Steorn

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Steorn

Post by Grimer »

For anyone interested in the history of Steorn and its hunt for free energy I've found a fascinating archive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASt ... ive_2#NPOV

I've always felt that Steorn were genuine and not a scam - in spite of some shady tactics, like claiming to have a 550hp engine which they later admitted was untrue.

When their efforts began to peter out I learned of this forum and thought that in view of John's account of the Bessler Wheel, which I found compelling, there was a better chance of finding free energy here than anywhere else.

I have not regretted that decision. I think we are close.
Attachments
Steorn Economist advert.jpg
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Steorn

Post by ovyyus »

The marketing force can have a strong influence on the weak minded :D
User avatar
AB Hammer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3728
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:46 am
Location: La.
Contact:

re: Steorn

Post by AB Hammer »

Agreed, and a prime example of fooling one's self

I followed Steorn and found him interesting and even considered one of his kits. But I never got around to purchasing one, for I had to many other things to build and do.
"Our education can be the limitation to our imagination, and our dreams"

So With out a dream, there is no vision.

Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos

Alan
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: Steorn

Post by MrVibrating »

Thanks Grimer, halcyon days eh?


FWIW, Bessler's wheel = Orbo.

It's basically the 8.3 rig, substituting magnetic force with gravity.

What i've basically done is implemented Orbo without the magnets.

In this case, the time-dependent passive field is the inertial interaction's transient alignment to gravity, using its ambient acceleration to invert the sign of the interaction's counter-momentum during the acceleration phase, but not during the deceleration phase, hence rectifying unidirectional momentum from gravity without extracting any net work from it.

So we end up with a spinning wheel, carrying lots of angular momentum, all of which was generated exclusively by the internal expenditure of work, and which is constituted of both momentum and counter-momentum, in equal sign and measure.

The relative dimensions of the input / output energy fields are basically identical to 8.3, the only difference being that there, the magnetic PE was passive (hence not subject to Lenz's law / N3), and speed-invariant (so you have the same MPE per cycle regardless of velocity), whereas the duty cycle of the solenoids was inversely proportionate to RPM, hence it too had velocity-dependent efficiency.

I think the thermodynamic options for classical OU are so constrained that it's almost inevitable that there's going to be these fundamental consistencies in any genuine systems. What we're really looking at reduces to the same set of axioms, the same fundamental symmetries - the science of Orbo is the science of OU per se.

The epiphany moment for me was realising the nature of Sv loss - that it was non-dissipative. That was the first physical evidence that classical symmetry breaks were possible.

Sv, or entropy viscosity, encompasses a bunch of different material and inductive effects, the net result of which is a time-delayed change in magnetisation states, which basically boils down to either increasing or decreasing magnetisation density of the interacting materials - so a change applied such as by moving the material closer to a magnetic source does not produce an instantaneous corresponding change in its magnetisation state, instead taking some finite time to settle to that new equilibrium.

Because it's just passive viscosity of field density changes, it's generally considered as purely a loss mechanism, and so is an undesirable property in most EM applications. For instance, in a transformer core or motor, it would limit the frequency at which the materials could alternate their magnetic states, and so inputting further energy would simply be wasting it to Joule heating since the magnetic interaction can no longer respond to the applied changes.

However in that scenario, the energy loss mechanism is simply Joule heating - ie. 'copper losses' from resistance, per Ohms's law and Joules 2nd law for heat. The wasted energy is being dissipated by the electrical circuits, not by the magnetic interaction itself...

..which raises an interesting question: where would the energy be going if we caused an Sv loss in a passive magnetic interaction..?

So, a purely mechanical interaction with a permanent magnet, and a lump of old pig iron showing appreciable Sv... we can run that quickly in our heads, like this:

- We allow the iron lump to attract towards the fixed magnet over some small distance, collecting that output energy (so lifting a small mass via a pulley or loading a spring or something).

- The iron clunks onto the magnet (keep fingers clear!)

- Sv does its stuff. The magnetisation of the iron could take a few seconds or even minutes to saturate, all the while its internal field density building..

At this stage, we could eavesdrop on this process by amplifying a signal though the iron and monitoring the resulting click-train of Barkhausen jumps / steps, as clusters of progressively harder-pinned domains cascade into alignment with their neighbors. When the action's all over, maximum induced magnetisation state has been reached.

- Then we simply pull them apart again.

However, we're doing so against a higher magnetisation - and thus a greater attractive force - compared to when the iron pulled itself over to meet the magnet.

In principle, the force might've doubled.. so to pull them apart again, we'd have to input twice as much energy as they output when attracting together!

So again, it's a loss mechanism... but where did that energy actually go? The answer's right there in the question of course - we spent the extra energy performing work against magnetic force.

Conversely, we didn't exactly 'lose' energy on the way in - there was precisely the right amount of energy for the corresponding force over distance - but that force was simply lower.

The point is, that this is a non-dissipative loss mechanism - in the electrical example it causes accelerated but entirely conventional dissipative losses. All wasted input energy is converted directly to heat, and would be fully accounted for by accurate calorimetry.

But not in the passive magnetic example, since there are no such heating mechanisms, and besides, we already know we spent the excess on regular F*d work, and didn't get an equal amount back in return.. no mystery. We simply didn't harvest all of the PE that would've been available on the way in, had we done so slowly enough to allow the iron's magnetisation state to keep up.

