Wednesday, May 9, 2007

The Game is Afoot

Dr. Mike has posted this message over in the Few questions to Dr. Mike Thread:

I have received a description of an experiment and some results. It's proprietary, so that's that. If you get the paper listed in References on magnetism about magnetic viscosity you can see where the term Sv comes from.

Anisotropy energy has a time constant in nanoseconds. Sv has a time constant in milliseconds. One of the formula in the above paper shows

Sv = -k*T/(dE/dH)

where k = Boltzman's constant, T = absolute temperature, and dE/dH = change in energy barrier with respect to external field.

What's interesting is that they claim dE/dH should be measured at constant M_irr where "irr" is a reference to irreversible processes. M is permanent magnet field strength (I think). If it's irreversible it's an energy loss and entropy gain. That says
it will be really hard to see any violation of CoE in this process.

But I've got more to read, and lots of questions to ask. So check out that paper and let's see if we can figure out Sv!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
Also in the forums, nleseul asks:
Care to tell us your initial impression of their setup, though? Does it look like an experiment that would answer the question and be worth your time to do?
And Dr. Mike responds:
I've got some questions for them, but I want to read up on magnetic viscosity and how Sv is used in the literature. The main tie in for me is via anisotropy energy - seems like it's quite similar and has the same underlying physics as magnetic viscosity.

I think one of the main problems is that the term "magnetic viscosity" has different meanings in different contexts. I think "domain realignment time" is more appropriate for what Steorn is talking about compared to what ferrofluids or AC motors use the term for. Maybe - I have to read some more.
Dr. Mike also posted this comment here in regards to his trip in July:
No tickets yet. Promise was for next week. But I have something to read up on, so I can wait! For fun, check out:
and read up on Sv.
Now everyone start reading!


meta said...


Almost identical info...
Also with R. Grössinger & R. Sato Turtelli...

nice graphics though!

This whole area of study has always been a big deal in RF(Radio) engineering BTW.

Anonymous said...

Who is "Liquid frisbee"

"From: Liquid frisbee - certified Hokey Pokey instructor
Date: 9/28/06 @ 7:47 PM253

Heh Heh - That's me! (anyone else bother to register? huh?) Then I'm going to get licensed by Steorn to manufacture and sell OU devices to 3rd world nations like Canada and Burkina Faso. LOL. Sean likes me because I like Guinness too! I'm sure of it.
Plus, I'm on the Patent Office list to receive notification when patents are approved. (If they are that is). I have leasehold interest options on a couple of empty manufacturing plants, (and there has been talk of using existing Asian plants, depending on the level of technology required.) Financing is tentatively approved pending the jury's results. Staff headhunters are on stand-by. It's going to be awesome. Wish I could go into greater detail, but I have NDA's with partners and investors so I can't say too much more. Even if these fucking things turn out to be useless in the practical sense. I feel that they could be the "Pet Rocks" of the new millenium. I mean, who wouldn't want an over-unity device for their desk-top or whatever. Make a helluva good conversation piece. Think about that :) "

Tundrabog said...

Topic: 100 Cheap Shares

Between January 25, 2004 and September 30, 2004 there were an additional 100 Steorn shares issued at 0.01 Euros per share.

This seems odd considering that investor Tom Byrne had paid 11.43 Euro per share in 2000/2001 and the BES scheme had paid 22.82 Euros per share in 2000/2001.

I wish I knew who ended up with these cheap shares, but it’s uncertain because there was a flurry of share transfers involving Sean McCarthy, Michael Daly, Francis Hackett, Shaun Menzies (these are the ‘original four’)Tom Byrne, Patmore Group Ltd., Sadbury Pension and Barry Nangle. The money exchanged as part of these share transfers is not in the public record. Patmore Group Ltd., Sadbury Pension and Barry Nangle were new investors and received a significant number of shares from the ‘original four’ and Tom Byrne.

The 100 cheap shares are doubly perplexing considering that in the following year, Steorn sold shares at an average price of 335 Euros per share.

Gaby de Wilde said...

drmike is going to read-up already. After a year! ROFL!!

Anonymous said...

