|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2006 > These groups will be irrelevant in a few months
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
These groups will be irrelevant in a few months
|
|
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-11, 1:25 pm |
| Are you guys aware of Steorn (www.steorn.net)? They expect to be selling
their first products by April of next year. They have tested motors up to
550bhp in size.
All other forms of energy will become irrelevant as soon as they can be
replaced by the Steorn devices.
Take a look at the forum at www.steorn.net and please add your comments.
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2006-11-11, 1:25 pm |
|
"Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
news:VI14VNKO39032.5188657407@anonymous.poster...
>
> All other forms of energy will become irrelevant as soon as they can be
> replaced by the Steorn devices.
>
When there is a distributor where I can order my operable generators, please
come back here and give us the particulars. Until then, I have zero interest.
Vaughn
| |
|
| hoo boy yet another perpetual motion device!
why not dump this drivel over at alt.energy.over-unity we've been
keeping your type penned up over there for decades.........
Dan Reyes wrote:
> Are you guys aware of Steorn (www.steorn.net)? They expect to be selling
> their first products by April of next year. They have tested motors up to
> 550bhp in size.
>
> All other forms of energy will become irrelevant as soon as they can be
> replaced by the Steorn devices.
>
> Take a look at the forum at www.steorn.net and please add your comments.
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-11-11, 5:25 pm |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in <VI14VNKO39032.5188657407@anonymous.poster>, "Dan Reyes" wrote:
> Path: text.usenetserver.com!out04a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!xs4all!news.wiretrip.org!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail
2news-x2!mail2news
> Date: 11 Nov 2006 18:27:10 -0000
> Message-ID: <VI14VNKO39032.5188657407@anonymous.poster>
> From: Dan Reyes <ladanrey@ipkall.com>
> Subject: These groups will be irrelevant in a few months
> Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower,alt.solar.photovoltaic,alt.solar.thermal
> X-Remailer-Contact: Anonymous Mailer <DingoAdmin@DingoRemailer.com>
> X-Spam-Processed: dingoremailer.com, Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:27:12 -0600 (not processed: recipient mail2news@news.demon.co.uk in exclude file)
> X-Return-Path: dingobounce@dingoremailer.com
> X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: mail2news@dizum.com
> Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
> Organization: mail2news@dizum.com
> Lines: 10
> Xref: usenetserver.com alt.energy.homepower:235215 alt.solar.photovoltaic:161184 alt.solar.thermal:132656
> X-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:27:23 EST (text.usenetserver.com)
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
He's using an "anonymous" mail2news gateway.
Which means he's a complete loser and you can't trust a word he
posts.
(That's why almost everyone kills all posts from them.)
"Anonymous" mail2news gateways are toys for trolls and don't
protect anyone who is actually hiding from anyone dangerous.
People who are hiding from dangerous people don't announce the
fact that they are hiding.
Or trust script-kitty trolls to protect them.
Duh.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...ival/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconn...unix/index.html
| |
| Trygve Lillefosse 2006-11-12, 1:25 pm |
| On 11 Nov 2006 18:27:10 -0000, Dan Reyes <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote:
>Are you guys aware of Steorn (www.steorn.net)? They expect to be selling
>their first products by April of next year. They have tested motors up to
>550bhp in size.
>
>All other forms of energy will become irrelevant as soon as they can be
>replaced by the Steorn devices.
>
>Take a look at the forum at www.steorn.net and please add your comments.
This will offcource not happend.
By april, they will cough up some lame excuse, and say october -
DEFINATELY etc.
I expect that you will post an appology on theese groups on new years
eve 2007/2008.
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-12, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:08:32 +0100, Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2006 18:27:10 -0000, Dan Reyes <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote:
>
>
> This will offcource not happend.
>
> By april, they will cough up some lame excuse, and say october -
> DEFINATELY etc.
>
> I expect that you will post an appology on theese groups on new years
> eve 2007/2008.
You won't have to wait that long. If they don't go public by the end of
April, and have real products for sale, I'll apologize then.
| |
| Landline 2006-11-13, 8:25 pm |
| Trust me, these newsgroups will survive.
The next announcement will be an oil company bought out the invention for
billions dollars and buried it.
--
"Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
news:NE1LO76S39033.5948958333@anonymous.poster...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:08:32 +0100, Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
>
> You won't have to wait that long. If they don't go public by the end of
> April, and have real products for sale, I'll apologize then.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-11-13, 9:25 pm |
| Landline wrote:
> Trust me, these newsgroups will survive.
