Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Disagreement, Even in the SPDC

In the thread, Which will happen first?, some of the skeptics and believers have a public argument over evidence presented to the SPDC:

enginerd:I am in no-wise violating the NDA I signed when I say that I have yet to see any evidence for Steorn's claim presented in the SPDC forum.

There are some interesting discussions. Sean drops some intriguing hints. Some people who post there are doing some cool experiments. I like cool experiments.

007: LOL - You must have joined the wrong SPDC. The one that the rest of us joined has lots of "evidence" as you put it. Since you've been all but anonymous I actually thought you'd left?

lazy8: Um..I really enjoy the extra "clues" for the game we play that are presented in the SPDC.

But absolutely NO PROOF or EVIDENCE of anything at all has been presented there.

Sure, some stuff that is claimed to be patent "pending" AFAIK, but, utterly nothing in the way of evidence of anything.

NOTHING.
First it's nice to see that there are skeptics in the SPDC. It also amazes me that the will to believe sometimes outweighs actual evidence.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah well I would go with another source to quote then lazy8/the drunk

When the guy is not busy bitchin and moaning, or drunk, and insulting everything within his grasp he usually speaks some fact. But, sorry not this time.

Oh, and what is the purpose of this blog entry? Are you some sort of soap opera fan? What does this have to do with anything related to Steorn itself? A few posters in disagreement over complete nonsense and you find it a valuable entry? pffft. Are you that bored with your life?

Sigh, this place really is something else.

Anonymous said...

So poster #1 you are telling folks that the SPDC has seen more than Lazy8 lets on? You speak of facts yet your post contains nothing but opinion and insult.

"Oh, and what is the purpose of this blog entry?"

Hey, if that ones stumped you, here's another one, Whats the point of the Steorn Forum? The SPDC?

So energyman007 speaking of bored with life, if there is so much more going on in the SPDC (there isn't), why have you ventured here to merely slag Lazy8 and SteornTracker. Are you that bored with the SPDC? Or is this displaced anger at the complete lack of any meaningful info in the SPDC?

P.S. that is some fine bitching and moaning you have managed as well

Anonymous said...

Take my workd for it! No proof has been presented in the SPDC for Orbo. Nothing that would convince anyone on this Blog or on the public forum that Orbo is real. Anyone who says different is jumping to conclusions based on hope and not facts. And Skeptics on the SPDC are quiet because the members there do not like skeptical talk!!

Anonymous said...

007 is a true believer who does not have a skeptical bone in his body abour Orbo.
That is his right, but I would remember this when reading his comments.
If Orbo is proved wrong he will blame the government or blame big business.

maryyugo said...

Look on the bright side. If Orbo doesn't work, there's always this idea for a perpetual motion engine:

"If you strap buttered toast to the back of a cat, and throw it in the air, it will hover and spin because cats always land on their feet and toast always lands butter side down."

One of the comments from here:

http://www.glumbert.com/media/saltwater

Anonymous said...

thanx maryyugo, now i can clean all the coffee off my PC screen. :)

Anonymous said...

Steorn's machine is going on public display next week at the Kinetica museum. www.kinetica-museum.org

From what I understand it is a purely mechanical system that you push to start and then is carries on spinning around with a continuous motion 24 x 7 overcoming air and mechanical friction until you physically stop it from rotating.

This time next week, the skeptics are going to have to come up with some better theories as to how the device keeps turning.

quanten said...

@anonymous , what better theory ? There is a DERTH of PMM on which you pushed a button and it continued for a long time, and finally turned out they had a hidden power source. The best one I remember were the compressed air powered motor from the early century (I think it was in the 1920 : the guy had in his basement a lot of compressed air reservoir, when they destroyed the house they found them). Finsrud mobilum is another one (and no it is NOT functionning 24/365).

And do not get me started with "invisible" to the naked eye power source which could be used (micro-waves, lasers, etc...etc...). With today's tech you can build what could look like a PMM without being one.

I'll see the demonstration when it comes, but I doubt it will be done in an orderly scientific manner as to demonstrate real OU/PMM, Steorn has not up to now demonstrated a bit that they do anything in a proper clean and open manner.

Tundrabog said...

Sounds like a disappointing demo --- a moving device with zero load. Sounds pretty mundane.

