Topic: Energy
Steorn 300 - Some Fine Print? Magnetic or Electromagnetic? You'd think that by this time in my life I'd have learned to read the fine print...by creator
(libertarian)
Friday, June 5, 2009
You also know that in the interest of raising public awareness of the tremendous potential of Orbo technology in a fair and balanced way, I have promised to be as forthright as possible regarding what I find. You can most assuredly expect my honest opinion about what Steorn is up to, within the parameters of the non-commercial license agreement we have entered into.
I recently received the news that my "Steorn studies" would begin on the 18th of June (here are some brief excerpts from that letter:)
Dear Dann,
...The process will begin on Thursday, 18th June when we will publish three e-learning modules to a restricted part of the SKDB. You will be provided with confidential access details on Monday, 15th June.
The modules take the form of multimedia presentations... The subject matter covered varies widely from the very simple (atomic structure, etc) to the relatively complex.... Three new modules will appear every Thursday until August 20th...
Best regards,
-Steorn
While subsequently pursuing what further information I could find, it came to my startled attention that Steorn has either updated their website, or that in my earlier excitement, I may have simply overlooked some rather significant details that somewhat change the complexion of my expectations.
Under the heading of "How Orbo Works" the Steorn website has this to say:
"...Orbo interactions can be engineered using two basic techniques. The first technique utilizes a method of controlling the response time of magnetic materials....The second technique decouples the Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF) from torque for electromagnet interactions...
"Orbo 1.0, the first commercial release of our platform technology, is based upon our electromagnetic implementation. Orbo 1.0 will be made available initially under license to 300 engineering companies and to the wider product development community later during the course of 2009."
"Our electromagnetic implementation?" I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed to come to this realization. I had been hoping for the "holy grail" of free energy, arcane knowledge of how to make a permanent-magnet-only motor. From all early reports, Orbo was reputedly an "all magnet" motor.
Yes, an electromagnetic / PM hybrid that demonstrably produces more energy than it consumes would surely be nothing to sneeze at -- and, truth be told, my personal engineering expertise comes closer to a "good fit" in that domain -- but I really want to see a PM-only motor!
There have been many claims over the years that such a beast is possible - Howard Johnson and his patents, more recently the Perendev motor, John Bedini, Colonel Thomas Bearden, others... but no one, to my knowledge, has released adequate information allowing for the reliable, repeatable replication of such a device.
In the summer of 2007, Steorn announced that they would show such a thing; their intended demonstration suffered "technical difficulties" (i.e., it was a miserable failure,) and the ensuing debacle is history.
Is there some fundamental flaw with the magnet-only version of Orbo? Could it be that all the nay-sayers are right? Or, as an alternative and perhaps less damning possibility, could it be that the "magic" behavior of permanent magnets that Steorn has discovered only works in certain favorable locations, or at certain times, or under certain hard to determine and reproduce circumstances?
I (along with other optimists) will continue to forge ahead with an open mind and give the confidential materials in the SKDB the benefit of the doubt as I study them. Being one of "The Steorn 300" is a privilege that I quite relish. I will keep you appraised of what I learn as Steorn gradually raises the veil on their unbelievable Orbo technology. Stay tuned!
NOTE: Please read the other articles in this series about Steorn, linked below.
The views expressed in this
article are those of creator only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. creator is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Firstly Congrats on being one of the 300. I have been following your articles through google alerts on Steorn. I agree with the way you maintain an open mind in your stance on Steorn. My view of the scientific community on Steorn's claims are likenned to a religious fanatic dealing with other beliefs not matching their own. They are completely over ruled as heresy. Science of all things should be always open to debate, and people should always question the status quo in the interest of progress. Look forward to hopefully working with you as one of the 300.
I couldn't agree more with your observation that the scientific community, by and large, is sadly driven by dogma rather than a true thirst for knowledge. To carry your analogy a little further, many have vested interests just as the Pharisees and Saducees of old had, and those seem inclined to be the first to chime in against anything "new."
On the other hand, many (myself included!) are at times all too credulous. This is a tendency that I find myself needing at times to fight. Continuing the analogy, we are perhaps somewhat like acolytes on the threshold of being initiated into the mysteries of Orbo.
The best antidotes I've found for responding to my own excess credulity are first, direct experimentation - i.e. "Show me how!" - and also friends and colleagues who ask the hard questions and force me to prove things to my own ultimate satisfaction.