I think spammers like that hydrogen guy and flame enthusiasts
are more of a threat to these newsgroups than perpetual motion.
The more noise on the newsgroup, the less use they are and the
fewer the people who will be willing to wade through the swine
looking for a few pearls.
Anthony
| |
| Terryc 2006-11-14, 3:25 am |
| Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower,alt.solar.photovoltaic,alt.solar.thermal
X-Trace: 1163483507 un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au 4675 220.233.13.149:44134
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20060926)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9s76h.64151$rP1.45582@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: Abuse, including message IDs to abuse@pipenetworks.com
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.energy.homepower:137387 alt.solar.photovoltaic:58203 alt.solar.thermal:25698
Landline wrote:
> Trust me, these newsgroups will survive.
> The next announcement will be an oil company bought out the invention for
> billions dollars and buried it.
It has all the hallmarks of such a scam being attempted.
I jst love he forum with all those independent people so ernestly
discussing this perpetual motion machine.
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-14, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:51:46 +1100, Terryc wrote:
> Landline wrote:
>
> It has all the hallmarks of such a scam being attempted.
>
> I jst love he forum with all those independent people so ernestly
> discussing this perpetual motion machine.
By the way, Steorn is hosting a party in Dublin on Monday November 28 at
8pm. The venue hasn't been chosen, but it will be at a hotel in the centre
of the city.
Drinks are on Steorn, and you need only be a forum member to go. If you
are interested, go to www.steorn.net, register for the forum, and put a
message on the 'party' thread, that you are going. You don't need to give
any personal information to register for the forum or the party.
It looks like a number of people from the US, UK, and Europe will be
attending.
> It has all the hallmarks of such a scam being attempted.
Actually, it does not.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:51:46 +1100, Terryc wrote:
>
>
> Actually, it does not.
It's an over unity device so, since these can't work, it
must be a scam. It's similar to all other over unity devices
in this way.
Anthony
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:39:50 +0000, Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Dan Reyes wrote:
>
> It's an over unity device so, since these can't work, it
> must be a scam. It's similar to all other over unity devices
> in this way.
Granted it's not likely, but it's not as if present-day physics has all
the answers. You hear about things like 'zero-point energy'; maybe the
Steorn device is tapping that somehow.
If it's a scam or hoax, none of the skeptics on the forum has seen the
slightest evidence for one - Steorn isn't asking for money, they are a
real company, their CEO is a real engineer, etc.
They claim to have tested the device for three years, so whatever it is,
it's not due to a mistake.
| |
| Eeyore 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
|
Dan Reyes wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:39:50 +0000, Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> Granted it's not likely, but it's not as if present-day physics has all
> the answers. You hear about things like 'zero-point energy'; maybe the
> Steorn device is tapping that somehow.
>
> If it's a scam or hoax, none of the skeptics on the forum has seen the
> slightest evidence for one - Steorn isn't asking for money, they are a
> real company, their CEO is a real engineer, etc.
>
> They claim to have tested the device for three years, so whatever it is,
> it's not due to a mistake.
I'd like to point out that they don't claim tobe able to amke 'free energy'.
Their claim is to have made a generator with > 100% efficiency. I won't stop
right now to argue over that claim since it's moot to my next point.
Anyway what that means is that it's just a bit more efficient than normal
generators. It still needs an energy input to run it. No free lunch. No
perpetual motion.
Graham
| |
| Windsun 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| You "hear about" UFO's and the Loch Ness monster also.
That does not make them real
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
news:RJSM5JSZ39035.5250925926@anonymous.poster...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:39:50 +0000, Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> Granted it's not likely, but it's not as if present-day physics has all
> the answers. You hear about things like 'zero-point energy'; maybe the
> Steorn device is tapping that somehow.
>
> If it's a scam or hoax, none of the skeptics on the forum has seen the
> slightest evidence for one - Steorn isn't asking for money, they are a
> real company, their CEO is a real engineer, etc.
>
> They claim to have tested the device for three years, so whatever it is,
> it's not due to a mistake.
>
>
| |
| Windsun 2006-11-14, 1:25 pm |
| Uhm.. then what does it mean when he claims that it is over 100% efficient?
That, by definition, is a perpetual motion machine. Which makes it a scam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:455A1033.60D932A4@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Dan Reyes wrote:
>
> I'd like to point out that they don't claim tobe able to amke 'free
> energy'.
>
> Their claim is to have made a generator with > 100% efficiency. I won't
> stop
> right now to argue over that claim since it's moot to my next point.
