The Steorn Orbo motor: Proving Overunity

Time invariance implies energy conservation, not negates it. You have it the wrong way around.

If the system were as good as claimed why bother with the battery? Wouldn't a simple capacitor with a tiny amount of charge suffice?

Energy is conserved in time invariant systems. The second law of thermodynamics can be violated without energy conservation being violated. I suggest you look up the Poincare recurrence theorem, something derived using Hamiltonian mechanics but which leads (given sufficient time) to violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You accuse others of being arm chair theorists but you haven't taken the time to even find out what Noether's theorem says. And some of us aren't 'arm chair theorists', some of us have doctorates in theoretical physics. Just because you're used to talking to ignorant people doesn't mean everyone you talk to is ignorant. Unless you're just talking to yourself?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One needs first to look at human nature for evidence of fraud.
Steorn in it's embarrassing failure to demonstrate it's belief cost steorn close to $400,000 usd. if I am not mistaken. They had to bear the cost and could show no resultant return for thier investment.

Human behaviour will tell you that a fraudster will not invest that kind of money for something that returns no signifcnat results both financially and in prestige when they know that they are committing a fraud.

So all in all one could form the opinion that they were innocent of any deliberate fraud but unwittingly threw their money away.

Yet they persist in their quest to show results which indicates that not only are they prepared to invest further in a loosing position they are committed to finding a cause for that failure because they [plural] must have evidence that they are privy to that would drive such a committment.

When witnessing their failure at their London demonstration years ago via the net cast, I noticed that all cameras and 100s of thousands if not millions of eyes were focused on this device.

What Steorn may fail to realise is the observer affecting the observed effect in that all that conscious concentration may be responsible for confusing the energies they hoped to demonstrate. Yet in their labs back in Ireland or where ever the device would work perfectly. They then made the attempt to mitigate their embarrassment by claiming "magnetic bearing" failure which may not be entirely honest of them to do so.

Thus they are vexated in providing a pubic display and yet can provide a private one only.
Further, the fact that they have released detailed drawings and information about this technology as demonstrated by this threads OP and subsequent posts demonstrates to me that they are "fishing" for a solution. and ultimately they may have to perform a white lie to achieve the results they want.

ie. place the demonstrator model away from public gaze and yet show a mock up of the devise for public scrutiny. thus preventing the observers from affecting the devise. [of course this is totally unworkable in a real use situation ]

Also I get the impression they go "under unity" first to achieve "unity" with the energy they reckon they get other wise the energy they get would be derived as "over unity" which is impossible in a closed universal, cosmological system, so to say that it is an over unity device would be incorrect IMO.

Just an opinon...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or, simpler yet, it could be like other devices that are very efficient, so they appear they might be running while not pulling from their initial power source, especially in a short time span. However, can you harness any work from them? Even a 100% efficient motor is useless if you can't turn anything with it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to notes I read years ago this was seriously considered and elliminated by Steorn prior to investing so heavilly...however your point is a good one...
If you are about to commit that sort of money you would normally want to be pretty sure of success and the people involved even went to the trouble and expense of inviting skeptical scientists from around the world to find that "Idea killer" rational or logic which they obviously failed to get so they continue chasing the rabbit so to speak.

 

I remember seeing a sculpture consisting of bearings and tracks that was so well designed and friction-free that it would run for days or weeks, so to the casual observer it seemed as a perpetual machine. However, how can anything actually produce work, even if it was contrary to physical law and had a positive production?

 

It can't..end of story, however from what I have understood the Steorn device creates an under unity situation using the magnetic fieldds which the universe's need for unity is then employed to create the output. The static magnets providing the "under unity" when an armature "at unity" is moving with in them. Thus the outcome is energy to balance the underunity situation but Steorn has found that the energy derivied is useful, or beyond the under unity created as it is the static magnets [ no energy required ] that create the underunity in the first place.
so in brief my understanding is that the magnetic set up, creates an underunity situation free of cost and in doing so creates the free useful energy outcome. Even if this energy is very small it would theoretically be "free" due to the natural state of the magnets used.

 

Once again I'll repeat something that I said in this thread long, long ago: If this silly thing actually WORKED as claimed, they'd have sold MILLIONS of them by now.

Please show me where they've sold a SINGLE one!!!

