Free energy or hoax?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Random Poster

I don't see what they could mean by "Newton's Laws" except his law of gravity.

His laws of mechanics? F=ma and all that? Note that the term was used the plural yet Newton has only one law of gravity to his name.

I'll grant you that Newton's work in optics and alchemy are unlikely to have been the subject of the original claim and I'll leave open the question of his work in differential and integral calculus.

Originally Posted by Random Poster

Not so. If we impose the condition that space (or rather spacetime) is empty, SR and GR are exactly the same. This is not the case with GR and Newtonian gravity; even if we restrict them to theories of completely empty space, they are still fundamentally different.

What do you mean by "empty"? If you are using it as a synonym for "globally flat" then your statement is vacuous (pun intended).

Perhaps you mean "not containing particles with non-zero rest mass". In that case, your statement is incorrect. A non-zero electromagnetic field, for instance, has a positive mass-energy density and so curves spacetime according to the Einstein field equations.

If you forbid the presence of electromagnetic and any other massless non-gravitational fields (forbidding gravitation fields is equivalent to the vacuous solution) there are still solutions to the field equations which are not globally consistent with SR. A few examples include a non-zero cosmological constant (the de Sitter universe); a universe containing only black holes (in the classical GR sense --- post-Hawking we'll have to accept that the holes themselves create a real EM field out of the vacuum); universes which contain only gravitational waves; rotating universes.

If you want to investigate relativistic cosmologies of empty universes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_..._relativity%29 is a good starting point.


Paul

[retina]

... they, unfortunately, are still around making lots of bogus claims. It seems a good scam never dies.

Shortly after the Waterways demonstrations they released a so called SS-Orbo, a solid state version of the Orbo, that was, of course, over unity. This release is also kind of weird in that if they really did demonstrate OU at Waterways with their spinny version then there is no need to release the SS version so soon. Unless, that is, they were just trying to distract critics with a new thing to be in awe of.

Anyhow, regardless of all the nonsense they have done I get the feeling that they never actually set out to defraud at the start, but got themselves backed into a corner and now don't have the decency can't find a way out without trying to perpetuate the situation with fraud and disinformation and then hope it all dies a slow gentle death. I think at the beginning they were misled by some weird magnetic interactions and bad science into believing they had OU. And later after such a long list of failures they came to some realisation that it really doesn't work. Then they were stuck, investors money was coming in and they got greedy. They started inventing many impressive sounding mumbo-jumbo terms and building spinny stuff just to the point where measurements were extremely borderline and error bars could make it appear that it was sometimes OU.

A few idiots people have gone so far as to pay money to join the SKDB thing and build replicas of the equipment from the original provided data. Not surprisingly all such replications have failed to produce OU in any way. And also not surprising is that Steorn's response is simply that it was built wrong. They used the wrong thickness lacquer on the inductor wires, or the mounting perspex was a slightly different grade, or the magnets are not perfectly aligned, etc.

0.5W/cm³ - claimed but never shown
Pumps for Africa - the poor Africans are still thirsty
Always proven to work - if you are always proven to be dreaming
550bhp - must be some new definition of bhp that I was not previously aware of
The lights ruined the bearings - oh, so it does work. But only in the dark when no one is watching

David Hannum was absolutely correct.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by retina

Oh, I forgot to mention this: that part of their claim is that the spinning rotor does not change its motion, i.e. they say it doesn't slow down when the pick-ups are in place. Although, once again, they never actually measure or prove that in any way.

Assuming that the 1% output thing is accurate (although even that is unproven) then I expect this is happening: The rotor slows down by 0.5% (and outputs less heat/sound etc.) and the input current goes up by 0.5%. Both these changes being unnoticed by human observers since the changes are very small. Totalling the 1% output that they claim is free. And remember that the rotor has no load other than its own friction to work against.

So we have about 13 zillion claims of various things happening and zero proof of anything. So many holes to fill, I wonder if they have a few spare boys around to stick their fingers in the dam?

at least they don't come to terms with the pigeon hole principle they have too many holes and not enough proof to fill them. not too much proof to fit into the gaps in there idea.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by retina

I think at the beginning they were misled by some weird magnetic interactions and bad science into believing they had OU.