>
> Anyway what that means is that it's just a bit more efficient than normal
> generators. It still needs an energy input to run it. No free lunch. No
> perpetual motion.
>
> Graham
>
>
| |
| Terryc 2006-11-14, 5:25 pm |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> By the way, Steorn is hosting a party in Dublin on Monday November 28 at
> 8pm. The venue hasn't been chosen, but it will be at a hotel in the centre
> of the city.
lol, do you have shares, or are you an "employee"? Seems it isn't only
women that will let themselves be screwed for a cheap drink.
What I want to see is a paper clearly outlining how the device works,i.e
"the science (new or old)" behind the device.
>
> Actually, it does not.
>
>
| |
| teraniageoff 2006-11-14, 5:25 pm |
| Hi All from down under,
a group called Byron New Energy is driving genuine researchers to
distraction over here.
Same scams. Stupidty, and being screwed for a few drinks, or just
flash-in-the pan kudos.
They were exposed after running a car on a magic overunity device, but
"forgot' to disconnect the vapour return from the tank.
of course it would only idle.
another scammer-spammer is infuriating a peak oil/running on empty
site, over here.
Are they paid by bigcoal, businessasusualidealogues?
these wonderful sites might become useless because of paid idiots, not
illuory magic breakthroughs.
Try science. it might not be able to save us al, but it wont irritate
the shit out of everyone and waste ALL their time.
Solar thermal-stirling:30% efficient, available since about 1870
regards,
geoff moxham
Terryc wrote:
> Dan Reyes wrote:
> lol, do you have shares, or are you an "employee"? Seems it isn't only
> women that will let themselves be screwed for a cheap drink.
> What I want to see is a paper clearly outlining how the device works,i.e
> "the science (new or old)" behind the device.
| |
| R.H. Allen 2006-11-14, 5:25 pm |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:39:50 +0000, Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>
> Granted it's not likely, but it's not as if present-day physics has all
> the answers. You hear about things like 'zero-point energy'; maybe the
> Steorn device is tapping that somehow.
>
> If it's a scam or hoax, none of the skeptics on the forum has seen the
> slightest evidence for one - Steorn isn't asking for money, they are a
> real company, their CEO is a real engineer, etc.
>
> They claim to have tested the device for three years, so whatever it is,
> it's not due to a mistake.
Just because they've been testing the device for three years doesn't
mean they haven't made a mistake. History is rife with inventors who
tested their perpetual motion machines for years only to have them shot
down beyond a shadow of a doubt when scrutinized publicly (usually
because they measured the inputs and/or outputs incorrectly). Heck, they
haven't even had it tested independently and on the record yet, and the
supposedly independent jury of scientists and engineers they will let
test it on the record is being selected by Steorn itself. It would be
interesting to know how the language reads in the contracts they're
making the jury sign.
No, I'll believe Steorn has a perpetual motion device when anybody at
all can get their hands on one, test it to their heart's content,
disassemble it, pass it around to friends and colleagues, and comment on
it in public unfettered by any contract. If they hope to have the
results accepted by the scientific community they will have to do
exactly that anyway....
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-11-14, 8:25 pm |
| Eeyore wrote:
....
> Their claim is to have made a generator with > 100% efficiency. I won't stop
> right now to argue over that claim since it's moot to my next point.
>
> Anyway what that means is that it's just a bit more efficient than normal
> generators. It still needs an energy input to run it. No free lunch. No
> perpetual motion.
Just hook the output to the input and it'll drive itself and produce
power at the same time! There you go, both a free lunch, no energy
input needed and perpetual motion all at the same time.
Anthony
| |
| Eeyore 2006-11-14, 8:25 pm |
|
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> ...
>
> Just hook the output to the input and it'll drive itself and produce
> power at the same time! There you go, both a free lunch, no energy
> input needed and perpetual motion all at the same time.
Wrong.
A motor to drive it certainly isn't > 100% efficient, more like 90% tops, so
overall it'll still be lossy.
Sorry. No free lunch.
Graham
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2006-11-15, 3:25 am |
| On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:23:03 GMT
"Windsun" <wind-sun@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Uhm.. then what does it mean when he claims that it is over 100%
> efficient?
>
> That, by definition, is a perpetual motion machine. Which makes it a scam.
It's not a scam until they try to con money or something else of
value out of people with it. AFAICS there is as yet no sign of this
happening - time will tell, it may prove to be a scam, a mistake, a hoax or
even (no matter how unlikely it seems) real. Given the April 1 date for the
end of testing I'm guessing it's a hoax.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-15, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:44:03 +0000, Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> ...
