That's the thing that made me question their motives in the first place. At first I thought it was blatantly as scam but, as you said, halting funding seems to go against that. Still, could just be a PR thing but then I fail to see how they'd actually scam money out of people.
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.
<!--quoteo(post=1760053:date=Mar 19 2010, 03:57 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 03:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's the thing that made me question their motives in the first place. At first I thought it was blatantly as scam but, as you said, halting funding seems to go against that. Still, could just be a PR thing but then I fail to see how they'd actually scam money out of people.
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats not the point really. Even if it's only a little bit more than you put in, it breaches a long standing law of physics, which means it is possible and can, in theory, be improved to a degree where it is commercial viable.
As I said, these devices have been around for a long time. Those guys are not the first to demonstrate them. So far nothing was made "public".
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1760053:date=Mar 19 2010, 02:57 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 02:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's the thing that made me question their motives in the first place. At first I thought it was blatantly as scam but, as you said, halting funding seems to go against that. Still, could just be a PR thing but then I fail to see how they'd actually scam money out of people.
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you guys for real? Do you know anything at all about human nature? The best way to garner interest is to play hard to get.
As I said early in this topic, these guys are a former e-commerce company selling the fact that they can sell crazy ideas to apparently educated people.
Nothing says sexy marketing company like convincing the geek demographic that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken.
The description of the device is like a perfect rip-off of the depalma N-machine from the 80s. This device has sprung up several times in the last 20 years and has always demostrated over-unity by coupling with either the earth's magnetic field or a nearby electro-magnet.
In 6 months time, when the window for licensed products comes and goes and you are left wondering what really happened, you need to be honest with yourself about whether you really thought there might be something behind orbo technology and you need to then sit down and question your own assessment of your own intellect because the only real truth in all of this is that there will always be stupid people.
Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear enough. I have no doubts at all that this entire thing is complete bull######. I would say I know for a fact that it doesn't work as advertised, but I don't know for a fact. I just know that the entire concept of it is <b>wrong</b>.
Whether they're playing hard to get or not, I don't see how they can convince the "geek demographic" without rock-solid <i>proof</i> that it works and that it works well. My problem is that no one in the scientific community is going to believe this for a second, so why would they stop receiving funding now when it's most likely their easiest way to scam money out of people?
My point was that they might be doing this to make a really quick buck by getting a load of money straight off and then disappearing, or they honestly believe this thing works and will change the world. If it's the latter I just feel sorry for them for being so disillusioned is all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats not the point really. Even if it's only a little bit more than you put in, it breaches a long standing law of physics, which means it is possible and can, in theory, be improved to a degree where it is commercial viable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Puzl said, I imagine this thing uses magnets somehow which means (as far as I'm aware! I'm not a scientist) it would be amazingly hard to increase the output of it to realistic needs.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1760049:date=Mar 19 2010, 02:39 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760049"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're quoting an examination from 2006.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I am. The only remarkable thing about Steorn is that they've managed to string the press along for another four years after they were shown to be charlatans.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
It's one of the worst false dichotomies I can imagine going around. Either you accept everything unquestionably, or you reject everything unquestionably... It's a sure-fire way to never get anywhere in anything.
Being open-minded or being a skeptic are worth positively nothing on their own. These traits have to work in concord to allow for reasonable line of thinking, they are two sides of the same coin: to be skeptical, you need to wait until evidence either for or against, and to be open-minded you have to wait until evidence either for or against.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I meant to write "close minded" there, not "open minded".
<!--quoteo(post=1760022:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:08 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 10:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760022"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's not actually true. There are a lot of things that it is impossible to falsify. I could tell you that there was an invisible chocolate teapot orbiting on the far side of the Sun and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, even though you would be justified in telling me I was a fool.
The fundamental that I think you are referring to is that anything that is unfalsifiable is also completely unscientific.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I look forward to the point in the future where we all get rich, technologically advanced, and wasteful enough to construct an invisible chocolate teapot and launch it into orbit just so we can mess up that adage.
Why are they not looking for investors? Because these guys probably would prefer not to go to jail for fraud. As puzl says, their angle is to show their marketing skills: "Look, we can make people drool over a device that claims to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Think about what we could do for a REAL product, like yours!" There is no law against stage magic, otherwise a lot of entertainers would be on the run right now. There are laws against fraud, there are laws against lying under oath, but no laws against just plain ol' lying. As long as they don't scam investors out of money, they can get away with the whole thing.