Not sure what you mean by 'better' theories. Skeptics have never seen a Steorn free-energy device, so there's been nothing concrete to theorize about. The original Kinetica model wasn't overunity.

Continuous mechanical motion? Sort like thousands of everyday devices. My old wind-up watch for example. The cuckoo clock in my living room does that too.

If it's shown at Kinetica, that would be cool. I'm ok with the Steorn device being 'art', as in 'con artist'.

Anonymous said...

A may have been conversation between Sean and Staff;

Sean: "OK folks, we have to show something in London sometime in July, where are we at?"

Richard: "Well Sean, we have a really cool looking rig with LED's and spinny things and all the stuff that the forum skeptics said it would need to convince them." (pulls back curtain)

Sean: "That’s fantastic!"

Richard: "Well, not completely......"

Sean: "What do you mean by that?!"

Richard: "Small problem, it runs down after a fortnight..."

Sean: "Bah! No problem. Cathy! Call the museum, let them know we can only hold the demo for 10 days."

(just for giggles folks)

maryyugo said...

"Steorn's machine is going on public display next week at the Kinetica museum. www.kinetica-museum.org"

Interesting but where did you hear that / how do you know?

Steorn has repeatedly talked about running cells phones and cars with "Orbo". Sean has mentioned a 550 HP engine for the future and a power density of 0.5 watt/cm cube. I don't know if the power density projection was current or future. The reason I don't know is that Steorn is deliberately weird and unnecessarily vague.

If they show some sort of self-running no load prototype, it's not hard to rule out external power if they cooperate. The easiest way is for someone like Dr. Mike to take it apart with them. But a self-running device with no load can, as Quanten said, be run by a multitude of tricks-- barometric, thermal change, spring, battery or radiant power motors-- all are possible and can't be ruled out.

It seems pretty obvious that if they don't allow it to be dismantled by an expert like Dr. Mike, and it does not do useful work against a load, then it's just bluster and almost certainly scam.

Does anyone but me wonder why they won't name anyone in the jury, show them an actual device, or allow them to speak? *Is there* a jury and if so, how do we know that?

BTW, I'd ask in the forum except that I've been "banned" with no explanation, recourse or apparent reason. I never insulted anyone, used bad language or acted in an offensive manner (except maybe to believers with religious fervor).

You have to ask yourself: Would the developer of the greatest technological invention in history act the way Steorn acts? Delays, unclear statements, promises that are not kept, juries that can't report and forums that are heavily censored? How *likely* is that?

enema8 said...

So anonymous, are you leaking confidential info from the SPDC? Tell us more!

drmike said...

anonymous said:
"From what I understand it is a purely mechanical system that you push to start and then is carries on spinning around with a continuous motion 24 x 7 overcoming air and mechanical friction until you physically stop it from rotating."

What is the load factor it takes to stop it? Can I hook a dynamo up to it and charge some capacitors?

A few rubber bands and bicycle alternator should be sufficent to prove it's generating power.

But better yet - let's hook it up to feed it self. If you can push it a little to start it, you can have it push itself and spin a lot faster (exponentially - it should self destruct if we do it right!)

Can't wait to see it!!

JTerry said...

I guess in my naive, layman's understanding of PPM/OU machines (or at least the (non)science behind them), isn't it true that if both sides of the equation cancel out completely it is not a PPM/OU? In other words, doesn't it need to produce more energy than it consumes, not merely produce enough energy to sustain just itself? Of course, I'm assuming that a machine could exist that runs with perfect energy balance, which I'm sure is in and of itself improbable if not impossible given friction, gravity, etc. Otherwise, doesn't a PPM/OU device need to carry an external load of some kind no matter how small in order to qualify and be of any use to us at all? Dr. Mike, can you give us the idiot's definition for a PPM/OU machine?

drmike said...

The idea behind "free energy" or "over unity" is that you get out more energy then you put in. If you take the ratio of output/input, normal thermodynamics gives you about 1/3 - it takes 3 GW of heat power to generate 1 GW of electricity.

The concept of "over unity" is that output/input > 1. If that were really possible, you could take a small portion of the output and feed it back into the input. Since the ratio of output/input is greater than 1, you get even more out than you originally did.

