Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
At 07:45 PM 1/25/2010, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > What we absolutely will *not* see: > > -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of > skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. > This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by > capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the > run) instead of batteries. In the last set of videos, Sean made it pretty clear that it is not part of Steorn's mission to build such a device. He expects future developers of orbo technology to build one. If he does present a self-runner, he is a liar! ;-) Or, hey, they managed to find an easy way to do it. However, "self-running" is a red herring. What we would want to know are these things, which they could easily provide: The inertia of the rotor, i.e, how much energy it stores at a particular rotational speed, so we can understand how much energy is stored at a particular RPM level. How this energy decays (the rotor slows down) in the absence of any input, to determine the energy being dissipated in friction or other losses. How much energy is being supplied from the power supply, which is difficult to assess with a battery, but far easier with a capacitor bank, which could be designed to emulate the low resistance of a battery, avoiding the problems of high current spiking of batteries, which could produce spurious results. The capacitor voltage will show the rate of energy supply from the capacitor bank, which can be calibrated by dumping current through a resistor of known value. So we can compare the energy being accumulated in the rotor with the energy being supplied from the power supply. It is not necessary to reach self-running, which might fail even if the system is overunity, by not being sufficiently efficient in recovering power from the rotor. It is also possible to apply an electromagnetic brake, a pickup coil that generates current from the motion of the permanent magnets past it. If the coil is open circuit, it will not slow the rotor at all, but as resistance in series with the coil is decreased, the coil will draw more energy from the rotor and slow it. This can be adjusted to keep the rotor at constant speed, thus providing an almost direct measure of power being supplied to the rotor by the process. (It would only be off by the friction, measured already by the slowing down study). Then, study of and measurements of voltage and current in the toroidal circuit can be performed, and the disposition of the power dissipated there determined. How much power is being dissipated in the coil and in other circuit elements. How much heat is being generated? Calorimetry of the whole system would, of course, be of great interest. If the rotor is held at constant RPM by a brake as described, then the total heat generated should be directly correlated to the consumption of power from the capacitor bank, and be about the same, unless it is overunity. If it's over unity by a factor of two, that would be hard to miss, eh? The reason for using a capacitor bank is that the voltage provides a measure of stored energy, and its decline, that is not dependent upon calculations from what may be ridiculously complex waveforms. The most difficult of all these would be the calorimetry, I assume. The rest is trivial. The rest, however, might make the calorimetry unnecessary. They are presumably not presenting calorimetry data in the "final demo," as of a few days ago that was still a future project, not a done deal, it seems. The back-EMF claims, which seem reasonable as a first approximation, imply that all the energy of the battery is going into heating, in the end. So, put a heat sink on the coil, and measure the thermal mass of the assembly, which can estimate energy dissipation in the coil from differential temperature measurements. Measure or calculate heat in the rest of the circuit and add it all up. Does this sum correlate well with what is expected from energy drawn from the battery? Or is there some missing energy? And, if so, how does the missing energy compare with the energy appearing in rotation of the rotor? Let me guess. The energy appearing in the rotor is quite the same as missing energy in the coil circuit, or indistinguishable from noise in the measurements. It is not necessary to understand the system adequately to calculate stuff, what calculations are needed should be simple ones, such as rotational inertia from the effect of known energy draw (through a pickup coil, for example). Instead, let me guess. It will be complicated, with calculations being asserted as proper and complete, neglecting "minor" variations. Such as the claim that there is "no" back EMF, based on a display that only showed that, sort of, what we'd expect from back EMF could not be seen. But which would n
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
- Original Message > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 1:09:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY" > > What we absolutely will *not* see: > > -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of > skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. > This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by > capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the > run) instead of batteries. In the last set of videos, Sean made it pretty clear that it is not part of Steorn's mission to build such a device. He expects future developers of orbo technology to build one. If he does present a self-runner, he is a liar! ;-) Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Replication of **WHAT**?? > > They're not demonstrating OU (in any visible form), so what, exactly, is > being replicated? WTF knows! But, If you saw the images, they are there for something. T