Having said that, I am thankful and would much rather err on the side of optimism than be forever shut up in my own self-limiting certainties. :)
I look forward to collaborating with you and with any among the 300 as we look into this fascinating new realm. :) Thanks again for your kind words.
You may want to consider that Steorn has NEVER shown any OU technology of any sort to any reliable impartial testing facility that could report about it. Far as anyone knows, nobody outside of the company has seen any OU technology at all. Considering how unlikely OU technology is to start with, the probability is overwhelming that Steorn is either a major error or a major scam or some unholy combination of both.
I have certainly considered the general premise of your comment. I also must consider the considerable number of qualifiers you've considered essential to include in your assertion:
"NEVER shown," "reliable," "impartial," "that could report." I guess it's good to hedge your bets... I certainly do mine.
Steorn asserts that their effect has been shown to and replicated by outside university testing. Of course your "that could report" qualifier kicks in here, because (if Steorn is not baldly lying about this) the entities who have so far verified Steorn's claims all refuse to go "on the record" about it. If Steorn IS baldly lying, then they fall into your "major scam" category, and are worthy of the greatest derision. If Steorn is truthful about "silent replicators" then I will grant you that it is still POSSIBLE that all parties are sharing some common "major error" or delusion.
As far as your viewpoint "how unlikely OU technology is", that also depends on your usage of the term. Is a windmill OU technology? I personally allow for invisible sources of energy external to a device or system that might initially give the appearance of "over unity."
How many among the lords of science a century ago foresaw the release of energy from matter dwarfing that of ordinary combustion by orders of magnitude? I would be quite content if Orbo turns out to be some means of slow and controlled conversion of matter to energy previously unsuspected. However, I am more inclined to think that Steorn has stumbled upon a mechanism by which external energy flows are somehow redirected and partially harnessed with the agency of magnets, even as a windmill partially harnesses and transforms the energy of the invisible wind.
And so, I'll leave you for the moment with your "overwhelming probability" that Steorn is "unholy" until I have some evidence, pro or con, to offer you. And I will continue in my humble opinion that the "laws of science" are far more analogous to sketches on a sandy beach than to tablets of stone written by the finger of God.
Just a quick thank you for your reporting on this. As one who is certain that there are new energy technologies out there that are a vast improvement over what we're using now, I have been intrigued with Steorn since first learning about it. I also subscribe to "Steorn" alerts on Google news and have found your reporting to be awesome. You take care and I look forward to future reports.
With best wishes, Fred Burks of www.WantToKnow.info
Thanks also for mentioning your interesting website; others may also wish to take a look; your site appears at first glance to be very nicely organized and presented and amazingly comprehensive.
Yes, there are certainly other new energy technologies out there, and several other than Steorn that I personally watch fairly closely - not the least of which is http://blacklightpower.com
Being an engineer myself, I presumptively side here with Mary, there are many ramifications that would flow from the idea that one can create limitless usable energy out of nothing at all. A lot of those ramifications would be akin to magic, which there is scant evidence for in every human endeavor.
The best possibility would be some unknown/magical mechanism by which pre-existant energy, that is usually well hidden or bound, is released as a Gibbs free-energy, something like cold-fusion or zero-point energy. But this too is empirically highly unlikely, and I really mean HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
That notwithstanding, I too rebel against the pathologically skeptical, who are almost as philosophically violative of scientific form as those who believe in magic or speculative science.
I know this, because sometimes I will come up with theories that perfectly conform with standard physical models, but applied in some unfamiliar way, and my uber-scientific friends will dismiss them out-of-hand, too eager to categorize them as pseudo-science.
All I can say about your involvement with this group, and their offer to test their device(s), is make sure you have a person familiar with stage magic and mentalism on hand, like a Randi or Patrick Jane.
A well-formed scientific test should be conclusive of their claims, and I would encourage you to satisfy your optimistic curiousity, but you should be ever alert for fraud if they are controlling any aspect of the analysis or demonstration; scientists have fooled before by hucksters claiming perpetual motion, many times. The tag line on that one is "Scientists are experts at dealing with Nature, which never deceives, but they are as prone to deception to professional hoaxters as anyone else is."
(BTW, I would be interested in being part of any such assessment, having both a professional/educational scientific background, and having studied and performed recreational magic as well.)
Gary, thanks for your comments and expressed concerns.
