Well its a long weekend and I am off for the next four days. Its been one interesting week - some cool stuff being done by SPDC members and I got the chance to get involved in an 'interesting debate' on CoE with two profs in a college in front of their students!

Will be around next week, have fun.

Sean

Hi Sean,

Quick question about your COE college debate if you're still around. I take it, being in front of students, the content of the debate isn't under NDA and can be discussed? I'm wondering on what basis you can debate COE at this point in your understanding of Orbo -- as I understood, you do not yet know how COE is being violated?

-Mike

Any students around that would like to comment?
I'm sure at least some of the witnesses do visit this forum.

[quote][cite] 8:[/cite]Any students around that would like to comment?
I'm sure at least some of the witnesses do visit this forum.[/quote]
Since the forum is closed again: [url=http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/]Steorn Tracker[/url] allows anonymous comments.

or use the special freedom of information account:
- forum user: . (single dot)
- password: onedot

8:Any students around that would like to comment?
I'm sure at least some of the witnesses do visit this forum.

It was one of the saddest things I ever saw. I expected that Sean would be slaughtered by the two academics, instead it was just a song and dance routine for the amusement of the students.

My daughter sat at the back to video the exchange, and video'd Sean's talk without problems. Then as soon as Sean finished the young guy who organised the event told her she had to switch off the camera. Meanwhile, one of the students (a friend of his?) was filming the whole thing, on a small camera, with nobody saying boo to him.

First 'rebuttal guy' got up, and opened by saying that Conservation of Energy was a matter of faith. I nearly fell off my chair

I waited for the kicker, thought he was leading up to some clever point, but that was his point. He then said that prior to this Steorn had been (and he had big slides underlining the fact) a 'jigs and fixings' set-up. He solemnly pointed to the words 'jigs and fixings' on the slide. He said that Steorn didn't understand the difference between force and work. He said viscosity had something to do with eddy currents, and he had a copper pipe here, could show them all about viscosity with the aid of the copper pipe if they liked.

Then came the main act, Professor Timoney. He was the comedian, all nudges, winks, jokes. He wheeled on a table with something covered with a cloth. First he compared Steorn to the Nigerian scams, "we have millions in the bank, just send us your bank details'. Then he brought up slides of a website about perpetual motion machines, with lots of ridiculous quotes, and had the students rolling in the aisles at the quotes. That was his whole rebuttal, going through the points on some website that had nothing to do with Steorn, and making jokes about how 'inconvenient are the laws of nature'. He finished by talking about how dangerous it was, messing with energy and destroying it, and whipped off the cloth to show a fire extinguisher, which he'd brought along in case Sean demonstrated his evil machine and sucked us all into a vortex. The students howled with laughter.

During the Q&A session afterwards some guy in the audience (whom I later saw walking off with an academic, laughing with him) said that if Steorn had found a way to make energy, he'd love to invest in them. He wouldn't let that point go, kept insisting he wanted 'to invest', even when Sean said they weren't taking investments.

When Sean was replying to some of the points, at the finish, Timoney stood on the stage behind him, upstaging him by sniggering, rolling his eyes to heaven, and moving around. It was shockingly childish.

Why would you invite somebody to present, just to laugh at them? Neither of the 'rebutters' had done even a minimum of research on Steorn, knew nothing about them, hadn't read the website.

At the finish one of the rebutters (can't remember which one) said something about 'wasting an hour and a half of a beautiful afternoon'. But...they were the ones who organised the format. It could have been a good old ding-dong battle, they had the heavy artillery on their side, instead they didn't bother addressing anything that Steorn are actually doing.

thx Crank
wish I'd been there

It would be a lot easier for Steorn to convince people if they had a working device to show. But i guess that is the problem all PMM inventors have in common.

aberoder - I went to art college, not university, so wasn't prepared for how silly it all was. I genuinely thought that I'd hear stuff that would pull the rug from under Sean's feet. I was shocked that university lecturers would elect to mount a 'rebuttal', but not bother researching the subject. If he'd just stood up and said "If you entertain this crap you'll fail your exams' it would have been more honest.

Did someone call for a doctor?

Did someone call for a doctor?

No, they didn't.

.:or use the special freedom of information account:
- forum user: . (single dot)
- password: onedot

I think that's a good idea.

But please...don't use that account for trolling.