By holding the feedback in place, you get infinte power. Galactic conquest is a no brainer from there! :-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

nleseul said...

Just because putting in 1 joule gives you 3 joules doesn't necessarily mean that putting in 3 joules gives you 9 joules. The "magic" might only work within a given range of input energies.

Anonymous said...

...and a wealth of garage inventors the world over have constructed devices that are close to 1:1 with no load applied. Being so close entices them to believe that with just a few tweaks they can just tip it over into over unity - nonsense of course.

I'm very much looking forward to the demo though, the soap opera of it all is very entertaining (hence the Steorn docu guys).

Anonymous said...

007 is a true believer who does not have a skeptical bone in his body abour Orbo.
That is his right, but I would remember this when reading his comments.
If Orbo is proved wrong he will blame the government or blame big business.

---------------------------

If I am proved wrong (which I won't be) then I'd stand up and apologise to anyone and everyone whom I'd argued against - and you can hold me to that. You have my word.

However, Steorn's ORBO technology is set to revolutionise the world, so now is the time to dump your skeptical demons and jump on board the believers train. Because the believers train is about to turn into the "we told you so express".

It's make your mind up time, becuase you can choose now to look informed , or look like a fool.

The choice is yours. If you do choose the unbeliever side then you're going to feel like a complete arse.

Don't say you weren't warned.

007

Anonymous said...

Just a quick word about the original post. Enginerd has always been overtly skeptical - and his reason for joining the SPDC has never been entirely clear.

Some would speculate that his presence is purely to spread idle conjecture.

His references to "no evidence" depend on what HE defines as evidence. He has always maintained that until he has an ORBO device working in his own hands then he won't believe a word.

From this it is obvious that his benchmark for evidence is impractical and flawed.

Anonymous said...

007 claims "now is the time to dump your skeptical demons and jump on board the believers train."

Why would any person in their right mind believe Steorn's claims before they show any evidence of the Orbo actually working?

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

Thicket said...

@007

It's nice to see a polite post from you.

There is no chance that Steorn has a free-energy device. Some believers will never be convinced that Steorn has nothing, even if Sean were tossed in jail for fraud.

The world will take little notice of the free-energy believers. They haven't in the past and this won't change. Steorn can fade into anonymity; a mere footnote in the long history of perpetual motion failures, and no one will care a whit about the gullible believers that were foiled again.

Anonymous said...

Has Steorn announced how one may watch the demonstration on the fourth live?

Anonymous said...

@007

It's nice to see a polite post from you.

There is no chance that Steorn has a free-energy device. Some believers will never be convinced that Steorn has nothing, even if Sean were tossed in jail for fraud.

The world will take little notice of the free-energy believers. They haven't in the past and this won't change. Steorn can fade into anonymity; a mere footnote in the long history of perpetual motion failures, and no one will care a whit about the gullible believers that were foiled again.

----------------

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but from my SPDC time I can honestly say that my views that free energy can be harnassed have only been re-inforced, despite the BS that you may hear from people like enginerd.

There is now no doubt whatsoever that we are on the brink of something amazing in history.

This is a fantastic time to be alive and I feel very fortunate to be part of it.

maryyugo said...

" Steorn can fade into anonymity "

The folks who invested millions of Euros in this venture may, not all that respectfully, disagree with you. Remember Enronand the many scams like it?? Those did not end well for the company officers and for the people who hatched the schemes. Steorn may not end well for Sean and his crew.


"It's make your mind up time, becuase you can choose now to look informed , or look like a fool."

That's such a strange thing to say it mystifies me. At the moment, there isn't a shred of evidence in favor of "Orbo". No demo, no video, no witnesses who will talk, and there isn't even any evidence that the jury exists much less "Orbo".

All there are are completely empty claims. Even if Steorn's claims are borne out, only a total idiot would believe them at this point in time. Considering that the claims fly in the face of all that is known about physics, nobody, but absolutely nobody who doubts Steorn at this point of time will look foolish regardless of what Steorn eventually demonstrates. But remember, physics as we know, works pretty well. It isn't likely to be overthrown by a bunch of PR people.

Anonymous said...