Have no fear, there is (at least up to this point) absolutely NO indication whatsoever that Steorn plans to "demonstrate" or involve me in any test of "their devices." My expectation is that they will present me with nothing more than "trade secrets."
Any testing and experimentation that I do will, as far as I know and expect at this time, be tests using my own materials and means, and such as I am able to acquire through "normal channels."
In other words, they will not be "controlling any aspect of the analysis or demonstration," it will be simply me applying my design and implementation and analysis skills to the application of information that they provide. Thus, at least on this count, I can assure you that there will be no "fraud" able to be applied.
And, by the way, I do not expect to "create limitless usable energy out of nothing at all" with their information; I do not view Orbo (even from my present distance) as something "magical" or "perpetual motion" or as a "closed system." If Orbo produces usable energy, that energy will be coming "from somewhere" outside of the Orbo itself. Where? That remains to be "seen." :)
You may consider such an outcome "HIGHLY UNLIKELY" - Stay tuned, and I will let you know if, in my opinion, after experimentation, observation, and analysis, I consider what I am able to produce from Steorn's revealed knowledge to be an "existence proof" that shows the highly unlikely to be so.
"Is a windmill OU technology? I personally allow for invisible sources of energy external to a device or system that might initially give the appearance of "over unity."
A windmill uses a well understood principle. Certainly there could be new sources of energy, analogous to radioactivity before it was discovered. The problem with Steorn is that it's not new and it has never shown any new credible source of energy. What they have done and shown, if you followed their history, makes no sense at all. Nor does their current thrust which is producing internet lessons rather than a device which could demonstrate their concept to qualified testing labs.
I hope you have fun with this but I doubt it will ever amount to anything significant. A company which really had what amounts to "Fire 2" would not act like Steorn has and would not make the unsubstantiated claims that Steorn has.
For those unfamiliar with Steorn's history, at varying times, Sean McCarthy, president and CEO, has claimed in the company forum to have a start-stop and a self-starting continous running motor which requires no input of energy. He has said that the technology provides an energy density of 0.5 Watt/cc which is about the same as an alkaline AA battery (but would not exhaust itself unlike the battery)! He said scaling to a 550HP motor is readily doable. This was years ago and nothing has been shown. The company scheduled an elaborate demo in July 2007 involving scientists and engineers from all over the world. Everyone showed up but nothing was shown. The excuse was a "bearing problem" and the promise was that this would be rapidly fixed and a new demo would be scheduled "soon". That will soon be 2 years ago. Steorn's investor money will run out soon. That's how bleak this story really is.
Posted By: Frank Randall
Date: 2009-06-08 08:33:01
Hello,
Quick question: Since you are one of the "chosen ones", why don't you communicate with them in person or by phone? Why all this mysterious email stuff? Get on with it, man!
Thanks for your continued interaction; Steorn's "odd" behavior and failure to as yet provide concrete proofs of their many claims are duly noted. I will grant you that claims about energy density and scalability offer nothing more than tantalizing teases without a presentation of the underlying science (even if that "science" was, at the time of the claim, nothing more than "back of the napkin" extrapolations of some experimentally observed phenomena.)
Your logical inferences -- that there is no underlying phenomena or that what Steorn has observed is misinterpreted and is not a previously unapprehended energy source -- are just that; logical inferences, based on incomplete data. You may be right; the probability that you are right may be substantial; however your case is far from air-tight.
@Frank Randall:
Thanks for your quick question. The general answer is that, contrary to popular appearance, I actually "have a life" that involves juggling plenty of client responsibilities, family, and etc. I feel no compelling need at the moment to challenge Steorn; they've told me to expect the flow of information to begin in just over a week from now. This "tail" isn't quite ready to start "wagging the dog" just yet. :)
Having said that, I may look into "dropping by" the Steorn offices and saying "Howdy" in the near future when I may be passing through their neighborhood.
"Certainly there could be new sources of energy, analogous to radioactivity before it was discovered. The problem with Steorn is that it's not new and it has never shown any new credible source of energy."
I can't help but wonder, what if there is energy to be had but no explanation as to the source - would this mean that we shouldn't use the energy? :o) If one lives in the Sahara beside the Nile one doesn't need to know where the water is coming from in order to make use of it.
In my opinion, it's not really that important that Steorn show a credible source of energy. Personally I wouldn't care if we never found the source - if Orbo provides clean, practically usable energy I'll be happy.
