On 11/13/2011 2:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
I have a print-out of Steorn's report dated Oct. 31, 2008. At the
moment I can't locate the pdf file, but I downloaded it from their
website two or three years ago, and the name Mr. Rice does not appear
in this report. The title is _Asymmetry and Energy in Magnetic
Systems_. It includes ten diagrams and five graphs and describes four
experimental configurations:
1) symmetric and linear MH
2) asymmetric and linear MH
3) symmetric and non-linear MH
4) asymmetric and non-lnear MH
Only the last configuration showed an anomaly. Dr. Quack Pot's
analsysis seems to discount the symmetric/asymmetric parameters since
they aren't mentioned in your summary.
This is not the report that QuackPot discussed. I gave the link to that
one in my original email. It is still there. You could have simply
clicked on it and downloaded it. Here are the links in full rather than
hidden as an underlined word:
http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/
And the paper in question is to be found at:
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf
If you look at this second link and chop the file name from it:
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/
then you will find a short list of papers that Steorn have released.
The one you are talking about I believe is this one:
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.pdf
In this paper the anonymous writer has been very careful not to specify
whether the "net energy result" that was obtained in your fourth case
(asymmetric and non-lnear MH) was a net energy gain or a net energy
loss. Isn't that remarkable? The very thing that any reader would want
to know, indeed the only question of significant (billion dollar)
interest, and they are very careful with their wording not to give the
game away! Moreover they do not include enough information in the paper
for an intelligent reader to be able to work it out (Unlike Rice's
report for which is easy to determine that it is an energy loss). There
is no mention (that I can find with a superficial reading) in this paper
of any difference in rotating the armature in one direction compared to
the other. There is also a very careful and complete replication of
this configuration - with no suggestion of any energy gain ever to be
had - by CLaNZeR at:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo-Asymmetric-Non-linear-MH-setup
Actually it is obvious from the "net energy result" obtained of 0.564 mJ
per revolution that if it was an energy gain then CLaNZeR's little
armature with its low bearing losses should have self run and spun its
head off without any effort.
Quackpot (as did I) pointed out that it is most likely the sudden field
reversal in close proximity of a conducting surface that produces the
energy loss, and this only happens in certain situations. In Steorn's
case they noticed that this situation was brought about by means of an
"asymmetric and non-linear MH" arrangement.