Wait a second--the Grössinger paper is interesting and all, but it seems irrelevant to the study Steorn's machine. What the paper is essentially talking about is the aging of the magnet's magnetization in the presence of demagnetizing fields that are large enough to destroy the magnet. Pretty much any magnetic device is designed to run in a region where the magnets don't get demagnetized. In this region, the magnetization is constant and the orientation of the domains is fixed), mechanisms that have to do with how long it takes the domains to re-align don't matter.

drmike said...


Right, same guy, same stuff. The point is he's calling Sv IRREVERSIBLE, see page 4 of that PPT.

If that's not the same Sv that Steorn is talking about - well then, what is Steorn talking about???

I know of three definitions for "magnetic viscosity", but this is the only place I've seen Sv referenced. The only others are ferrofluids (no Sv there) and eddy currents (haven't found an Sv there either).

I will try to build something similar to Steorn's test and get their blessing to post the results. It'll take me a while though, an hour a day is all I've got to play with.

meta said...

This is the correct definition of Sv.

Another place this is a big deal is in memory and recording technologies, from the old IBM ferrite core matrixes to modern harddrives to audio and video recording.

But you are right, how the hell does Steorn define Sv??? Have they given you a derivation that they use? If Sv as they use it is NOT:

Sv = -k*T/(dE/dH),
Sv = S/Xirr,

...what is their version of the definition(mathmatical)?

Seems like they would have had to take the irr out of the!

Anonymous said...

"If that's not the same Sv that Steorn is talking about - well then, what is Steorn talking about???"

I think that the Sv in the Grössinger paper (magnetic viscosity applied to the aging of PMs in a high applied field) is what Steorn is talking about, but that it is irrelevant to the functioning of their device. As drmike points out, though, if it were relevant, it would be a loss.

drmike said...

OK, sounds like I understand Sv, at least from the scientific perspective. Next step is to build something that measures consistently similar to Steorn, but without giving anything away (i.e. not related to their process or methods).

Thanks meta!

meta said...


Not knowing exactly what Steorn has sent you, I was thinking that a more quantum mechanical look at things from the viewpoint of activation entropy, activation energy and how that all relates to magnetic viscosity, Sv, Sa, etc. may be of some help.

drmike said...

meta, I think I have that paper buried on my hard drive somewhere. I'll take another look at it.

I'll start laying out a design to test what Steorn thinks is Sv this evening. I definitly want to get into the quantum level, I've been trying to read up on path integrals and quantum field theory for the last month now. If I can figure out a way to mix the two, I'll be in physics heaven :-)

drmike said...

I had a chance to look at the second paper by Skomski A very nice review! There are a lot of different models presented and the applicable realms of each are described.

I like the initial quantum description with a "relevant" and "irrelevant" components for domain flip energy and heat bath energy respectively. While not useful for direct calculation, it gives you an idea of what the general physics has to be.

It's also cool that it references stuff from the 1930's, '40's, '50's, '60's and '90's. It's not like this is "new", but there's always an approximation that can be improved.

I really don't understand why Steorn thinks this has anything to do with their "effect", but I'll try to build an experiment that is similar enough without giving anything more away. I've been percolating all day, I think sleeping on it some will get me somewhere over the weekend.

Anonymous said...

150-200 irshmen traveling in 50 cars removed the entrance gate of a norwegian caravan-camp that was not yet opened for the summer season.
They dammaged the camp owner's car and they stole tools from the office. The police had to tell the irishmen to leave the place.

The fun part is what those irishmen are doing in Norway during the summertime.

They are "driveway-conmen".
Without asking you first, they put something black on your driveway and try to charge you a lot of money for fixing your driveway.

meta said...

What caught my eye was this:
"Equation (Liouville–von
Neumann) can be used to predict the evolution of any physical system,
but from the time dependence of the entropy:
dS/dt= etc, etc...
we see that this method is not feasible in practice. The reason
is the deterministic character of the many-body Schrodinger
and Liouville–von Neumann equations, whereas irreversibility
is associated with the transition from the complete Hamiltonian
to a ‘‘coarse-grained’’ Hamiltonian describing the relevant
magnetic degrees of freedom, such as the position of a
domain wall, whereas the irrelevant degrees of freedom, such
as lattice vibrations and magnons, act as a heat bath."