 

sorry for the confusion....

 

In the context I was using :
example: a petrol engine commonly used in vehicles is a unity engine in that it produces exactly what it is produces when considering all the liabilities placed in it. eg friction, design issues and so on...in a sense it is running 100 % effcient to it's "poor" design.

A petrol engine even though terribly inefficient is still conforming to all principles of thermodynamics conservaion laws therefore it is still a unity engine as it is 100% efficient according to those laws. IMO.

In the case of the device from Steorn their device achieves an innitial ongoing state of under unity in that it sets up a situation that is less than 100% efficient [ as per energy conservation laws] and forces the universes need for unity to bring it back to 100% efficency and delivers energy in the process.

If the Steorn device delivers energy as a way of returning to unity it also is a unity device as the laws are still maintained. but in the process it has delivered so called "free" energy which is still energy that conforms with the laws of conservation... thus deemed ultimately a "unity" device using my extended definition.

 

And your scientific counter argument is????

Of course you didn't mention Noether's theorem before because it says that in systems that aren't time invariant energy is not conserved.
Has that principle ever been applied to magnetic circuits?
For someone with a Phd I find you tone deaf. Steorn put a very system device to show a principle. You should be able to study their device and then attack their device specifically for how it operates. Instead you show no knowledge of their device or the physical principle behind it. How electric motor/generators have you ever seen that use a trick to have no back EMf force? Have you seen that before??? Where??
All I have seen you say is those guys are quacks, those are
Lies... Etc... If you are so smart and have your Phd and so forth why do you fail to make a scientific argument that shows how their claim is false?
The same was said about the Wright brothers from people like you wearing their Phd on their sleeves and now we see how clever they were.
What kind of business plan do you see in creating an device that can not be purchased to generate electricity in the hopes that the license will result
In corporations licensing the technology for devices that will be mass produced. What you have here is a simple airfoil that generates lift Not an aircraft.
As predicted you failed to make a scientific critique of Steorn or their claim. I would not expect you to start now. While I thought that Steorn was full of it when I first heard of it, I had the intellectual honesty to study and research what they were saying and what they put in exhibition. I think now they have something. I don't know yet if what i have seen cAn be made into a 1kW generator but it may be possible.
Well enough of my opinion let's hear more unscientific rants from the Phds

 

an electric motor, apparently.

what do you mean by "over unity"?
if you mean the motor produces more power than it consumes then why do yo say:

maybe you need the following material:
http://www.splatco.com/tips/pwrfact/pfarticl.htm

 

That is the defining trait of ANYONE with a Phd, and I mean no offense to anyone who has one, many friends and my father in law have one.

 

What I expect ,of someone with a Phd in an area related to this discussion, is to analyze what Steorn has claimed and what was presented. So far, other than calling the initiator of this thread and Steorn a bunch of derogatory terms I have seen nothing. What good is it to have a Phd if you aren't capable of debating scientifically anything.
My challenge to the "experts", talk science. Refer to what has been presented which is well documented, and make a scientific not an emotional argument.

 

It applies to everything involving electromagnetics, including circuits. If you can write down a Lagrangian for your system then you can apply Noether's theorem to see if there are any conserved quantities.

It's little more than a homework exercise in quantum field theory to use gauge theory with a U(1) symmetry to construct the Maxwell tensor, derive Maxwell's equations, charge conservation and provided your original Lagrangian had the same symmetries then you can construct the electromagnetic versions of energy and momentum conservation because the Lagrangian built from the Maxwell tensor is Lorentz invariant.

Don't come here whining about things if you haven't bothered to first check.

Wow, 3 posts and you've got me all figured out? I'm sorry that you lack the basic understanding and information to do the analysis yourself but its not my fault. Strangely enough its not my job to prove someone with a "I've got an over unity machine!" claim false, its their job to prove their claim true. That's how the burden of proof works, it is on those making the claim. Since every single system in the history of science has not been over unity the onus is on the person claiming they have one to demonstrate it. I have other science I have to do, lest my employer wonder what they are paying me for.

And they have yet to even show it works as claimed.

They claim to have a device which contradicts all we know about electromagnetism and thermodynamics. The onus is not on me to go through their work with a fine tooth comb. You don't seem to understand how science works.