Some of the things presented in this thread as facts are inaccurate but I really just want to comment on one thing: If a steorn device merely spins and does so indefinitely . . . its a miracle. Some of those who pooh pooh and say they wanted to see it grind walnuts or whatever to show a "load", are demonstrating that their overly critical spirit has canceled out friction in the Steorn device. If it runs at all without external power, the world will change.
granthodges

Anonymous said...

@thicket

Steorn is going to show a demo, sometime, someplace. Or not.

You continuously assert your opinion as fact i.e "There is no chance that Steorn has a free-energy device."

This is one example of many.

You are one example of many.

I ask you, do you really think there will be no demo?

You are not a naive scientist. You know from months of participating in the forum exactly what the claims are.

Have you given any thought to what you will say if you see an ORBO spinning on a web cam someday?

You have gone farther over the line as a basher than anyone has gone on the believer side. Including Babcat.

You spew rude, belligerent assertions as if they were facts.

Tell me now. What are you going to say after you see it? Are you going to pretend that you have been reasonable and fair about it? Are your going to apologize? Are you going to justify your attacks? Or, if you are wrong, will you crawl back under a rock never to be heard from again.

At some point in the future it will be judgement day for you and your ilk, not just Steorn.

All Sean has ever asked of you is to wait and see. He did not ask you to believe. He did not ask you for money. He did not ask you for anything. They have done everything they could do to counter the scam arguments and the attacks from the likes of you.

What will you say when you see it?

Quanten said...

quote "His references to "no evidence" depend on what HE defines as evidence. He has always maintained that until he has an ORBO device working in his own hands then he won't believe a word." /quote

My best guess is that all the data and equation presented within the SPDC neither does show a break of CoE nor show the magnetic viscosity to be anything but a loss generating physical phenomenon.

In other word no experimental apparatus neither reproducible results were presented leading one to think they can do an OU device.
THOSE are credible evidence.
a piece of paper with OU results without an apparatus to independantly reproduce the results is not evidence.

You can ask enginerd himself but I think this is what he is using as standart of evidence, and as far as the rumor from SPDC are true, then none of the above was presented.

But then again anonymous you can have a lower weaker standard of evidence if you wish. Sadly it Won't convince anyone but believer.

pennies_everywhere said...

Keely is the father of modern perpetual motion hoaxes. He rigged his entire basement with pneumatics. He put on flashy displays for investors. He always had an excuse as to why the flashy display couldn't quite go to market. His script has been adapted by many since. Mark Goldes and MPI in particular come to mind.

Suomipoika said...

Granthodges, I knew you are quite ignorant about physics, but I honestly thought you would understand this one. Seems that I was wrong.

Steorn claims, that their device can produce useful energy (in other words: work against external load).

If there is no external load in their demonstration, they are not demonstrating the device they claim they have built. They are demonstrating something else. If this is the case, I will kiss goodbye to SPDC and wish good luck to Steorn in their future activities.

World is full of faked OU-machines, which revolve without external load, and they need VERY little amount of energy to maintain the motion, like Finsrud machine. That amount of energy can be extracted practically from anywhere.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

Of course there will be a demo. I have no doubt about that.

The demo will show some magnetic device that moves. *shrug*. Big deal. There 'will' be a spinning device shown on a web cam. Only naive and gullible folks will immediately draw the conclusion that this is somehow proof that the device is free energy.

If the device mechanically powers a load, then it may be interesting. If it sits there spinning/moving, it will be like thousands of other devices, none of which are free-energy.

I admit to being mystified that seemingly intelligent people can be totally taken in by the Steorn bollox. The power of blind faith and hero-worship with zero evidence is clearly a strong human characteristic.

All Steorn has ever asked (and gotten) is millions of Euros from gullible investors.

Your fervent wish to wipe the smug smirk of scientific self-assurance from my face is just another fantasy.

Thicket

maryyugo said...

"If the device mechanically powers a load, then it may be interesting. If it sits there spinning/moving, it will be like thousands of other devices, none of which are free-energy."

Yeah- but with one major exception. There's a chance that Dr. Mike will be there to take it apart and look for the hidden energy source. That should be fun to watch on the webcams. If Steorn allows it, of course.

Anonymous said...

For Granthodges - here are two examples of common devices that operate for long periods without visible sources of power. If Steorn only achieve that, then they achieved nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_bird

Of course, none of these devices can support a load. It is the claim that Orbo is a significant OU device that can power a load that gets attention, because such a device has never been demonstrated before.