Draco, I know a bit about scientific theory. You don't need to explain it to me. My entire issue with this is that you seem to think this device merits more attention than a guy who claims he can fly by flapping his arms. And the fact of the matter is, it merits LESS. Making a man fly is easy: Reduce his bone density (hollowing out works well), elongate his arms and fingers, stretch large, thin membranes between them, massively enlargen his chest musculature, maybe lower the gravity a bit, and presto, you have a dude who can fly by flapping his arms. Sounds complicated? Yeah, I'll grant that. But compared to violating the first law of thermodynamics, this is a TRIVIAL exercise.
The likelihood that this is a hoax is greater than the likelihood of the sun rising tomorrow. It's not a certainty, I'll grant that much, but it is so OBSCENELY likely that it's the next-best thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760053:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:57 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's the thing that made me question their motives in the first place. At first I thought it was blatantly as scam but, as you said, halting funding seems to go against that. Still, could just be a PR thing but then I fail to see how they'd actually scam money out of people.
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep. Granted, they already have 10 million. Also, I think they measure energy production in Kilojoules for that thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760055:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are you guys for real? Do you know anything at all about human nature? The best way to garner interest is to play hard to get.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You underestimate what kind of field scammers deal in. You don't need elaborate set-ups to convince people from stand-point of reason - because invoking reason is where your scam ends very naturally - all you need is to know what motivational buttons to push. We're all stupid that way.
But yes, it'd be a genius stunt for a PR company.
<!--quoteo(post=1760055:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The description of the device is like a perfect rip-off of the depalma N-machine from the 80s. This device has sprung up several times in the last 20 years and has always demostrated over-unity by coupling with either the earth's magnetic field or a nearby electro-magnet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now we're getting somewhere. Would you happen to have any more details on that thing?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760059:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:43 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 06:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760059"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, I am. The only remarkable thing about Steorn is that they've managed to string the press along for another four years after they were shown to be charlatans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please, you're all over the place. We're all sane people here, there's no need to jump hoops to convince anyone this is most likely crap. All I've been trying to get across all this time is that it's important to have the intellectual guts to go ahead and say "I don't know" when you don't know, no matter the circumstance.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#1981_to_1999" target="_blank">Bruce de Palma's N-Machine</a> (Fifth entry on the list.)
<!--quoteo(post=1760064:date=Mar 19 2010, 04:59 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 04:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760064"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please, you're all over the place. We're all sane people here, there's no need to jump hoops to convince anyone this is most likely crap. All I've been trying to get across all this time is that it's important to have the intellectual guts to go ahead and say "I don't know" when you don't know, no matter the circumstance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh come on. That's a horribly semantic argument. It's like those religious people who argue that you CAN'T BE AN ATHEIST because you don't KNOW FOR SURE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. So you're only an agnostic! HAH! Please tell me that isn't what this entire argument has been about.
<!--quoteo(post=1760061:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:54 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 19 2010, 06:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, I meant to write "close minded" there, not "open minded".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow.
Well, no worries then.
<!--quoteo(post=1760062:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:56 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 19 2010, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760062"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I look forward to the point in the future where we all get rich, technologically advanced, and wasteful enough to construct an invisible chocolate teapot and launch it into orbit just so we can mess up that adage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sure God will love a new tea-set.
<!--quoteo(post=1760063:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are they not looking for investors? Because these guys probably would prefer not to go to jail for fraud.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They already have 10$ mil, so a bit too late for that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760063:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Draco, I know a bit about scientific theory. You don't need to explain it to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have already explained why you misunderstand it. I won't press on just for the sake of convincing you.
<!--quoteo(post=1760063:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My entire issue with this is that you seem to think this device merits more attention than a guy who claims he can fly by flapping his arms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, I'm not saying that. Do not assume the false dichotomy of either accepting or rejecting something. Sometimes we just don't know.
Like I said countless times before, I'm not holding my breath for this thing. I just can't honestly neither accept nor dismiss it, for lack of knowing better.
<!--quoteo(post=1760066:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:03 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#1981_to_1999" target="_blank">Bruce de Palma's N-Machine</a> (Fifth entry on the list.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Excellent.
<!--quoteo(post=1760067:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:05 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh come on. That's a horribly semantic argument. It's like those religious people who argue that you CAN'T BE AN ATHEIST because you don't KNOW FOR SURE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. So you're only an agnostic! HAH! Please tell me that isn't what this entire argument has been about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please don't do this. Vague analogies don't help any.