However, I am curious about the source and I have an idea. The academic world is up in arms because this tech apparently violates the Law of Energy Conservation but what if it isn't? Who ever said that all the energy in the universe actually goes into the manifestation of it? Let's say there is100% energy in the universe but only 75% of that actually goes into the manifestation of the universe (both the parts we know and the parts we don't know) ...... that leaves 25% 'available' to technically savvy species such as ourselves. Entropy exists - it can be seen easily - is it so crazy to hypothesize that when any given system has decayed completey (even atoms) that the energy that was required to hold the system together in the first place simply reverts back to some 'base' form and joins that other 25% in ....... ?
So, what if Orbo is a mechanism by which we can access this hypothetical 25%? There would be no breaking of the Law of Energy Conservation. It would simply be a breaking of our current understanding of energy. I say give Steorn the benefit of the doubt and doubt what you think you know. After all, what we collectively know is but a speck against the mountain of stuff we don't know and surely there is room in this world for people to discover things by accident, to discover without knowing exactly what is going on, and to find ways to make use of said discovered information.
Posted By: Stephen Heyer
Date: 2009-06-08 17:15:18
Hi Dann,
I’m very interested in your comments that maybe what “Steorn has discovered only works in certain favorable locations, or at certain times, or under certain hard to determine and reproduce circumstances”.
Even better: “As far as your viewpoint "how unlikely OU technology is", that also depends on your usage of the term. Is a windmill OU technology? I personally allow for invisible sources of energy external to a device or system that might initially give the appearance of "over unity."
I have followed claims of permanent magnet motors since I encountered the Howard Johnson device in Science and Mechanics in 1980. Eventually I reached a few tentative conclusions which I have been making since 2007 in the Steorn discussion groups.
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
1. Many (most?) of the people claiming to have operating permanent magnet motors or similar devices actually started out with a real phenomenon that looked like it would be easy to build into a power source.
2. However, whatever device they had turned out to be almost impossible to replicate, or even keep going. I have read mention of this from at least one of those developers.
3. Because their device looked so simple, they kept trying simple mechanical redesigns to get it to work reliably. They were not successful.
4. Some drifted into fraud, probably largely because they kept thinking that just a little more money and work would deliver a working device.
FINAL (SORT OF) CONCLUSIONS
1. Working permanent magnet motors do not create or destroy energy, they harvest an unknown flow of energy the same way a windmill, water wheel or solar cell does.
2. Although permanent magnet motors seem simple machines, there is unknown physics at work and this makes them extremely unreliable, they will work or stop working for no (currently) known reason. Perhaps, even the presence of certain people will stop them, as my father stopped clockwork wristwatches before “non-magnetic” watches came out, a widely reported, common phenomenon still not explained by science.
For example, just imagine trying to design a windmill if you had no knowledge of and could not see or feel the wind. If you just happened to build your windmill on a hill facing into the prevailing wind it would work – sometimes. However, build it in a valley, edge on to the wind and it would mysteriously not work.
3. Without an understanding of this unknown physics it will be as difficult to build reliable permanent magnetic motors as it would be to build transistors and integrated circuits with no knowledge of quantum physics. Not impossible you understand, just very, very difficult.
4 I had hoped Steorn had either cracked the physics or produced reliable devices through pure trial and error, and luck. I am now beginning to doubt it. I hope I am wrong.
5. If I am right, the best we can hope for is that Steorn is able to produce enough results, however patchy, to flush the mainstream physicists out of their bunkers and get them applying their vast intelligence and resources to cracking the problem.
So you see, we seem to be thinking along similar lines.
Your comments are much appreciated and quite interesting, Thank you! I too have been following esoteric technologies for a long time - possibly even longer than you, albeit "classifying" them as OU or in other categories may have been more recent.
One of my very favorite categories is "inertial propulsion." I first encountered IP in the form of a Popular Mechanics article on the "Dean Drive" in the early 1960s. The Dean Drive utterly captured my imagination and I was again delighted to learn of the Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (aka GIT) many years later. Although I have yet to see utterly convincing evidence, I am persuaded that a well-built GIT would be functional, based on some thought experiments....
But back to free energy; yes indeed, I have heard rumors of and can certainly see the plausibility of the "energy flows" that you describe, and particularly as to your points #4 and #5 here are my observations:
It may be possible that Steorn has discovered enough information over time, possibly even after their embarrassment of 2007, to have the core of a viable technology.