Anonymous said...

A Crookes can support a load, albeit a very small one - and the source of energy is visible since it is light.

If we were blind then the source of energy would not be visible. This is the situation with the Steorn device.

Though the source of energy may not be visible it is very obvious to anyone who has ever played around with magnets.

maryyugo said...

"Though the source of energy may not be visible it is very obvious to anyone who has ever played around with magnets. "

Sorry, could you be more clear? The source of Crookes device energy is ambient lighting and of the drinking bird device is evaporation of a fluid. What sort of device and energy source are you referring to?

It shouldn't be too hard for him to determine an external energy source if Dr. Mike is allowed to take the device apart-- or at least remove any casing and make some instrument measurements.

Prof. X said...

Hi guys,

I've been teaching physics for some time, before retiring, spending the rest of my time on scientific research. One should note that the law of conservation of energy (COE), even though being one of the strongest laws in physics, is only a special case of Noether's theorem, which basically states that the COE can only be applied to systems which can be considered as closed, and these are the systems that can be shown to be operating symmetrically in the time dimension. This basically means that the operation of the system must be an exact reversed image of the same, when the motion is reversed in time. Now, it just happens that not all systems are time symmetric in their operation, and we know this from Quantum mechanics. This is especially true, when the path of motion consists of more than one entity. So, a word of caution - do not blindly accept the COE before assesing the motion over one whole cycle. And this will be the reason why Steorn will not make the workings of their device visible to anyone, not to Dr. Mike, not to anyone else. The secret has nothing to do with magnetic viscosity, which was just a misleading track to waste members time. The principle of operation can be explained in no more than a few lines. Steorn caught some big fish in their SPDC, and they think that since no one came out with a good description of their device, there is no way their technology leaks out of anywhere. But, the biggest fish is still out, and the secret of converting potential energy into useful work may not come out from Steorn after all!

15-India-Street said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
maryyugo said...

" Now, it just happens that not all systems are time symmetric in their operation, and we know this from Quantum mechanics. "

Maybe so but quantum physics applies only to extremely tiny structures. I hate to keep harping on the theme but what Steorn claims is a power density of 0.5 watt/cm cube. This isn't something subtle like cold fusion. It's a lot. They'd better show it if they can.

drmike said...

Curiouser and curiouser. Down the rabbit hole we go!!!!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Richard said...

If this was real I don't see why they wouldn't just keep everything under wraps until it was perfected and then start marketing motors. This sounds like the new 65 Chevy that ran coast to coast on one tank of gas and then was bought back for a fortune by GM and Big Oil. Even so I won't be able to resist watching the demo - should be good fun whether it works or not.

Prof. X said...

Free energy guru? Well, free energy is a broad term wich covers different technologies including solar cells, wind generators, etc.., I specialise in energy from vacuum research. Despite results of this kind of research are not found in your everyday's text books, they are well advanced to the point of practical applications.

Steorn claims to generate energy from nowhere, and even to destroy it. This is utter non sense. Such statements can only do harm to themselves, and to the serious researchers in related fields of study. Just because they are unable to detect the energy powering their device does not mean it is getting it from nowhere. Claiming overunity is very different from saying that COE does not apply. COE can be easily invalidated if it is misapplied to an open system which 'looks like' a closed system. I say 'looks like' because that's usually the case with the class of machines Steorn has stumbled upon.

These machines are real, even though Steorn's scientific claims are stupid, but perhaps the stupid claims were an easy way to attract the required attention. I have personally studied the theory of operation of this class of devices, and testing of such (working) prototypes during the past few years. Of course, you demand proof, otherwise I'm no better than an artist.

For this purpose, the presence of Dr.Mike at the demo may prove very useful, and interesting indeed.

So here is the deal.