And yes, it's important to say you don't know when you don't know, no matter how psychologically tempting it is to suggest otherwise. For the record, I'm a strong gnostic atheist towards most definitions of word "God". I know about the dangers of blind conviction first-hand, and I know it works both ways.
Let that be the last mention of religion here. We should all know better than to discuss something like this, less of all on the Internet.
There is a very good reason to approach things like this sceptically, they have all been false in the past. There is also a difference between being open minded and being a sucker, anyone who gives them any credit at this point is a sucker because they have already been reviewed for a machine that says it breaks basic laws of science and has been reviewed and discredited by the scientists the creators requested to review it.
When it was first announced it was a wild claim. Until a second group can construct one and verify that it works it is just conjecture. Until it is repeated and tested and reliably produces energy there is zero reason to give it any credibility. It has already failed the testing, why would anyone want to even try to replicate it?
<!--quoteo(post=1760070:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:08 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 05:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760070"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have already explained why you misunderstand it. I won't press on just for the sake of convincing you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you really haven't explained that. You just claim that I am wrong without backing it up with anything except "oh you're so close-minded." And how convenient that you don't care about convincing me of my alleged close-mindedness either. Can I have your "get out of silly thread I made hyping a ridiculous hoax except then I realized how silly it is and now I'm desperately backpedaling while belittling everyone else" card when you're done with it?
<!--quoteo(post=1760073:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:13 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Mar 19 2010, 07:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What a scam!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Probably.
But let's not descend to insults. Dismissing something out of hand is neither open-mindedness nor scepticism.
<!--quoteo(post=1760074:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:13 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760074"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, you really haven't explained that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe I have. I'm not going to repeat myself.
I also do not appreciate the blatant misrepresentation on display here, I have said or done none of that. I don't mean any disrespect, and I don't see how it would excuse your behaviour if I did.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sometimes we just don't know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that doesn't render the empirical aquired knowledge of energy conservation and perpetual motion worthless. You're taking the safe and disregarding stance here; if you want to talk about absolute knowledge we might as well start at the core with the ideas of (for example) Descartes and skip this perpetuum mobile as an arena for argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1760073:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:13 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Mar 19 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Until a second group can construct one and verify that it works it is just conjecture.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760076:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:21 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 19 2010, 07:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But that doesn't render the empirical aquired knowledge of energy conservation and perpetual motion worthless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course.
Again, saying that something can be falsified doesn't mean it already is, just like saying that because something hasn't been falsified yet doesn't mean it never will be.
In this case, I don't think the device works, but I won't dismiss it until it's proven bogus. It's the difference between belief and knowledge.
<!--quoteo(post=1760079:date=Mar 19 2010, 04:25 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 04:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In this case, I don't think the device works, but I won't dismiss it until it's proven bogus. It's the difference between belief and knowledge.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're taking the wrong approach here. You should dismiss it until it's proven <i>working</i>. Nothing they've shown should give any credence to it and everything we know about science says it's a sham. Burden of proof and whatnot.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Well, they have said they received $10 million in investors, but I can't find any credible reference for this.
So, if you are starting from the pov that they are faking the device, why would you not also assume they are faking the investment?
I.e, if this is a PR stunt then you would expect them to talk up the money side of it. You talk about money, secret licensees of the tech, secret engineers who have verified it.
Anything remotely public has been a joke. The demo failed, the independent panel disbanded. The only supporting information for all of this is either secret or in house.
If that doesn't ring alarm bells, then there's no hope.
<!--quoteo(post=1760080:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:26 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760080"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you're taking the wrong approach here. You should dismiss it until it's proven <i>working</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I will not believe it until proven working. However, I will not dismiss it until proven fake either.
Like I said, it's the difference between educated guess and knowledge. It's a subtle nuance, but a very important one at that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760080:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:26 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760080"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nothing they've shown should give any credence to it...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's spinning away in a live exhibit. If it didn't, I wouldn't bother with the thread at all...
<!--quoteo(post=1760081:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760081"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, they have said they received $10 million in investors, but I can't find any credible reference for this.
So, if you are starting from the pov that they are faking the device, why would you not also assume they are faking the investment?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey, that's a good point. Would be pretty clever, actually, in an evil sort of way. Granted it also sounds illegal.
<!--quoteo(post=1760081:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760081"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anything remotely public has been a joke. The demo failed, the independent panel disbanded. The only supporting information for all of this is either secret or in house.
If that doesn't ring alarm bells, then there's no hope.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And yet now they've got a working prototype. I suppose it's up to the jury once again.