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On 01/25/2010 03:55 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson > wrote: > >> I sure hope I'm wrong. > > Me too. It looks like they have two replicants who have joined the > fray from the most recent piccys on their facebook: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/steornofficial/4304018674/ Replication of **WHAT**?? They're not demonstrating OU (in any visible form), so what, exactly, is being replicated? > > T >
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > I sure hope I'm wrong. Me too. It looks like they have two replicants who have joined the fray from the most recent piccys on their facebook: http://www.flickr.com/photos/steornofficial/4304018674/ T
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Hadn't seen that. I recall seeing a quote from him which seemed to > imply that Orbo was doing 3:1 (unmeasured, of course!) but I can't find > it now, so maybe I'm wrong. No, you are correct. 3:1 was the claim, "For every watt you put in, you get one watt of heat and two watts of useable electricity out." (maybe not exact quote) T
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Terry Blanton or some other magnet motor expert can probably tell us what > the minimum excess would be to allow a self-sustaining gadget. That's like being a pink unicorn expert; but, with Sprain, considering the conversion losses and other inefficiencies, we calculated about 280% efficiency of the motor was required. T
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
At 01:09 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: What we absolutely will *not* see: -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the run) instead of batteries. While I've seen no evidence from Steorn that would lead me to consider the possibility significant, and lots that indicates to me that it's highly unlikely based on their history, I will now take the position that overunity is possible in theory, in terms of local results, not to mention the deeper possibility of error in the concept of conservation of energy. What if something about the behavior of magnets and magnetic fields and ferrite cores and magnetic domains and all that causes some unexpected phenomenon that releases energy from unknown or unanticipated sources? Perhaps Steorn discovered an anomaly and in order to cash in on it, they adopted their approach rather than simply publishing it. It is not essential to this, at all, that they understand the anomaly. But, as I wrote, "highly unlikely." But experiment is king. If the anomaly is shown, they will have indeed made a major discovery, of an anomaly, at least, and then is the anomaly worth exploring? Scientifically, yes, absolutely, until it is explained and the explanation is proven to be more than just an alternative hypothesis, and assuming that the anomaly is significant in amplitude, and is replicable. It is an entirely separate question whether or not there is enough energy over-unity to be of practical use. Hence demands for a self-running demo are excessive, as to the ultimate issues, that transcend whether or not Steorn are scammers, or legally milking this. But if it is true that there is twice as much energy going into rotational inertia than into heat, some commercial application, if only for heating!, would seem possible. Hence I do, in fact, think that puffery is highly likely, that claims of Sean for 2:1 are based on extrapolation and imagination, not actual experiment, properly analyzed. Same thing with the Szabo motor, which seems quite similar in certain ways. But, indeed, we will see the next act in this play in a few days. What rabbit will the author pull out of the hat?
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
I gotta hand it to those Steorn folks... Their latest advert is both blunt and dramatic. Steorn's web site sez: "Final Demo: PROVING OVERUNITY Saturday 16.00 GMT at Steorn.com" --- Barring unforeseen "technical difficulties", it is difficult for me to perceive how Steorn could possibly wiggle their way out of the corner they seem to be painting themselves into. But I suspect they will. One of the few truisms that I've finally begun to Grok inside my thick skull is the fact that whenever anyone says this is "final" word on anything, such declarations mean absolutely nothing. At present I find myself in sympathy with a lot of Stephen's recent speculations. I suspect Steorn is likely to demonstrate something new, something novel about the "spinny thing" (As Terry recently described the device as), quite possibly an interesting artifact we haven't seen yet. But, alas, the new evidence will continue to remain subject to interpretation. I sure hope I'm wrong. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On 01/25/2010 02:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: >>From Mr. Lawrence > >> Either it has been putting out 3:1 or it hasn't. >> >> If it has, why can't they demo 3:1, or rather 2:1 >> mechanical:electrical? (Knock off 100% for the >> amount of input power converted to heat.) Have >> they forgotten how they used to do it? ;-) > > Someone can correct me if I error on the following interpretation but > it's my recollection that Sean stated something to the effect that the > configuration currently on demo at the Waterfront has allegedly only > been measured to generate a modest OU of 1.2. Hadn't seen that. I recall seeing a quote from him which seemed to imply that Orbo was doing 3:1 (unmeasured, of course!) but I can't find it now, so maybe I'm wrong. > > I believe these other OU claims Sean has inferred, some allegedly up > to 3:1, were measured from different experimental devices not > currently being demonstrated to the public. I seem to recall Sean > saying something to the effect that these other Orbo devices are more > complicated, and as such, their added complexity would have made them > unsuitable for the quick slam-and-dunk dog-and-pony show they wished > to demonstrate to the public. > >> If it hasn't been putting out 3:1 then Sean's a liar. > > I think that may depend on which device Sean was referring to. > >> Why does anyone still believe in these people? > > X-Files: "I want to believe!" > > Meanwhile, Mongo just whispered something in my ear: "Light bulb!" > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