I would expect the same thing to happen when a creationist gave a speech in front of a biology classs. Without evidence and/or a solid theory it's just nonsense.
But it's hard to tell without having seen Seans speech.

Can we see the video your daughter made?

[quote]
That was his whole rebuttal, going through the points on some website that had nothing to do with Steorn, and making jokes about how 'inconvenient are the laws of nature'
[/quote]
Steorn have never released any data or any details of how the effect works - so there isn't an awful lot of substance to debate is there?

It does sound horribly childish, but from their point of view OU is impossible, therefore Steorn are scammers therefore they deserve everything they get....

What did Sean have to offer in the way of support for his perpetual motion claims?

[quote]
I would expect the same thing to happen when a creationist gave a speech in front of a biology classs
[/quote]
It's actually worse than that. Claiming to a physics prof that you have OU is like standing up and claiming you have a colony of pixies living in your bathroom. It's THAT silly. That's why he got the ridicule.

Big Oil Rep.:

I would expect the same thing to happen when a creationist gave a speech in front of a biology classs

It's actually worse than that. Claiming to a physics prof that you have OU is like standing up and claiming you have a colony of pixies living in your bathroom. It's THAT silly. That's why he got the ridicule.

lol Big Oil Rep, to be clear we presented an overview of why certain magnetic transactions violate CoE. There was no rebuttal at all on the point, the "leading magnetics expert" who was part of the rebuttal did not know anything at all about magnetic viscosity (in fact he stated that it was to do with Eddy Currents). Other than insults the actual rebuttal consisted of asking engineering students to accept CoE on faith.

Sean

It's bizzare that he would say CoE is based on "faith" as there are hundreds of years of experiment, observation and theory to support it. Nobody, including yourselves, has ever demonstrated a violation of CoE, despite inumerable attempts. I'd say it was one of the best supported theories out there.

Sean - as you have now put this presentation of why certain magnetic transactions violate CoE into the publlic domain can you upload it onto the forum? Maybe you will get a better debate here.....

Also, did your presentation go over how energy was "lost" in the transactions? Or was it on how you ended up with excess?

Big Oil Rep.:It's bizzare that he would say CoE is based on "faith" as there are hundreds of years of experiment, observation and theory to support it. Nobody, including yourselves, has ever demonstrated a violation of CoE, despite inumerable attempts. I'd say it was one of the best supported theories out there.

Sean - as you have now put this presentation of why certain magnetic transactions violate CoE into the publlic domain can you upload it onto the forum? Maybe you will get a better debate here.....

Also, did your presentation go over how energy was "lost" in the transactions? Or was it on how you ended up with excess?

Its being debated and tested in the SPDC, if you are interested apply to join up. As for the take it on faith thing, I was shocked to be honest, there are 100's of years of experiments to back it up, science is not a question of faith. If you want to decide for yourself if we are for real get into the SPDC and start testing.

[quote]If you want to decide for yourself if we are for real get into the SPDC and start testing.
[/quote]
I'm afraid I decided as soon as you made claims of perpetual motion. As I said: you might as well claim that a colony of pixies living in your bathroom. The only thing that will convince me will be a working device - producing electricity with no fuel. Data from mechanical test rigs certainly won't (not that we've had any).

You have also claimed elsewhere that your discovery has only been possible recently because equipment of a high enough sensivity has only become available in the "last 10 years". It's unlikely I will have such equipment at home, as I haven't got any at all. How am I to test for this effect that, according to you, has not been detectable for hundreds of years?

I was just trying to clarify if your presentation concerned showing apparent missing energy in a magnetic transaction- as your question "where has the energy gone?" would elicit the obvious answer of eddy currents/heat. This is what HK said and it appears to be what the physics prof said.....

Big Oil Rep.:

If you want to decide for yourself if we are for real get into the SPDC and start testing.

I'm afraid I decided as soon as you made claims of perpetual motion. As I said: you might as well claim that a colony of pixies living in your bathroom. The only thing that will convince me will be a working device - producing electricity with no fuel. Data from mechanical test rigs certainly won't (not that we've had any).

You have also claimed elsewhere that your discovery has only been possible recently because equipment of a high enough sensivity has only become available in the "last 10 years". It's unlikely I will have such equipment at home, as I haven't got any at all. How am I to test for this effect that, according to you, has not been detectable for hundreds of years?