They claim more than that - that there is no input; you give it a
kickstart, and it turns endlessly, and has a power density 5 times that of
a lithium battery, whatever that means.
As I mentioned earlier, Sean McCarthy, the CEO, also claims that their
biggest motor puts out 550bhp, so they aren't giving themselves any room
to claim a measurement mistake.
[color=darkred]
>
> Just hook the output to the input and it'll drive itself and produce
> power at the same time! There you go, both a free lunch, no energy
> input needed and perpetual motion all at the same time.
>
> Anthony
| |
| Trygve Lillefosse 2006-11-15, 5:25 pm |
| On 14 Nov 2006 18:36:08 -0000, Dan Reyes <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:39:50 +0000, Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>
>Granted it's not likely, but it's not as if present-day physics has all
>the answers. You hear about things like 'zero-point energy'; maybe the
>Steorn device is tapping that somehow.
>
>If it's a scam or hoax, none of the skeptics on the forum has seen the
>slightest evidence for one - Steorn isn't asking for money, they are a
>real company, their CEO is a real engineer, etc.
>
>They claim to have tested the device for three years, so whatever it is,
>it's not due to a mistake.
>
This is a "seeing is beliving" thing.
If they should actualy make this device, it works and people can buy
it at a reasonable price. I'm all in. But not until the product is
ready and it does what it's said to do - untill that, I am wery
sceptic.
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
| |
| Terryc 2006-11-15, 5:25 pm |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> Are you guys aware of Steorn (www.steorn.net)? They expect to be selling
> their first products by April of next year. They have tested motors up to
> 550bhp in size.
Is this shit patented?
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-11-16, 3:25 am |
| Terryc wrote:
....
> Is this shit patented?
a) Does it matter? There are a lot of patents for inventions
that just don't work.
b) The United States Patent Office requires a working model
before they will grant any more patents for over-unity devices.
Since they can't submit a working model of something that does
not work, they do not have a US patent.
Anthony
| |
| Terryc 2006-11-16, 3:25 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Terryc wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> a) Does it matter? There are a lot of patents for inventions
> that just don't work.
I just figured that a patent might tell me exactly what is suppossed to
actually be going on.
> b) The United States Patent Office requires a working model
> before they will grant any more patents for over-unity devices.
> Since they can't submit a working model of something that does
> not work, they do not have a US patent.
Damm, that is suppression of knowledge, that is {:-)
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-16, 9:25 am |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> Granted it's not likely, but it's not as if present-day physics has all
> the answers. You hear about things like 'zero-point energy'; maybe the
> Steorn device is tapping that somehow.
Where do you hear things like "zero-point energy"? (at least as related to a
way to actually _get_ energy from a system). Not from scientists with an
actual workable theory. You here it from Science Fiction writers (and I
have great respect for them - where would we be without Arthur Clarke's
satellites? OK, right here, but I digress...) and scammers. By actual
definition, the zero-point energy is the point at which you can _not_
extract energy from the system.
--
derek
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-16, 1:25 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:03:18 +1100, Terryc wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> I just figured that a patent might tell me exactly what is suppossed to
> actually be going on.
>
>
>
> Damm, that is suppression of knowledge, that is {:-)
According to what they've said, they can only patent individual
implementations of whatever they have, i.e., particular configurations of
magnets, rotors, etc., and they have a number of patents pending. None of
them claim over-unity, even though they are.
Once the patents are made public, or a device is released that can be
examined, it will be obvious how to make one, as I understand it.
Because of that, they want to have as many 'implementations' as possible
patented or in patent-pending status when they go public
So my guess is they will try to make as much money as possible at the
start, when they are the only game in town.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-11-16, 1:25 pm |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
>
> According to what they've said, they can only patent individual
> implementations of whatever they have, i.e., particular configurations of
> magnets, rotors, etc., and they have a number of patents pending. None of
> them claim over-unity, even though they are.
>
> Once the patents are made public, or a device is released that can be
> examined, it will be obvious how to make one, as I understand it.
Or it will be obvious that it does not do what they claim.
> Because of that, they want to have as many 'implementations' as possible
> patented or in patent-pending status when they go public
Or, perhaps because it doesn't work, they want to have a line up of
the most common excuses and delaying tactics to keep it from going
public.
> So my guess is they will try to make as much money as possible at the
> start, when they are the only game in town.
Most free energy scams try to make as much money at the start, before
the law catches up to them or people get wise. It's more likely this
company, having a reputation to lose, is simply going to fess up that
it was all just a big joke.