It may also be possible that they have realized that they are working with phenomena such as you have posited, but have found (in the form of electromagnetics) some means of "filling the sails" in a more reliable fashion, and that might explain why they have said that Orbo 1.0 will be developed using electromagnets as an adjunct.
As somewhat of an analogy, cold fusion is presently getting some traction even among "the mainstream" although in the early years there was much trial and error, disastrous accidents, and no "reliable" reproductions.
And so, thanks again for your observations, and please Stay Tuned! I should begin looking into some "inside secrets" in just over a week from now (although my strong suspicion is that the first three "lessons" will probably be quite basic.)
I'm surely interested in what you may have along the lines of a magnet motor. The Nolan Chart doesn't give me direct access to your email address, so might I suggest that you contact me directly by emailing "creator at flyinghouse dot com" and then I'll be able to email you back.
If Steorn had a working device/ technology, it would have been validated several years ago. The first \'jury\' disappeared and was never spoken of again. Now they have a new \'jury.\' The only news item I am waiting for in regards to Steorn is the inevitable investor lawsuits.
I appreciate your approach to Steorn. You are neither overly sceptical or overly believing. I think that is the right attitude to take. If you have the time and interest, why not take a look at what they have to offer.
On the Steorn web site there is a video of three engineers who apparently were able to test a Steorn mechanism and are willing to go on record in saying there is energy being produced from an unknown source. Intriguing and certainly worth investigating, IMO.
This idea is full of fail. I hate to see your money lost, but as the great PT Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute. Must be how all of the Bob Barr & Ron Paul donators felt when they learned where there money went.
@simulant. If you are asking about the God-complex thing then you clearly are incapable of reading properly. He explained he uses a small 'c' so as NOT to get confused with THE Creator (notice the big 'c' there? Pretty clever, huh?). He's apparently a part-time inventor as well as an engineer.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in reporting, and I'll appeal here for a little more patience; I've been away on travel for about a month now, and so horrendously busy as to have let the Steorn studies slide to the bottom of the pile.
I've had time only to note the appearance of the occasional disdainful and dismissive article, all possibly or perhaps probably justified by the current circumstances, particularly with the jury verdict now in.
I can only say that I still intend to conduct my personal study and investigation, and will report as appropriate when I've had the leisure to do so.
Curiously enough, I'm writing this from Ireland... with plans to, God willing, be on a train to Dublin tomorrow... but I don't think that I'll have time to drop by the Steorn offices on this trip. Go figure!
More to follow on the subject, "God willing," which for the theologically illiterate means that anything further from me on the topic is of course subject to His Divine Majesty's continuing to sustain my life and breath - if it were entirely up to me, it would be the same as saying "Certainly." :)
I see you are Simulating god. What's funny is that you have spent x amount of time to make a joke that wasn't funny to an audience that isn't there and specifically gone out of your way to do it. Who's the one with problems?
@creator
Thank you so much for posting some info. I appreciate that you are busy and that you have no obligation to post anything. So I am waiting for when you have the free time and any new information. I will pass by and check every once in a while to see if there are any new postings.
I am no more simulating god than creator is. I did not spend much time to make what was not a joke (sorry, if you can't tell the difference) and the audience, quite obviously, is there, or you wouldn't have spent "x amount of time" replying. You're as delusional as your deity buddy, here.
Come on creator. It's supposedly coming towards the end of the Steorn course and you've posted nothing. Why bother starting this 'quest' if you've let it slip to the bottom of the pile?
You're right. You're not the loser, apparently the creator/Creator is. Happy to tell everyone about his brains and 'six figure salary' turns out it's to make up for impotence.
"[Simulant] is a loser... Either that or he has a long, straight, inflexible instrument vertically inserted somewhere from bottom to top....."
was much more accurate. As a card-carrying misanthropist, my inter-personal skills hover around zero. I'm not proud of it, but someone has to be this way or there wouldn't be a word for it, would there?
@Dann If you continue with your blog, as I hope you do, without being too optimistic or too open-minded, I promise to shut-up. I think we all would like to hear more, regardless of the outcome.
Please do read that, after which you can decide for yourself whether or not I'm too optimistic/open-minded. However, there is, as yet, no "outcome."
Steorn promises "more to come" and I'm waiting to hear the Orbo "punchline." When I do, I will more than likely construct some experimental apparatus to test the Orbo revelations.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