Well, there you have it seems to me.

Also, found their discussion of the
logarithmic law interesting.

I do not see why Steorn thinks this has anything to do with their claims either, but that they seem to indicate that it does is intriguing.

Anything you happen to independently find about Sv, or some analogue, as you delve into the Steorn experiment would be interesting also.

A friend once showed me a photo he took, he asked me to guess what it was. It looked to me like a satellite photo of the Himalayas. It was actually a close up of fat marbling in a lamb shoulder chop.

drmike said...

Yup, we'll see what I can come up with. Tricky part will be doing an "Sv experiment" a la Steorn without breaking NDA.

Nothing like a challenge :-)

Tundrabog said...

Topic: The Investment Lie?

The Steorn claim of not raising any more investor money until technology validation is a fundamental pillar to the belief of many that Steorn truly has free-energy and isn’t simply after more money from gullible and naïve investors.

I’ve covered the subject of recent Steorn investments before, but I want to provide a more thorough analysis.

Every single piece of evidence that I’ve provided is in the public record.

Evidence Item 1:

Sean McCarthy interview with SkyNews – posted on YouTube August 29, 2006.

“From the day we issued the advert until the day the results are coming in, we will not commercialize in any way. We will not, you know, sell shares in the company. We’ve had hundreds of offers.”

Evidence Item 2:

The ‘advert’ was published in The Economist in August, 2006.

Evidence Item 3:

Sean McCarthy interview with FoxNews – Posted on YouTube September 10, 2006.

“We will neither raise money nor license the technology until the world of science has fully acknowledged that the results/published the results of the technology and shown this to work.”

Evidence Item 4:

The Guardian article – August 25, 2006

“And, until their claims have been assessed by the jury, McCarthy says they won't be accepting any investor offers.”

Evidence Item 5:

Irish Sunday Times article, April 22, 2007

“Steorn, the Dublin-based company that advertised in The Economist magazine last summer for scientists to test its controversial “energy-creating” technology has raised 14 million Euros since it was set up. Most recently it raised 8.4 million Euros to fund its energy project.”

“Steorn has convinced private investors to pump in just over 14 million Euros since it was set up, new Companies Office Filing reveal. McCarthy said that the company had decided not to raise more funds until it had proved the technology.”

Evidence Item 6:

From Steorn’s Annual Return stamped 12 Mar 2007 (fee paid 13 Mar 2007) by the Companies Registration Office. Return made up to September 30, 2006.

Ordinary -- 120,421 shares --- total amount paid 5,819,109.00 Euros
Ordinary ‘A” – 3,392 shares --- total amount paid 77,453.95 Euros

Totals 123,813 shares – total amount paid 5,896,562.95 Euros

(Note: I have reviewed the full set of official, submitted Steorn Annual Returns since their creation in July, 2000 and have verified that the 5.9 million Euro shareholder investment total is for the entire period of Steorn’s existence up to September 30, 2006.)


The difference between 14 million Euros (April 22, 2007) and 5.9 million Euros (Sept.30, 2006) is 8.1 million Euros. Irish Sunday Times says ‘just over 14 million Euros’ and ‘most recently it raised 8.4 million Euros’.

If these publicly available reports are correct, then Steorn has raised 8.1 – 8.4 million Euros in the September 30, 2006 – April 22, 2007 period.

This is a direct contradiction to Sean McCarthy’s statements about not raising money until the technology is proven.

Care to explain, Sean? Accounting errors? Did the media misquote you? Did you lie?

Anonymous said...

Great work, Thicket.

There's only one conclusion at this point, Sean's a pathological liar.

I'll bet that Sean reads these comments. If he can prove Thicket wrong he needs to do so. This is a big one.

Anonymous said...

Great job, thundrabog!
Great blog, free energy tracker!

All Steorn's media attention is of course to get more investors&money.

Why would Steorn publish their phone numbers, email and adress :
They do this because they want to be contacted by investors.