Personally I'm looking towards an explanation on how it even works (which it seems to be). Would make for a groovy office toy if anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1760082:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:32 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 05:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will not believe it until proven working. I will not dismiss it until proving fake either, however.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're going to have to wait a long time then, because it is impossible to prove it to be fake. Any so-called "proof" of this will be hand-waved with "well that was just a malfunction, it worked when WE tried it. Give us a few months and we will get back to you." You're digging yourself a hole in which you can NEVER dismiss this little piece of stage magic because they will happily string you along forever and ever in order to keep their marketing gimmick going. Which is EXACTLY what they wanted in the first place.
<!--quoteo(post=1760082:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:32 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 05:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yet now they've got a working prototype. I suppose it's up to the jury once again.
Personally I'm looking towards an explanation on how it even works (which it seems to be). Would make for a groovy office toy if anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, they CLAIM to have a working prototype. Now, it is a common mistake to make, so I don't mind explaining this to you, Draco, but the difference is that their claim has not yet been independently verified. What they have is a spinny thing that they CLAIM to output more energy than goes into it. This has not actually been verified, so it is merely a CLAIM of a working prototype. It's okay, many people get this wrong.
But let's not descend to insults. Dismissing something out of hand is neither open-mindedness nor scepticism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is when it is based on past evidence of similar situations.
Jim is selling you a cure all based on the same ingredients that were used around 1900 <i>but this time he says it works</i>. Are you not going to dismiss it out of hand?
Ted says that cancer is actually caused by parasitic microbes that inhabit the mitochondria of cancer cells. His work was reviewed and unsupported. Are you not going to dismiss it out of hand?
You stop at a car dealership and the guy tells you that if you buy a 1990 Ford Escort he has on his lot that when the gas runs out you can just fill the tank with water because that is what the space shuttle runs on. when you as how it works he says "I have 10 million dollars in investments and it clearly runs". Are you not going to dismiss it out of hand?
You go to the pet store and there is a cage with what appears to be a dead cat in it. The clerk says that the cat is hibernating, and you know that cats have never been known to hibernate, ever. Do you buy it or do you simply dismiss it out of hand because you know that the clerk is feeding you a lie?
Seriously, that is what they are offering, a hibernating cat that is clearly hibernating because it appears to be dead. It's not a hoax like the other hundreds of other dead cats that came before because it is slightly warm and that has nothing to do with the heating pad the cat is laying on.
<!--quoteo(post=1760084:date=Mar 19 2010, 04:44 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Mar 19 2010, 04:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Jim is selling you a cure all based on the same ingredients that were used around 1900 <i>but this time he says it works</i>. Are you not going to dismiss it out of hand?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought you were talking about me for a second. I'm glad you're not, that kind of comment could be detrimental to my patented cancer cure. Made from pure cocaine don't you know (the trick is to make sure it's only harvested by orphans).
Regardless, you summed up the entire thing nicely.
<!--quoteo(post=1760083:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:41 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760083"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're going to have to wait a long time then, because it is impossible to prove it to be fake.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It had already been done with the previous model, and with most known perpetuum mobile devices ever. Don't be ridiculous.
<!--quoteo(post=1760083:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:41 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760083"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, they CLAIM to have a working prototype.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's on display. Yes, it hasn't yet been verified. Verification is when we'd actually be justified claiming whether it works or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1760084:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is when it is based on past evidence of similar situations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No such device has been examined previously. If it was, well, that's the point of the thread, personally I'd like to know. The de-palma machine was already brought up before, it seems pretty close.
Again, I'm not saying it works just because I don't say it doesn't. I know it's a humongous claim, but that's what makes it amusing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760084:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You go to the pet store and there is a cage with what appears to be a dead cat in it. The clerk says that the cat is hibernating, and you know that cats have never been known to hibernate, ever. Do you buy it or do you simply dismiss it out of hand because you know that the clerk is feeding you a lie?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good old Monty.
Here is the technical issue if I understand it correctly.
Steorn's argument goes like this: 1) They increase the load on the motor. 2) The input power does not increase. 3) Therefore, they can theoretically increase the load indefinitely until it exceeds the input power.
*** The problem here is the "theoretically" part. In practice they admit that the conditions under which input power does not increase are very precise. Additionally, the power generated in the load is nowhere near the input power. So they are CERTAINLY NOT demonstrating energy out greater than energy in. They only THINK they can do it based on the anomalous motor behavior. ***
Now, it is unusual that increased load does not increase the power draw. BUT it could simply be directly stealing energy from other power sinks in the system. So, for example, the toroids may become more efficient, and the excess heat they would normally produce is going directly into load power, like a buffer account, when normally at least SOME must come from the input power.