I was just trying to clarify if your presentation concerned showing apparent missing energy in a magnetic transaction- as your question "where has the energy gone?" would elicit the obvious answer of eddy currents/heat. This is what HK said and it appears to be what the physics prof said.....

Well its up to you, you have the option to investigate further or not, it makes no difference to me or Steorn either way. If you want to see a machine come along in July, if you want the opinion of experts wait for the Jury, if you want to get hands on, join the SPDC. If you want to talk rubbish, then keep going. You have all the options.

Sean - it's your company and your forum, so you can do what you like. But I have made some serious points and all you can do is accuse me of "talk[ing] rubbish". Which bits in particular did you think were "rubbish" and why?

You claims are full of contradictions, such as with the equipment sensivity, but if anyone points them out you just avoid the issue and tell them to join your cult, the SPDC. No thanks.

I will be along in July - though it would be nice to know the date! Hopefully it will be a bit more edifying that the Kenetica presentation....

Do you want to see some pixies?

deleted

Big Oil Rep,

I don't join cults and I would have never joined the SPDC if it were a cult. Claiming that about the SPDC is not only an insult to Steorn but to all of us who are members. Quite frankly, you are out of line, period.

The SPDC is a very interesting place where some very interesting information has been presented. I take my NDA seriously so I will NOT go into any details. But real science is taking place in the SPDC and I'm proud to be a member.

@babcat - I couldn't give a crap about the likes of E8 or 007 - but you seem like a nice guy who might be hurt when this all goes tits up. Honestly, you should at least have some doubt that Steorn don't really have perpetual motion, it's just not healthy otherwise.

Big Oil Rep,

Thank you for saying I seem like a nice guy. I believe I'm a generally nice person, but I'm far from perfect. You see, I'm a Christian and even when I disagree with people I try to be respectful and treat them how I would like to be treated. I'm not perfect so sometimes I do say things I should not. Just like anyone else I can get irate from time to time. I believe the Bible is very accurate when it describes how difficult it is to tame the human toungue!!!

Once again I cannot go into details. I am NOT going to violate my NDA. I'm not even going to dance around it. I take it very seriously.

However, I think it would be permissible for me to say that being in the SPDC has exposed me to information that is supportive of Steorn's claims. I'm NOT going to say anything more. Don't ask because I will not respond. But you can be certain that the SPDC is NOT a cult in any way or fashion. Actually, the exact opposite is true. Absolute REAL science takes place in the SPDC.

[quote]
I believe I'm a generally nice person, but I'm far from perfect.
[/quote]
None of us are babcat, and that includes Sean McCarthy, who you seem to hold up with almost religious reverence.

To quote one of he greatest lines of the 20th century: "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy" (Life of Brian)

If you embrace the fact that everything is energy and in perpetual motion, it's not so hard to see, that there's more to reality than we have let ourselves perceive sofar.
Disappointing that in 2007 young people, students, have closed their minds to conform to the 'classical' view of reality.
Or maybe just protecting their future grades.

Big Oil Rep,

Sean McCarthy is not the messiah. I also do not revere him in any religious way. However, during the course of the last several months (ever since I started following Steorn) I have recognized he is an honest, sincere, hard working, highly intelligent, and very REAL person. He is absolutely NOT the kind of person who would be involved in anything that was less than legitimate. I have spent practically thousands of hours following Steorn and everything I have watched them do is completely above board.

However, in return for their honorable and completely above board way of handling things they have been criticized, attacked, and slandered. I've witnessed it countless times and it is disgusting. Steorn continually GIVES of their time and resources and in response (with some exceptions) they have gotten a ton of grief.

Steorn has a business plan they are following. Obviously, part of this plan is the jury of top notch scientists who are studying their technology. It makes me sick when people make up all kinds of false accusations against Steorn because they are too impatient to wait for them to follow through with their business plan.

I don't worship Steorn or Sean McCarthy. However, I admire them for staying the course despite the extreme opposition they have faced.

[quote]
the 'classical' view of reality.
[/quote]
I'm sticking with the reality version of reality myself.

Big Oil Rep.:

the 'classical' view of reality.

I'm sticking with the reality version of reality myself.