Anthony
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-16, 1:25 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:49:52 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Dan Reyes wrote:
>
>
> Where do you hear things like "zero-point energy"? (at least as related to a
> way to actually _get_ energy from a system). Not from scientists with an
> actual workable theory. You here it from Science Fiction writers
That's what I was thinking of, or in pop-science articles in newspapers
and magazines. What I was suggesting was that there may be some form of
energy that is being tapped. Whatever it may be, it's scifi at the present
time, but will suddenly become real if Steorn's device works.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-16, 5:25 pm |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:49:52 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
[hear] - I can't believe I let that get by me...
[color=darkred]
> That's what I was thinking of, or in pop-science articles in newspapers
> and magazines. What I was suggesting was that there may be some form of
> energy that is being tapped. Whatever it may be, it's scifi at the present
> time, but will suddenly become real if Steorn's device works.
The mind boggles. "zero-point energy" means the point at which you can get
zero energy. It can't suddenly "become real". Yes, we will figure out new
ways to get energy but _by definition_ it isn't going to come from
the "zero-point energy", and it's really unlikely to come from anywhere
else. We have the Laws of thermodynamics for a reason. For something to
be considered a Law of physics, it requires overwhelming evidence.
--
derek
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-16, 8:25 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:35:39 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Dan Reyes wrote:
>
>
> [hear] - I can't believe I let that get by me...
>
>
> The mind boggles. "zero-point energy" means the point at which you can get
> zero energy. It can't suddenly "become real".
I meant that if the Steorn device works, whatever 'energy' powers it
will have to be considered real, even if presently unknown to exist.
Experiment trumps theory, right?
Scientists will give it a name: Steorn-Point Energy, and will dream up
theories to account for the operation of the device.
> Yes, we will figure out new
> ways to get energy but _by definition_ it isn't going to come from
> the "zero-point energy", and it's really unlikely to come from anywhere
> else. We have the Laws of thermodynamics for a reason. For something to
> be considered a Law of physics, it requires overwhelming evidence.
If the gizmo works, is that overwhelming evidence?
| |
| Morris Dovey 2006-11-16, 8:25 pm |
| Derek Broughton (in b62v24-5aj.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca) said:
| The mind boggles. "zero-point energy" means the point at which you
| can get zero energy. It can't suddenly "become real". Yes, we
| will figure out new ways to get energy but _by definition_ it isn't
| going to come from
| the "zero-point energy", and it's really unlikely to come from
| anywhere else. We have the Laws of thermodynamics for a reason.
| For something to be considered a Law of physics, it requires
| overwhelming evidence.
How about tapping the force that powers Murphy's Law?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
| |
|
| >> So my guess is they will try to make as much money as possible at the
Problem is, they are not the only game in town. There are lots of scam
artists working the "free energy" game for fun and profit. Still, it's
always best to scam 'em quick and get out fast.
[color=darkred]
> Most free energy scams try to make as much money at the start, before
> the law catches up to them or people get wise. It's more likely this
> company, having a reputation to lose, is simply going to fess up that
> it was all just a big joke.
Or the company is in a precarious financial position, and the executives
figure it's time to pull a big scam and retire to some tax haven somewhere
remote. Problem is, they usually try to keep the scam going too long and
get caught.
CM
| |
|
| > I meant that if the Steorn device works, whatever 'energy' powers it
> will have to be considered real, even if presently unknown to exist.
>
> Experiment trumps theory, right?
Only if the experiment is valid, and not tampered with by some hidden
trickery. Unfortunately, scientists are not used to dealing with frauds.
Lab rats don't do slight-of-hand. Chemicals don't try deception. Physical
forces never attempt misdirection.
What is really needed in the testing is someone who is expert at trickery -
a professional magician, like the Amazing Randi. But of course, Steorn
won't let anyone like that near the testing - only a carefully selected
group they hope to deceive.
> Scientists will give it a name: Steorn-Point Energy, and will dream up
> theories to account for the operation of the device.
Why? I figure the schemers at Steorn will come up with their own wild
bafflegab theory to explain the supposed breakthrough.
> If the gizmo works, is that overwhelming evidence?
If it works by trickery (and there are many ways to pull off the
deception) that is hardly "overwhelming evidence".