On this point, they are performing independent calorimetry, which was promised at the end of February. It is now approaching the end of March and no calorimetry. Still, the buffer account could come from decreased electromagnetic losses. But they have privately tried it with a "Faraday Cage". So... if calorimetry is independently confirmed as identical, then they will have to prove independent confirmation that electromagnetic conditions are identical. But this is still simply in pursuit of what buffer account the energy comes from. Or if it is free. For which there is no evidence.
So, as of now it's just a bit of weird science that has not been demonstrated to provide free energy at all. Because the energy is coming from... a big ass battery!
It's still a cool experiment though. We need to investigate it.
<!--quoteo(post=1760091:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:54 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Mar 19 2010, 07:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem here is the "theoretically" part. In practice they admit that the conditions under which input power does not increase are very precise. Additionally, the power generated in the load is nowhere near the input power. So they are CERTAINLY NOT demonstrating energy out greater than energy in. They only THINK they can do it based on the anomalous motor behavior.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Excellent, someone with actual knowledge of the subject... Could you do a "for dummies" version?..
While we're at it, can you guess how long would a motor like that last under normal considerations? I think it's two hours tops, based on those small commercial AA motors we all know.
<!--quoteo(post=1760091:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:54 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Mar 19 2010, 07:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's still a cool experiment though. We need to investigate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it can make a cool table-top toy. If it does have long lifespan, that is.
<!--quoteo(post=1760089:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:53 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's on display. Yes, it hasn't yet been verified. Verification is when we'd actually be justified claiming whether it works or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hence why it is only a claim, not a working prototype.
Comments
That's the thing that made me question their motives in the first place. At first I thought it was blatantly as scam but, as you said, halting funding seems to go against that. Still, could just be a PR thing but then I fail to see how they'd actually scam money out of people.
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats not the point really. Even if it's only a little bit more than you put in, it breaches a long standing law of physics, which means it is possible and can, in theory, be improved to a degree where it is commercial viable.
As I said, these devices have been around for a long time. Those guys are not the first to demonstrate them. So far nothing was made "public".
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you guys for real? Do you know anything at all about human nature? The best way to garner interest is to play hard to get.
As I said early in this topic, these guys are a former e-commerce company selling the fact that they can sell crazy ideas to apparently educated people.
Nothing says sexy marketing company like convincing the geek demographic that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken.
The description of the device is like a perfect rip-off of the depalma N-machine from the 80s. This device has sprung up several times in the last 20 years and has always demostrated over-unity by coupling with either the earth's magnetic field or a nearby electro-magnet.
In 6 months time, when the window for licensed products comes and goes and you are left wondering what really happened, you need to be honest with yourself about whether you really thought there might be something behind orbo technology and you need to then sit down and question your own assessment of your own intellect because the only real truth in all of this is that there will always be stupid people.
</rant>
Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear enough. I have no doubts at all that this entire thing is complete bull######. I would say I know for a fact that it doesn't work as advertised, but I don't know for a fact. I just know that the entire concept of it is <b>wrong</b>.
Whether they're playing hard to get or not, I don't see how they can convince the "geek demographic" without rock-solid <i>proof</i> that it works and that it works well. My problem is that no one in the scientific community is going to believe this for a second, so why would they stop receiving funding now when it's most likely their easiest way to scam money out of people?
My point was that they might be doing this to make a really quick buck by getting a load of money straight off and then disappearing, or they honestly believe this thing works and will change the world. If it's the latter I just feel sorry for them for being so disillusioned is all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats not the point really. Even if it's only a little bit more than you put in, it breaches a long standing law of physics, which means it is possible and can, in theory, be improved to a degree where it is commercial viable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Puzl said, I imagine this thing uses magnets somehow which means (as far as I'm aware! I'm not a scientist) it would be amazingly hard to increase the output of it to realistic needs.
Yes, I am. The only remarkable thing about Steorn is that they've managed to string the press along for another four years after they were shown to be charlatans.
It's one of the worst false dichotomies I can imagine going around. Either you accept everything unquestionably, or you reject everything unquestionably... It's a sure-fire way to never get anywhere in anything.