I will hereby state a few predictions, which as far as I know have not been released by Steorn regarding their device. I'm not an SPDC member, so I cannot know if such information has ever made it to members under NDA, but I find this highly unlikely. If Dr.Mike is given enough access on the demo unit he will be able to prove me right in a few days from now, and you will be sure that I know exactly what I am talking about, and that Steorn's device is surely not the only or first such working model in existence today. If he finds I am wrong, then probably Steorn's device is a fake, which is still unlikely, even though I find it quite impossible for anyone to stumble on the concept by coincidence, without the correct background theory.

ok Mike, I hope you read this. I am assuming Steorn has by now advanced its work enough to put a continuous self sustaining rotating model so that it will make testing easier for you. I also suppose you can electronically log the rotational velocity with time. Use optical or magnetic sensors, as you will not be able to machanically couple your system to the device. If they present you with a stop-go mechanism, I'm sure you will know how to adapt your test procedures.

Prediction number 1:

The device will slow down in the time close (within +- few minutes) to astronomical noon. The amount of change in rotational speed will depend on the model, but should be enough for you to detect in your data logs. This change will not be due to any change in ambient temperature.

Prediction 2:

If you are given access to the internal synchronising mechanism (you will recognise this as soon as you see it), you will confirm to us, that shifting the synchronisation angle, will change the direction of the rotation of the device. At midpoint of the angle extremes, the device will behave as a closed system, obey COE, and behave 'normally', that is, will not overcome external friction. On the extremity angle settings, if the device is started in the wrong direction, an external 'extra' braking force will be noticed.

Prediction 3:

The moving part is not a magnet.


Prediction 4:

Whatever the number of components inside, the device will always have 3 special positions.

couldbe said...

intriguing remarks by Prof X. I wonder if he is one of the Unversity-8 to whom Steorn showed their device several years ago, and has been beavering away at it on his own since then.

maryyugo said...

" I specialise in energy from vacuum research. "

Hey Prof, do you mind explaining that a bit for us?

"they are well advanced to the point of practical applications."

And while you're at it, could you illustrate and reference just one of these practical applications in sufficient details that it becomes testable or at least credible?

Sorry but "energy from vacuum" sounds like the stuff of cranks and crooks. You can go a long way towards dispelling that notion (as well as the belief that you're Dr. Mabuse in disguise) by responding *carefully* to the above questions. Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

So Prof X. What, according to you, is the source of energy ?

Gravitational pull ?

other anon said...

I believe that energy from the vacuum is the energy(money) that can be extracted from the vaccum between the ears of possible investors.

15-India-Street said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
couldbe said...

Prof X said:
The device will slow down in the time close (within +- few minutes) to astronomical noon.

+++++++++++++

I'm only a civilian but that sounds too precise to me.

Prof. X said...

@15-india-street

"Steorn claims 0.5 W/cm3, can you confirm that?"

Whilst I have no direct access to what they are doing, I think I am able to answer your question.

The quoted unit of 0.5W/cm3 is usually referred to as specific power density, sometimes it's quoted as W/gramme. Some manufacturers like to cheat a little bit, in that they state the power density, but not the energy density. To have the full picture of the performance of your energy source, the manufacturer should supply you a graph plotting the specific power vs specific energy, sometimes referred to a discharge performance curve. The energy density of these devices depends on various parameters, but it actually boils down to the time taken for the device to accelerate to its terminal velocity. At low velocities, such as at start up, these units cannot even be mechanically connected to anything more than their own bearings, otherwise they won't even bulge. So, a fair power rating would be the continuous power output at which the device can be kept running at a constant speed, but I am afraid, this figure would scare potential investors.

As with most things, nothing is ideal in real life. Some energy sources are good at giving short powerful bursts of energy, others are good at giving long term moderate energy levels. For example, a battery that can only be discharged relatively slowly will be inappropriate for a rapid discharge, of the order of a few minutes. Specific power relates the maximum power achievable from the energy source per unit weight or volume of the source, and this is what Steorn has quoted.

Now, comparing Steorn's value to my own, it is clear that their value was measured using a mechanism in which all available energy was dumped into the measuring equipment in one short burst. This was probably done during the measurements of their initial start-stop version. So,the value of 0.5W/cm3 for a portable unit, might well be realistic, but not useful for any practical purpose in which a continuous power is required. Compare this to one of those supercapacitors which some guys put in parallel with their car's audio equipment to help during short bursts of power consumption.

Steorn's marketing might have been mislead with this figure, or intentionally assumed it was a continuous power rating, enabling them to extrapolate their claims to the more 'attractive' everyday's comodities like mobile phone or laptop battery replacement, which I find irrelevant to such technology. These statements are false, at least with what they have in hand. Not to mention the 550hp super extrapolation.