Here's a thought experiment I'd like to re-propose (I'm sure it's been said before).
If you were Steorm's CEO, and discovered what Steorn claims to have discovered, how would you operate? How would you go about convincing people that what you have is real? How would you go about not getting yourself labeled as a fraud? How would you operate to place what you have discovered to your firm's advantage?
My feeling is that Steorn's moves are fairly consistent with these goals, and that it makes sense to listen to them very carefully -- even if we are skeptical. Which is why we are all here, the goats and the sheep.

@Shuny,
not sure if that is directed specifically at BOR or a general question. I have suggested many a time what would be the reasonable course of action, sme even in rather long posts. However I will just mention a few possibilites.

1. Make a business out of selling power, rather than trying to sell the machines. The curiosity of people wanting to know how you can make electricity so cheaply will become an automatic 'validation', at which point it would be much easier to convince people (if you needed or wanted to do that at all)

2. Rather than making extraordinary claims, make a well documented experiment. Write a paper about it with all the experimental details and results and submit it to a scientifc journal. The paper would mention the enuexpected results and try to explain the reason for the anomaly, without stating that there is any new physics.

3. Patent the device in as many countries as possible. It has been said many a time on this forum that a patent office would not accept submissions for a PMM, however that is entirely false. The will only decline an application if no working model is submitted with the application. Since I would have a working model (as Steorn purports to have) then I would have no problem geting my patent.


WHich of those three options (or others that I di not mention) I would choose would depend on what I wanted to achieve. If I wanted to make a lot of money and become powerful I would do (1), if I wanted to save the world by spreading the word of this great new discovery I would choose (2) and so on.

Thanks for the info Crank. Could you post the film your daughter made?

Too bad about the ignorant behavior of the professors at the school. I went back to school in my thirties to get my degree. I went back with a fear that everybody was smarter than I and an expectation that the professors would be like gods. Was I ever in for a surprise. I had only two teachers that were really good, a few average, but mostly very bad. Actually some of them hardly ever even showed up anyway.

Thanks for the report Crank. I'm not supprised at all by the reactions.

The business worlds and science worlds operate with completely different cultural and lexicographical transactions. The right kind of presentation to the scientific culture is boring and stupid to a business person, and vice versa. They just don't mix at all.

Real science requires real data. And it has to be repeatable by anyone. So far, there's no data. From the scientific perspective, there's no science either.

Big Oil Rep.:

the 'classical' view of reality.

I'm sticking with the reality version of reality myself.

Your reality exists because you perceive it. Perceiving is an act. By very limiting means, I might add and narrowed further by belief structures, ideas to what is and what is not possible.

Thanks for the report crank.

Sean got hung, drawn and quartered, did anyone really expect any different?

Stand on a platform facing people indoctrinated into COE and tell them you can create energy from nothing, you might as well have told them you have discovered that fairy's are real, it probably would have got as big a laugh.

But fair do's to Sean for standing up there.

That´s the point, RunningBare: Indoctrination.
It seems like those people were indoctrinated instead of being educated as "free thinkers" (<- what scientists and engineers should be in my opinion) when they were once students.
So - sad that Sean couldn´t talk to scientists and engineers but only to people who pretend to be scientists and engineers instead.

I believe this is exactly the point of the speech. Provoke a predictable negative reaction and then complain how narrow minded those people are.
Did you know that you could go to prison for such a speech in Germany?

Sean:There was no rebuttal at all on the point, the "leading magnetics expert" who was part of the rebuttal did not know anything at all about magnetic viscosity (in fact he stated that it was to do with Eddy Currents).

You needn't be surprised about the different interpretation of magnetic viscosity. That meaning of the phrase is in much more common use than the one often discussed in this forum. The way 'viscosity' and eddy currents come into the picture for the simple reason that the relation between the drag of eddy current braking and the speed of the movement is analogous to the drag posed by an object moving in a vscous fluid.

The other interpretation of the phrase 'magnetic viscosity' (or magnetic lag) is much less known, for the simple reason that it is typically unimportant and rarely if ever has any significant efect on a practical system. That is not because it is a very small effect. In fact it can be very large in high frequency systems. It is because long before its efect starts to be significant it would already have been dwarfed by other problems that arise at high frequency, such as hysterisis and eddy currents to mention but two.

That said, I find it shameful of whoever it was that invited you for he way they (mis)behaved. No matter how ridiculous they may have considered your claims, it does not justify such childish behaviour from their part.