Being open-minded or being a skeptic are worth positively nothing on their own. These traits have to work in concord to allow for reasonable line of thinking, they are two sides of the same coin: to be skeptical, you need to wait until evidence either for or against, and to be open-minded you have to wait until evidence either for or against.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I meant to write "close minded" there, not "open minded".
The fundamental that I think you are referring to is that anything that is unfalsifiable is also completely unscientific.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I look forward to the point in the future where we all get rich, technologically advanced, and wasteful enough to construct an invisible chocolate teapot and launch it into orbit just so we can mess up that adage.
Draco, I know a bit about scientific theory. You don't need to explain it to me. My entire issue with this is that you seem to think this device merits more attention than a guy who claims he can fly by flapping his arms. And the fact of the matter is, it merits LESS. Making a man fly is easy: Reduce his bone density (hollowing out works well), elongate his arms and fingers, stretch large, thin membranes between them, massively enlargen his chest musculature, maybe lower the gravity a bit, and presto, you have a dude who can fly by flapping his arms. Sounds complicated? Yeah, I'll grant that. But compared to violating the first law of thermodynamics, this is a TRIVIAL exercise.
The likelihood that this is a hoax is greater than the likelihood of the sun rising tomorrow. It's not a certainty, I'll grant that much, but it is so OBSCENELY likely that it's the next-best thing.
Either way, even if this does work I really can't see it producing that much "free" energy compared to how much is being input into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep. Granted, they already have 10 million. Also, I think they measure energy production in Kilojoules for that thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760055:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are you guys for real? Do you know anything at all about human nature? The best way to garner interest is to play hard to get.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You underestimate what kind of field scammers deal in. You don't need elaborate set-ups to convince people from stand-point of reason - because invoking reason is where your scam ends very naturally - all you need is to know what motivational buttons to push. We're all stupid that way.
But yes, it'd be a genius stunt for a PR company.
<!--quoteo(post=1760055:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The description of the device is like a perfect rip-off of the depalma N-machine from the 80s. This device has sprung up several times in the last 20 years and has always demostrated over-unity by coupling with either the earth's magnetic field or a nearby electro-magnet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now we're getting somewhere. Would you happen to have any more details on that thing?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760059:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:43 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 06:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760059"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, I am. The only remarkable thing about Steorn is that they've managed to string the press along for another four years after they were shown to be charlatans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, you're all over the place. We're all sane people here, there's no need to jump hoops to convince anyone this is most likely crap. All I've been trying to get across all this time is that it's important to have the intellectual guts to go ahead and say "I don't know" when you don't know, no matter the circumstance.
Oh come on. That's a horribly semantic argument. It's like those religious people who argue that you CAN'T BE AN ATHEIST because you don't KNOW FOR SURE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. So you're only an agnostic! HAH! Please tell me that isn't what this entire argument has been about.
Wow.
Well, no worries then.
<!--quoteo(post=1760062:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:56 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 19 2010, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760062"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I look forward to the point in the future where we all get rich, technologically advanced, and wasteful enough to construct an invisible chocolate teapot and launch it into orbit just so we can mess up that adage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure God will love a new tea-set.
<!--quoteo(post=1760063:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are they not looking for investors? Because these guys probably would prefer not to go to jail for fraud.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They already have 10$ mil, so a bit too late for that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760063:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Draco, I know a bit about scientific theory. You don't need to explain it to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have already explained why you misunderstand it. I won't press on just for the sake of convincing you.
<!--quoteo(post=1760063:date=Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My entire issue with this is that you seem to think this device merits more attention than a guy who claims he can fly by flapping his arms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I'm not saying that. Do not assume the false dichotomy of either accepting or rejecting something. Sometimes we just don't know.
Like I said countless times before, I'm not holding my breath for this thing. I just can't honestly neither accept nor dismiss it, for lack of knowing better.
Excellent.
<!--quoteo(post=1760067:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:05 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh come on. That's a horribly semantic argument. It's like those religious people who argue that you CAN'T BE AN ATHEIST because you don't KNOW FOR SURE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. So you're only an agnostic! HAH! Please tell me that isn't what this entire argument has been about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please don't do this. Vague analogies don't help any.
And yes, it's important to say you don't know when you don't know, no matter how psychologically tempting it is to suggest otherwise. For the record, I'm a strong gnostic atheist towards most definitions of word "God". I know about the dangers of blind conviction first-hand, and I know it works both ways.
Let that be the last mention of religion here. We should all know better than to discuss something like this, less of all on the Internet.