>From Mr. Lawrence > Either it has been putting out 3:1 or it hasn't. > > If it has, why can't they demo 3:1, or rather 2:1 > mechanical:electrical? (Knock off 100% for the > amount of input power converted to heat.) Have > they forgotten how they used to do it? ;-) Someone can correct me if I error on the following interpretation but it's my recollection that Sean stated something to the effect that the configuration currently on demo at the Waterfront has allegedly only been measured to generate a modest OU of 1.2. I believe these other OU claims Sean has inferred, some allegedly up to 3:1, were measured from different experimental devices not currently being demonstrated to the public. I seem to recall Sean saying something to the effect that these other Orbo devices are more complicated, and as such, their added complexity would have made them unsuitable for the quick slam-and-dunk dog-and-pony show they wished to demonstrate to the public. > If it hasn't been putting out 3:1 then Sean's a liar. I think that may depend on which device Sean was referring to. > Why does anyone still believe in these people? X-Files: "I want to believe!" Meanwhile, Mongo just whispered something in my ear: "Light bulb!" Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
At 12:23 PM 1/25/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Big splashy advert screens are being displayed at steorn.com Sounds like they intend to deliver the final "punch line" this coming Saturday, Jan 30 we shall see... Yup. Unless all their bearings freeze up, the building mysteriously catches on fire, or, or. But assuming that this goes through, it then becomes possible to more adequately judge all the previous claims. Does the "proof" support them? Or were they exaggerated, puffery? Remember, Sean has claimed 2:1 (which is actually 3:1, because the "2" is the claimed excess, as I recall.)
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
A blogger estimates: The Saturday demo, our sources confide, will be less dramatic - if they can hit 120 percent, or 1.2 watts out for 1 watt in, it'll be a success." If they can hit 120% I believe they could make the thing self-sustaining. The overhead from friction and a capacitor is small. Very small compared to a heat engine powered by cold fusion would be. Terry Blanton or some other magnet motor expert can probably tell us what the minimum excess would be to allow a self-sustaining gadget. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On 01/25/2010 02:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Additional noise: > > http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,100567,10014947o-2000331777b,00.htm > > Exerpt: > > "In the past, Sean has said that the Orbo will manage this to the tune > of 3:1 - in other words, churning out three watts for every watt of > input. The Saturday demo, our sources confide, will be less dramatic - > if they can hit 120 percent, or 1.2 watts out for 1 watt in, it'll be > a success." Sigh Either it has been putting out 3:1 or it hasn't. If it has, why can't they demo 3:1, or rather 2:1 mechanical:electrical? (Knock off 100% for the amount of input power converted to heat.) Have they forgotten how they used to do it? ;-) If it hasn't been putting out 3:1 then Sean's a liar. Why does anyone still believe in these people?
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
Additional noise: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,100567,10014947o-2000331777b,00.htm Exerpt: "In the past, Sean has said that the Orbo will manage this to the tune of 3:1 - in other words, churning out three watts for every watt of input. The Saturday demo, our sources confide, will be less dramatic - if they can hit 120 percent, or 1.2 watts out for 1 watt in, it'll be a success." --- Needless to say, as Stephen has already conjectured the "calculations" Steorn may use to arrive at OU are likely to be subject to differing interpretations. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: "THE FINAL DEMO" ... "...PROVING OVERUNITY"
On 01/25/2010 12:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Big splashy advert screens are being displayed at steorn.com > > Sounds like they intend to deliver the final "punch line" this coming > Saturday, Jan 30 > > we shall see... > For the record, here are my predictions regarding the likely outcomes: -- They burn out a wheel bearing and cancel the demo, like ol' Tilly (substitute appropriate part for "wheel bearing"), and like Sean did a couple years back. -- They do another demo of a motor using an external power source (battery, or other similar device) and then, through calculations and measurements, claim to have shown overunity. Others dispute the calculations, measurements, and claim. This is, of course, the most popular approach by perpetual motion machine salesmen. -- They demo a part of a motor -- a coil, say -- and take certain measurements which they claim prove that it's over unity in some way. They're selling knowledge, not devices, so this seems like a good possibility. -- They come up with something I haven't thought of, which none the less leaves the situation ambiguous, with honest skeptics unconvinced. (Pathological skeptics will never be convinced, of course.) And a very UNlikely outcome: -- They demonstrate what they claim is a self runner but don't let anyone inspect it carefully enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's for real. Steorn has never pulled stunts like this in the past, and I don't expect them to start now. (As far as I know every device they have ever demonstrated in public has been "real" -- only their claims are dubious.) What we absolutely will *not* see: -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the run) instead of batteries. > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