[edit: to fix quote]

@aber0der: Well, I don´t see how....Or are you talking of the scientists/engineers who held the so-called "rebuttal" ? They could (theoretically!) go to prison because of "üble Nachrede" in Germany.

aberOder - that sounds highly unlikely :)

[quote][cite] KaiB:[/cite]@aber0der: Well, I don´t see how....Or are you talking of the scientists/engineers who held the so-called "rebuttal" ? They could (theoretically!) go to prison because of "üble Nachrede" in Germany.[/quote]
[quote][cite] crank:[/cite]aberOder - that sounds highly unlikely :)[/quote]

It is of course very unlikely. It's absurd. And I expected a stronger rebuttal. Looks like the time i spent in the trollology class is wasted. :(

crank, is there a chance for us mortals in the regular forum to see the video your daughter made?

It was a borrowed camcorder, I'm just trying to download it to my pc at the moment, don't know what the hell I'm doing but suspect I'm doing something very wrong by the speed that it's transferring. It said it would be 3MB per minute, and so far it's transferring in kbs - 2MBs transferred after several minutes of connection time. If I succeed in getting hold of it on my pc and condensing into something usable I'll upload it somewhere.

aber0der:I would expect the same thing to happen when a creationist gave a speech in front of a biology classs. Without evidence and/or a solid theory it's just nonsense.
But it's hard to tell without having seen Seans speech.

But this would have been just as bad if it happened to a creationist. And it's really not for the creationist that it would be bad. If the only rebuttal that could be managed to a presentation on creationism is "Haha, believing in God is stoopid!", how credible does that make the defenders of evolution look?

...Especially if they said something like "evolution is a matter of faith." Not only is it an obscenity against real science, but it gives way too much ammunition to the whole "science is just another religion" claptrap.

We are waiting anxiously crank!

Thanks for the update.

http://nearyou.imeche.org.uk/events/event.htm?eID=910

jcmax:http://nearyou.imeche.org.uk/events/event.htm?eID=910

And now we sit back and watch as Dr. Timoney and Mr. O'Dwyer get flooded with mail from "bloggers"...

Ah well. It's no more than they deserve.

Iam an engineering student present at the talk yesterday.Sorry to use this account but I don't have the time to go through the process of registering right now.
Frankly the talk didn't convince me of the truth of pm and orbo,but maybe that wasn't the purpose. True,the professors disclaimed him, perhaps in an offensive (but it has to be said funny) way, but they remained consistant and not contradictative, as opposed to Sean.
Firstly the major major failing was the lack of a demonstration,or even photos or videos of one. Sean argued not to believe COE just because of the last 100 years of experimentation, yet provided no proof himself. Granted the jury are still working,but he still should have something to show. At one point he said that even if he did have a demo with him,it mightn't have worked on the day, as happened when Jerry O'Dwyer (one of the meany professors) visited their facility a few years ago. An intermittent faith in his machine he has there.
Secondly, Sean argued that journals would not accept any white papers from Steorn. Yet he didn't provide a satisfactory explanation as to why he wouldn't publish these same documents on this website, claiming something like he didn't want people stealing the idea. But if it had gone ahead published in a journal? Contradiction there I'm afraid.
Thirdly, most of his answers in the q&a at the end were evasive and inconclusive. In fairness he was under pressure as almost all questions were directed at him, perhaps in future some of the steorn guys muttering angrily down the back could have gone up with Sean and helped him out? One question asked if energy can be destroyed as well as being created by orbo, and what control there is of this? Sean confirmed that orbo can destroy energy, and then give a wishy-washy answer about how controllable it is. He also seemed to confuse energy destruction as being equivalent to energy loss, although the latter is energy conversion, obeying COE (if one choses to believe it). It really hit home to me the scary prospect that Steorn might not know what they are doing. I'd rather like the Earth not to be imploded or anything like that.
In summary, the talk was not very constructive, although quite entertaining for students present. Steorns stance was of vague magnetic forces with dubiously simple analogies, while the UCD professors disclaimed him, with sarcasm yes, but they were consistant.

I can't really see the intelligence of a college physics class inviting somebody who has announced a controversial device if they were not prepared to listen, argue civilly, rebut to the point, and possibly try to understand what the guy there is trying to say. There is nothing to be lost by giving people a chance.
I have seen physicists getting furious at the bare mention of fringe physics like Pear.
...
Very very curious about Sean's talk.