That belief requires an awfully large serving of benefit of the doubt. More than I can muster. You're saying they really believed they had found a non-nuclear loophole in Conservation of Energy. The most I can go is that they really hope people will think that and thus forgive their fraud.

[retina]

Originally Posted by wblipp

That belief requires an awfully large serving of benefit of the doubt. More than I can muster. You're saying they really believed they had found a non-nuclear loophole in Conservation of Energy. The most I can go is that they really hope people will think that and thus forgive their fraud.

You are almost right about my belief. But the difference is that I have no intention to forgive them of anything. Once it turned to fraud then there is no way they deserve forgiveness. If, once they had realised they were mistaken, that they then made a public statement to apologise and close the matter, then I might have forgiven them, but it is too late for that now. They are fraudsters and deserve whatever consequences that entails under whatever laws cover it. Fortunately (for both me and them) I have no financial interest in it so I have no motivation to pursue any damages. But any of the existing morons investors should already be starting to make a case against them. But somehow I don't think that is happening. Embarrassment will likely have a part to play here. In the meantime I do find it both amusing and interesting to see just how far Steorn can stretch the charade before experiencing the big fall.

[cheesehead]

I wonder whether the investors might have something in common besides ignorance of physics and money-to-burn.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I wonder whether the investors might have something in common besides ignorance of physics and money-to-burn.

I think they do. These silly ideas are pushed with vigorous hand waving, raised eyebrows and extra dog and pony showings. All this drama stirs a mystical and mysterious tingling and is what these poor s.o.b.'s think is how real science, discovery and innovation is actually done. The fact that a lot of people don't know and/or don't buy into the show just convinces them that they are getting an early, almost exclusive, access to a cutting edge investment.

I blame television and fiction a bit for this. Creative writers think that real science is a snoozer and sometimes jump through hoops to avoid using the real thing. The real thing is often very exciting and if casually dropped into shows would be invaluably educational and add a touch of verisimilitude. It could raise the bar without preaching to the converted. Since shows constantly employ deus ex machina, we can't be too surprised that that might be the expectation people have when making decisions.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by only_human

All this drama stirs a mystical and mysterious tingling and is what these poor s.o.b.'s think is how real science, discovery and innovation is actually done.

< snip >

I blame television and fiction a bit for this. Creative writers think that real science is a snoozer and sometimes jump through hoops to avoid using the real thing.

< snip >

Since shows constantly employ deus ex machina, we can't be too surprised that that might be the expectation people have when making decisions.

Since deus ex machina was employed by the ancient Greeks in their fiction, blaming television in any amount is mistaking a medium for a message.

Neither is fiction, by itself, to blame. Many folks exposed to just as much fiction nevertheless retain an ability to distinguish fiction from reality. The inability of some to do that is the proper target.

"... stirs a mystical and mysterious tingling ..." I think that points in a correct direction: emotions. Some folks aren't effectively taught how to judge when their emotions might be leading them astray, or how to avoid that by using their reason. It should be noted here that some people are more susceptible than others to trusting their emotions unskeptically, so may need more of that particular education than others.

Adding a bit of skeptical training to school curricula could pay off handsomely.

[CRGreathouse]

[only_human]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Neither is fiction, by itself, to blame. Many folks exposed to just as much fiction nevertheless retain an ability to distinguish fiction from reality. The inability of some to do that is the proper target.

This medium is heavily used for advertising and propaganda but rarely for casual benevolent education when showing fiction. The people know that they are watching fiction, but when they watch someone make an omelet, even though they know they are watching fiction, they feel that there is a correspondence to ordinary experience and if how that omelet is made is not a significant plot point, probably it is made in an ordinary pedestrian way. Not so with science.

When there is a scientist, mad or otherwise, never does that scientist employ any kind of blind to prevent expectation from affecting results. That means that it isn't even basic science, mutatis mutandis, but sheer lazyness. There is a distinct point here. I am talking about preaching to the unconverted -- those who just want to watch a story but not really be educated. Nevertheless, if they could depend on some of the stuff that they picked up in passing while being entertained, they might get a kick out of it. So if these shows casually performed such a community service, they might even, gasp, have a useful function extraneous to vapid entertainment and profit.

[science_man_88]

most shows I watch are discovery channel or things like Arthur. Am I fiction ? probably.