@couldbe

No I'm not one of the 8, I intentionally left my position at the university 10 years ago, to chase my own research work, so I am no longer affiliated with any university, and have never had any kind of communication with Steorn. However the fact that I gave you more clues than Steorn has given out during the past months added up all together (=almost nothing), might lead you to a better interpretation of the facts, than the one you just implied.

15-India-Street said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Prof. X said...

@15-india-street

As far as I know, Finsrud machine does come to a stop after some time, even though this time is somewhat longer than one would expect from such mechanism.

Yes, Steorn demo will not show the load capability of their device, most probably it will just be freewheeling itself. For the class of device Steorn is working on, 0.5 W/cm3 is much too large as an average system power output - no way they will confirm this kind of power during their demo.
It's true, this demo will prove nothing unless the public knows what's going on. However, the problem is that Steorn wants to make money out of selling licences of the actual principle, which forces them to hide the mechanical workings. Steorn is trying to find a way to sell this principle without exposing it, so they must accumulate the faith of sceptics and increase the number of beleivers until they achieve their goal. To make things worse, as they clearly admit, they have arrived at it by 'stumbling' on the effect, not deriving it from first principles.

The questions which I asked myself many times, is, should one really expect to be paid for such thing. It's like Max Planck, or Einstein trying to sell one of his equations. Once this is out, there is no way any antifraud company could chase non-licenced users of this principle, so it seems to me they are playing a lost battle. Personally I have considered many times, if the only way to get these devices to good use is to give the principle away for free, at least I can do this in a scientific way. It's true, some physics will have to be corrected, but it's not going to turn anything upside down. Most present laws (including Einstein's SR and GR) will be shown to have a limited validity with a well defined condition.

couldbe said...

Prof X:
For the class of device Steorn is working on, 0.5 W/cm3 is much too large as an average system power output - no way they will confirm this kind of power during their demo.
+++++++

Suppose the power is 0.1 W/cm3. A device with a volume of 10 cm3 would put out 100 watts.

Isn't that enough to do some real work?

Prof. X said...

@couldbe

"Suppose the power is 0.1 W/cm3. A device with a volume of 10 cm3 would put out 100 watts.

Isn't that enough to do some real work? "

By definition, anything greater than 0W/cm3 is considered as useful/real work. Whether or not it's considered as practical, depends on various other parameters and opinions.
My previous comment was not answering whether or not Steorn's device generates real work, but whether or not it will confirm their 0.5W/cm3 claim. Since the device will (hopefully) show an initial acceleration from start up, possibly after being manually kicked into action to overcome the bearing's static friction, it should be clear that it is generating a (small) positive amount of output power. However, it will be far less than a continuous output power of 0.5 or even 0.1W/cm3. Yet, by the definition of the term specific power density, Steorn may still correctly claim the 0.5W/cm3 figure if the unit is able to deliver such output for a very brief time, until it gathers back its speed again over a much longer time. It is very unlikely, for them to perform on-load testing during this public demo.
In other words, after this demo, many skeptics will remain skeptics (since such small acceleration can be supplied by other means hiding within), and many believers will remain believers. The 'shield' covering its mechanics will provide skeptics with many suspect points to argue about, and the continuous output power rating will remain unknown, for the next public attraction. I highly suspect the result of this demo will be judged as inconclusive and still remain wrapped in mystery for most.

J.K. said...

@Prof X

My dear Prof X,
It seems to me that you know more(a lot more) about the principle behind this technology that you are saying here.To make such predictions you have to know a bit more than the rest of us.So if i'm right why don't you make a drawing of that principle and post it somewhere on the internet?You are saying that you're not a SPDC member so you haven't signed any NDA.So you can do it without any problems.Make a drawing and post it or mail it to steorntracker right here to post it for ya.You know more then let us know more!
Best regards.
J.K.

Anonymous said...

@Couldbe
"Suppose the power is 0.1 W/cm3. A device with a volume of 10 cm3 would put out 100 watts.
Isn't that enough to do some real work? "

0.1W/cm3*10cm3 = 1Watt

To get output power of 100 Watt you need a unit of 1000cm3.

What is the weigh of the device ?