I don't have to have seen any because I can tell you from electromagnetism you can't get around the energy conservation. As such it would mean that Steorn has disproven Maxwell's work, because it is impossible for their work to be consistent with it. That's the beauty of such things as a Lagrangian formalism, to answer some questions you don't even have to specify the machine in question, because any machine which works by Maxwell's equations will not do as Steorn claim.

And before we go down the road of "Well you're just afraid of new ideas" if someone came to me and said "I have cast iron proof that electromagnetism doesn't always obey Maxwell's equations" and then demonstrated it in a laboratory I'd give my left leg to coauthor the paper with them because it would be HUGE. Nobel Prize winning huge. It's the kind of thing every physicist dreams of doing, finding something new in something so fundamental.

But Steorn haven't done that.

They take large quantities of investors money and produce nothing of worth. They don't produce publications on "We've found the following discrepancy in electromagnetic models" and then once its been verified use that to justify investment, they just say "Give us money". Now I can understand the importance of playing your cards close to your chest, the company I work for do precisely that when we do new science or maths, but we'd never call a press conference to show a device we weren't absolutely sure was based on found science and we'd tested until the cows came home. Excuses like "The lights were too hot" are laughable. You test the machine in the conditions it'll be displayed in! How hard is that to realise?

Thermodynamics, Noether's theorem and electromagnetics are scientific arguments. Every single thing we've seen in the universe adheres to those scientific principles and thus when they are put on the table the onus is on Steorn to show, clearly and repeatable, that one or more of them is incorrect. They haven't done that.

Can you demonstrate that? Or are you just trying to think of some inventors you can claim were dismissed?

Can you provide the material you found through 'study and research' which convinced you? I don't accept press releases, models based on unverified physics, simple assertions or anything which hasn't been submitted and cleared by peer review. If you can provide something which doesn't boil down to Steorn saying "Take our word for it" that'd be great.

Sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder. You first started with the insults "You're all arm chair physicists" and when it turns out some of us aren't you then try to insult me for having a PhD. Yes, insulting me because I could put in years of effort to learn, understand and then help develop an area of science is really going to work. You're just clutching at straws, looking for any insult you can.

What have they presented which can be analysed? If there's something which is detailed and methodical is it in a journal? If not why haven't they submitted it to a journal, if they are so sure about it? Journals are there to do precisely what you want us to do, review the claims. Journals want people to submit ground breaking work, it means they make more money. If the material is there for me to examine its there for journals to examine, it only needs to be submitted. Then it'll be reviewed by people whose specific interest is this kind of stuff. I never said my PhD was in this stuff, you just assumed it. You accused people of being armchair physicists and I refuted that.

Tell me, if you were willing to try to insult people here for being arm chair physicists then what are your physics related credentials? Do you have any? If not then you're an arm chair physicist too. If you do have some can we conclude from your comments about my PhD that you think your qualifications are worthless?

 

It certainly is regarding the laws of thermodynamics absolutely 100% efficient.

funny about that ...so am I...however when talking about so called "free energy devices" one has to step outside the typical usage and look at the fundamentals of those conservation laws.

are you a happy bunny or what?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hope you like jam donuts....

you mean you don't think YOUR universe needs it... well sorry but you are stuck with it whether you think so or not...

 

Another emotional argument. Your analysis of the Steorn device?

Please don't get emotional. I admire people that pursue higher education specially in Science. The admiration evaporates when someone makes a
Lot of claims
And little analysis. It is a simple device they put together. You could measure voltages, currents, around their device to show where they are wrong, but u don't bother. Steorn does not claim to know where the energy is
Coming from, just that they cN measure it. Have u joined their forum, have u asked questions? It's just better to make theoretical statements without getting ur hands dirty. So that is my criticism of you. As predicted, you fail to
Analyze scientifically their claim or device and no I will not do it for you after all what is your education good for if you can not do that much.

 

The main problem is in the understanding that the Steorn device is NOT an over unity device when talking about the laws of thermodynamics. Even Steorn fails to see this point which is half the reason why they can't make a go of it.
They effectivey go under those laws to generate a need for the laws to be fullfiled. simple as that.... so the device can return "so called free" energy with out contradicting those laws, in fact it is the very laws that create the so called "free energy" which of course it isn't free persee as the energy derived is still part of a closed system.