There is a very good reason to approach things like this sceptically, they have all been false in the past. There is also a difference between being open minded and being a sucker, anyone who gives them any credit at this point is a sucker because they have already been reviewed for a machine that says it breaks basic laws of science and has been reviewed and discredited by the scientists the creators requested to review it.
When it was first announced it was a wild claim. Until a second group can construct one and verify that it works it is just conjecture. Until it is repeated and tested and reliably produces energy there is zero reason to give it any credibility. It has already failed the testing, why would anyone want to even try to replicate it?
No, you really haven't explained that. You just claim that I am wrong without backing it up with anything except "oh you're so close-minded." And how convenient that you don't care about convincing me of my alleged close-mindedness either. Can I have your "get out of silly thread I made hyping a ridiculous hoax except then I realized how silly it is and now I'm desperately backpedaling while belittling everyone else" card when you're done with it?
Probably.
But let's not descend to insults. Dismissing something out of hand is neither open-mindedness nor scepticism.
<!--quoteo(post=1760074:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:13 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760074"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, you really haven't explained that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe I have. I'm not going to repeat myself.
I also do not appreciate the blatant misrepresentation on display here, I have said or done none of that. I don't mean any disrespect, and I don't see how it would excuse your behaviour if I did.
But that doesn't render the empirical aquired knowledge of energy conservation and perpetual motion worthless. You're taking the safe and disregarding stance here; if you want to talk about absolute knowledge we might as well start at the core with the ideas of (for example) Descartes and skip this perpetuum mobile as an arena for argument.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwlo0ym-rE&feature=channel" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwlo0ym-rE...feature=channel</a>
Of course.
Again, saying that something can be falsified doesn't mean it already is, just like saying that because something hasn't been falsified yet doesn't mean it never will be.
In this case, I don't think the device works, but I won't dismiss it until it's proven bogus. It's the difference between belief and knowledge.
<!--quoteo(post=1760078:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:24 PM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Panigg @ Mar 19 2010, 07:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760078"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwlo0ym-rE&feature=channel" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwlo0ym-rE...feature=channel</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pardon... What? It's a ten-minute video.
I think you're taking the wrong approach here. You should dismiss it until it's proven <i>working</i>. Nothing they've shown should give any credence to it and everything we know about science says it's a sham. Burden of proof and whatnot.
So, if you are starting from the pov that they are faking the device, why would you not also assume they are faking the investment?
I.e, if this is a PR stunt then you would expect them to talk up the money side of it. You talk about money, secret licensees of the tech, secret engineers who have verified it.
Anything remotely public has been a joke. The demo failed, the independent panel disbanded. The only supporting information for all of this is either secret or in house.
If that doesn't ring alarm bells, then there's no hope.
I will not believe it until proven working. However, I will not dismiss it until proven fake either.
Like I said, it's the difference between educated guess and knowledge. It's a subtle nuance, but a very important one at that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760080:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:26 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760080"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nothing they've shown should give any credence to it...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's spinning away in a live exhibit. If it didn't, I wouldn't bother with the thread at all...
<!--quoteo(post=1760081:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760081"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, they have said they received $10 million in investors, but I can't find any credible reference for this.
So, if you are starting from the pov that they are faking the device, why would you not also assume they are faking the investment?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, that's a good point. Would be pretty clever, actually, in an evil sort of way. Granted it also sounds illegal.
<!--quoteo(post=1760081:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760081"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anything remotely public has been a joke. The demo failed, the independent panel disbanded. The only supporting information for all of this is either secret or in house.
If that doesn't ring alarm bells, then there's no hope.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet now they've got a working prototype. I suppose it's up to the jury once again.
Personally I'm looking towards an explanation on how it even works (which it seems to be). Would make for a groovy office toy if anything.
You're going to have to wait a long time then, because it is impossible to prove it to be fake. Any so-called "proof" of this will be hand-waved with "well that was just a malfunction, it worked when WE tried it. Give us a few months and we will get back to you." You're digging yourself a hole in which you can NEVER dismiss this little piece of stage magic because they will happily string you along forever and ever in order to keep their marketing gimmick going. Which is EXACTLY what they wanted in the first place.
<!--quoteo(post=1760082:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:32 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 05:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yet now they've got a working prototype. I suppose it's up to the jury once again.
Personally I'm looking towards an explanation on how it even works (which it seems to be). Would make for a groovy office toy if anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, they CLAIM to have a working prototype. Now, it is a common mistake to make, so I don't mind explaining this to you, Draco, but the difference is that their claim has not yet been independently verified. What they have is a spinny thing that they CLAIM to output more energy than goes into it. This has not actually been verified, so it is merely a CLAIM of a working prototype. It's okay, many people get this wrong.
