. that has supposedly validated their claims, this was announced to the SPDC"
What do you mean by "supposedly". What was exactly announced to SPDC? Is he a juror?
no, he's not a juror, this was before all that started...
he's one of the scientists who came and saw the device and admitted it worked but could not explain how.
I read he is involved in a consultancy company that works for Steorn
Rhaomi, you've been unbanned. Sean thought you were an alternate account Thicket was using when you reposted his post from here.
Right, just saw it. It really makes me feel better about the whole situation. The only thing left unanswered is why Meta was banned... I just asked about it on the forum now.
You too, meta.
I'm glad that Meta and Rhaomi were unbanned.
I'm not sure if and why Pcstru4 was banned.
nleseul,
I like your theory debunking when you spoke about the 100,000 units, and where Steorn would obviously notice if it didn't actually "you know, work".
However, Steorn have said something of concern:
"Ok, the most probable explanation is in fact that we just got it wrong, I could explain for example self sustaining devices without CoE violation. The probability of us being right is in fact very, very slim."
Does this mean that he's not convinced about the CoE factor, or that his product probably doesn't generate free energy after all!?
If it's the latter, then how can we reconcile this with your theory? I hope someone asks about this in the thread ASAP.
"I could explain for example self sustaining devices without CoE violation. "
I sure would like to see one of those. Because in the real world due to various disspating factor you can never give back as much energy as you got in. In other word you can never be self-sustaining.
Quanten.
WRT crank, I agree.. she's long since moved on from the objective fence sitter she originally appeared
Regarding what you both said about crank, I strongly disagree with you.
She is still as objective as she can be and is doing a very good job. The same goes for Magnatrix who spends a lot of unpaid time with moderating the forum. They are both doing great work in my opinion.
I am locked out of the steorn forum, well they never let me register in the first place. I would like to discuss all of this orbo tech more. Google turns up http://www.orbochat.com so I registered there, not much traffic yet though. Why is steorn locking people out of their forums?
ssmike1, see this post for instructions on registering on Steorn's forums:
http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/2007/03/email-has-been-sent.html
(hairykrishna here)
Hey Thicket, you joined the ranks of the banished too! Thank you for pointing out the other day (when Seamus was defending Sean) that I had addressed Seans ‘science’ in a few deleted threads.
It is clear, I think, that Sean has limited physics knowledge. This is made more obvious by things that he doesn’t say rather than the things he does. He also insinuates things rather than flat out stating them when he knows he is just bullshitting (Noethers theorem references). He is pretty damn good at arguing and waffling though.
A good example was his ‘thought experiment’. This was hopelessly vague to start with and he was essentially encouraging science-naïve believers to cobble together their own pseudoscience explanation of the ‘Steorn effect’. When I pinned him down he began giving numbers but swiftly reverted back to vague assertions when it was clear that I wanted an actual basis for a calculation. The few numbers he did give were stupid (magnet velocity of ~2km/s if I recall correctly, no field strengths). He also shied away from stating anything concrete. Also, despite what the believers seem to see, he quickly revised his ‘shown by the standard equations’ rhetoric when I invited him to demonstrate it.
Another example (which I can’t find in the forum) was when I encouraged him to describe the methodology of a conservation of energy violation experiment. To say that his experimental description was crude is a severe understatement.
I have no idea what they’re up to. However, I think the ‘measurement hypothesis’ is very unlikely – they claim too many things that can’t possibly be true. They are deliberately evasive and have structured everything about their claim (website, publicity, ‘jury process’) to provide an illusion of validation while actually showing and proving nothing.
Anyway, I digress, I look forward to your analysis of the financials Thicket. It would be a shame if this all turned out to be an overly elaborate ploy to separate a relatively small group of Irish individuals from their hard earned cash! Me, I’m hoping for something that it obviously, publicly a hoax./scam reveal. A documentary/film or something of that ilk rather than a long con that ends with them fading into obscurity after the company folds.
On a side note, I also think that Crank abandoned any semblance of impartiality long ago. This may of course be skewed by the fact that I think ‘fence sitter’ is as untenable a position as ‘believer’. No sane person who actually understands the implications would assign ‘they have a free energy machine’ anything other than a near-zero probability. Near-zero in this context is similar in magnitude (lower if anything) to the near-zero probability that Elvis is alive, well and hiding in their basement.
Kent: steorn tracker makes no claim or product that competes or tries to challenge your IP... thus its not in conflict.
Kent
Steorn:Kent, I am a slave of our trademark guys in this matter.
Right. CEO has no control over the trademark guys.
SteornTracker, please post the letter when it arrives. TX
The idea that Sean banned numerous users thinking they were Thicket's accounts makes no sense. Did they all have the same IP? Similar routing?
LOL - It´s funny to see that hairykrishna still hasn´t thought much about what the so called "thought-experiment" was about and still suffers from several misconceptions.
I hope that hairykrishna will once become a true scientist when his education is finished and he gathered some experience. He refused the chance of doing some interesting research. I think that most people will never understand how such a young man can be so closed-minded. One would guess that very old scientists are closed-minded and young students are more openminded and want to research how things work for themselves instead of repeating what is in the old books over and over again (just like priests quote the bible).
There is still hope for hairykrishna, although he missed out one of the biggest opportunities one can have....
Maybe you could correct my misconceptions Mr Anonymous? Maybe point all these good people to where the experiment was fully described?
Post a Comment