Mundane, worthless convoluted guff to most people. Why the hell would you want to be playing with loss mechanisms? What kind of "OU" research is this? Anti-OU?

But that's it precisely - non-dissipative loss mechanisms are "under-unity" in precisely the same manner that gainful systems are over-unity..!

It's the same friggin' form of thermodynamic asymmetry, only in reverse!!!

In the above scenario, we ended up performing twice as much work against the magnetic field, as it output for us in return.

Thus an asymmetric exchange of mechanical work has occurred between our mechanical, thermodynamic realm... and that of the vacuum interactions constituting the magnetic field.

The vacuum ate our energy!

This is a classical symmetry break. The input and output energy fields are both time-dependent, but we've timed the mechanical speeds of the interaction to exploit and maximise the net force difference between input vs output halves of the full-cycle interaction.

It's basically a mirror reflection of an OU system. Thermodynamically, it is the tail end of the same beast.

Perhaps even more fascinating and intriguing however was the profound psychological effect this realisation can have on people...

It is a religious response, just as Sean Mc said..

Pseudo-skeptics, to a man, insist till they're blue in the face that the losses must have been dissipative. They realise the implications, and so adamantly refuse to believe that non-dissipative loss mechanisms are even possible.

Even though this effect has been well-described for over a century. Sv was the subject of Rutherford's first paper in 1896. Improving response freqs of EM materials has been a constant engineering incentive ever since - this is not new science... rather, it is simply recognising the implications of previously-overlooked areas of classical thermodynamics.

It was having reverse-engineered Orbo that gave me the confidence there was a real chance i could find the symmetry break in the Bessler case. I figured it would actually be quicker, since there's so many fewer variables compared to the range of material properties involved in a magnetic interaction, although in retrospect it's taken around the same time for each, about four years.

Still, with regards to the respective inventors, and the nature of the discovery, the differences are as striking as the parallels - Sean McCarthy and Mike Daly noticed an anomaly, and followed though on it. Bessler, it seems, discovered the possibility of using gravity to invert counter-momentum purely from deductive reasoning... whereas, thanks to his success, and that of Steorn, we have the benefit of being able to apply inductive reasoning, knowing full well that a solution is available to be found, and how to recognise the tell-tale signs and conditions around it.

But either way, whatever the inspiration, what distinguishes both is the follow-through...


...and abject final failure.

Despite both claims being genuine.

So many mysteries and lessons yet to learn.. squandered!

So i owe Steorn for my Damacene moment; 'fast-in, slow-out, where'd the energy go?'.. Squinting though the cognitive fog of that conundrum, a reversed-perspective mirage of Shangri-La began to shimmer thru the haze...

"There are more things on heaven and Earth, Horatio.."



ETA:

- In retrospect, this point about the inevitable convergence of OU technologies upon shared fundamental consistencies is perfectly demonstrated by the sheer diversity of different embodiments of Orbo tech - from the initial oscillating systems to constant rotation to motogens and fully-static EM systems, and final 'solid-state' incarnations, all were applying the same principles of time-dependent input / output energy asymmetries.

So it's not so much a transferability as a continuum of core concepts from Orbo to Bessler's wheel, and so on for any OU system resting on a classical symmetry break, from energy generation to propulsion applications... it's inherently always going to be exploiting the same underlying principles of dimensional differentials. Sean Mc described these systems as the ultimate proof of Noether's theorem, rather than a contradiction... and there's another strong lesson; we have to get intimately familiar with how symmetries are enforced if we want to break them.. in other words the step-by-step instructions for how to design an over-unity system are spelt out between the lines of the standard principles underwriting conservation, telling us word-for-word what not to do if we don't want a conservative outcome..

And that's what 'Orbo' tech basically reduces to.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Steorn

Post by ovyyus »

Your cool aid needs more sugar.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Steorn

Post by rlortie »

"And that's what 'Orbo' tech basically reduces to." A lot more sugar!

Steorn and Orbo reduces to "SCAM" and then to insolvency after wiping out initial investors totaling €3 million. In 2006, Steorn secured €8.1 million in loans from a range of investors in order to continue their so called research.

in November 2016 the company shut down and laid off its staff, took what investor money they could divide and ran like hell!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steo ... lation.jpg
http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2016 ... se-it-all/
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

And yet they had real physical experiments you could get hands-on with.


Your analysis above Ralph is purely based on circumstantial evidence, laced with prejudice.

But in the Bessler case, all of the evidence is circumstantial. There is no definite mechanism or experiment you can get hands-on with.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, it looks for all the world like a bleedin' gravity wheel claim! Of all potential OU claims, the very cliche of a fool's errand... i mean at least magnetic interactions involve multiple interacting layers of complex variables. Mechanics is basically just inertia, force, space, time and gravity. So just in terms of the plausibility of finding something hitherto missed, we're no longer even looking for a needle in a haystack.. more like the last match in a matchbox.

I'm not saying be so open-minded your brain falls out.. but your standards for confirmation bias don't seem particularly consistent mate..
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

re: Steorn

Post by Grimer »

MrVibrating wrote:But in the Bessler case, all of the evidence is circumstantial. There is no definite mechanism or experiment you can get hands-on with.
There is now. The Yo-Yo.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Post Reply