But let's not descend to insults. Dismissing something out of hand is neither open-mindedness nor scepticism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is when it is based on past evidence of similar situations.
Jim is selling you a cure all based on the same ingredients that were used around 1900 <i>but this time he says it works</i>. Are you not going to dismiss it out of hand?
Ted says that cancer is actually caused by parasitic microbes that inhabit the mitochondria of cancer cells. His work was reviewed and unsupported. Are you not going to dismiss it out of hand?
You stop at a car dealership and the guy tells you that if you buy a 1990 Ford Escort he has on his lot that when the gas runs out you can just fill the tank with water because that is what the space shuttle runs on. when you as how it works he says "I have 10 million dollars in investments and it clearly runs". Are you not going to dismiss it out of hand?
You go to the pet store and there is a cage with what appears to be a dead cat in it. The clerk says that the cat is hibernating, and you know that cats have never been known to hibernate, ever. Do you buy it or do you simply dismiss it out of hand because you know that the clerk is feeding you a lie?
Seriously, that is what they are offering, a hibernating cat that is clearly hibernating because it appears to be dead. It's not a hoax like the other hundreds of other dead cats that came before because it is slightly warm and that has nothing to do with the heating pad the cat is laying on.
I thought you were talking about me for a second. I'm glad you're not, that kind of comment could be detrimental to my patented cancer cure. Made from pure cocaine don't you know (the trick is to make sure it's only harvested by orphans).
Regardless, you summed up the entire thing nicely.
It had already been done with the previous model, and with most known perpetuum mobile devices ever. Don't be ridiculous.
<!--quoteo(post=1760083:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:41 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 07:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760083"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, they CLAIM to have a working prototype.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's on display. Yes, it hasn't yet been verified. Verification is when we'd actually be justified claiming whether it works or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1760084:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is when it is based on past evidence of similar situations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No such device has been examined previously. If it was, well, that's the point of the thread, personally I'd like to know. The de-palma machine was already brought up before, it seems pretty close.
Again, I'm not saying it works just because I don't say it doesn't. I know it's a humongous claim, but that's what makes it amusing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760084:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Mar 19 2010, 07:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You go to the pet store and there is a cage with what appears to be a dead cat in it. The clerk says that the cat is hibernating, and you know that cats have never been known to hibernate, ever. Do you buy it or do you simply dismiss it out of hand because you know that the clerk is feeding you a lie?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good old Monty.
Steorn's argument goes like this:
1) They increase the load on the motor.
2) The input power does not increase.
3) Therefore, they can theoretically increase the load indefinitely until it exceeds the input power.
***
The problem here is the "theoretically" part. In practice they admit that the conditions under which input power does not increase are very precise. Additionally, the power generated in the load is nowhere near the input power. So they are CERTAINLY NOT demonstrating energy out greater than energy in. They only THINK they can do it based on the anomalous motor behavior.
***
Now, it is unusual that increased load does not increase the power draw. BUT it could simply be directly stealing energy from other power sinks in the system. So, for example, the toroids may become more efficient, and the excess heat they would normally produce is going directly into load power, like a buffer account, when normally at least SOME must come from the input power.
On this point, they are performing independent calorimetry, which was promised at the end of February. It is now approaching the end of March and no calorimetry. Still, the buffer account could come from decreased electromagnetic losses. But they have privately tried it with a "Faraday Cage". So... if calorimetry is independently confirmed as identical, then they will have to prove independent confirmation that electromagnetic conditions are identical. But this is still simply in pursuit of what buffer account the energy comes from. Or if it is free. For which there is no evidence.
So, as of now it's just a bit of weird science that has not been demonstrated to provide free energy at all. Because the energy is coming from... a big ass battery!
It's still a cool experiment though. We need to investigate it.
Excellent, someone with actual knowledge of the subject... Could you do a "for dummies" version?..
While we're at it, can you guess how long would a motor like that last under normal considerations? I think it's two hours tops, based on those small commercial AA motors we all know.
<!--quoteo(post=1760091:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:54 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Mar 19 2010, 07:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's still a cool experiment though. We need to investigate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it can make a cool table-top toy. If it does have long lifespan, that is.
The device had already been replicated, apparently.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steorn+motor&aq=f" target="_blank">YouTube search</a>
Hence why it is only a claim, not a working prototype.