CM
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-17, 9:25 am |
| Morris Dovey wrote:
> Derek Broughton (in b62v24-5aj.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca) said:
>
> | The mind boggles. "zero-point energy" means the point at which you
> | can get zero energy. It can't suddenly "become real". Yes, we
> | will figure out new ways to get energy but _by definition_ it isn't
> | going to come from
> | the "zero-point energy", and it's really unlikely to come from
> | anywhere else. We have the Laws of thermodynamics for a reason.
> | For something to be considered a Law of physics, it requires
> | overwhelming evidence.
>
> How about tapping the force that powers Murphy's Law?
Imagine the hazards if anything goes wrong in a fission plant.
Now, imagine the hazards if anything goes wrong in a plant powered by the
forces of "if anything can go wrong...". Ack!!! There are some things
we're not meant to know :-)
--
derek
| |
| Norman Webb 2006-11-19, 9:25 am |
| Over 100% efficiency?
Fuck me, our problems are solved!
Dan Reyes wrote in message ...
>Are you guys aware of Steorn (www.steorn.net)? They expect to be selling
>their first products by April of next year. They have tested motors up to
>550bhp in size.
>
>All other forms of energy will become irrelevant as soon as they can be
>replaced by the Steorn devices.
>
>Take a look at the forum at www.steorn.net and please add your comments.
>
>
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-19, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:40:26 +0100, Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
>
> This is a "seeing is beliving" thing.
>
> If they should actualy make this device, it works and people can buy
> it at a reasonable price. I'm all in. But not until the product is
> ready and it does what it's said to do - untill that, I am wery
> sceptic.
It's not at that stage yet, but something that makes Steorn's claims more
believable has occurred. Somebody who volunteered to act as an Ombudsman
has talked today with the CEO of Steorn, and reported back at
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comment...&page=2#Item_22
She says, among other things, that part of a documentary she was shown is
of the CEO of a European manufacturing company, who, Steorn claims, is
making Steorn-powered devices of some kind - laptop or cellphone batteries
or something like that - and that the CEO built one of the Steorn devices
from their plans, and that the video shows him starting it running.
She checked the CEO out on the internet, and he is for real and is the
same fellow she saw in the documentary.
The skeptics on the Steorn forum have said Steorn's claims are a scam or a
hoax or a measurement mistake. The only one of the three that seemed
possible was that it was a hoax of some kind, maybe some kind of
candid-camera thing, but the ombudsman's report makes that very unlikely.
I recommend you invest in the makers of neodymium magnets and their
suppliers.
| |
| darthpup 2006-11-19, 5:25 pm |
| There is no machine with an efficiency at or over one hundred percent.
Not in this Universe.
| |
| rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org 2006-11-19, 5:25 pm |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:40:26 +0100, Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
>
>
> It's not at that stage yet, but something that makes Steorn's claims more
> believable has occurred. Somebody who volunteered to act as an Ombudsman
> has talked today with the CEO of Steorn, and reported back at
>
> http://www.steorn.net/forum/comment...&page=2#Item_22
>
> She says, among other things, that part of a documentary she was shown is
> of the CEO of a European manufacturing company, who, Steorn claims, is
> making Steorn-powered devices of some kind - laptop or cellphone batteries
> or something like that - and that the CEO built one of the Steorn devices
> from their plans, and that the video shows him starting it running.
>
> She checked the CEO out on the internet, and he is for real and is the
> same fellow she saw in the documentary.
>
> The skeptics on the Steorn forum have said Steorn's claims are a scam or a
> hoax or a measurement mistake. The only one of the three that seemed
> possible was that it was a hoax of some kind, maybe some kind of
> candid-camera thing, but the ombudsman's report makes that very unlikely.
>
> I recommend you invest in the makers of neodymium magnets and their
> suppliers.
I think I can safely pass on this "investment". These sorts of
"credible claims" come and go all the time. Guaranteed compression of
arbitrary datasets, engines that run on water, over-unity machines...
It's all the same. When you start hyping nonexistent products that
violate well-understood laws of mathematics or physics, I get extremely
skeptical, and want to see the evidence and explanations myself.
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2006-11-20, 3:25 am |
| On 19 Nov 2006 12:09:49 -0800
"darthpup" <amchitka@mailexcite.com> wrote:
> There is no machine with an efficiency at or over one hundred percent.
> Not in this Universe.
ISTR an electric radiant heater being cited as an example of a 100%
efficient machine - all the power that goes into it emerges as heat
(eventually) and that it what is wanted from it.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
| Terryc 2006-11-20, 3:25 am |
| Dan Reyes wrote:
> It's not at that stage yet, but something that makes Steorn's claims more
> believable has occurred. Somebody who volunteered to act as an Ombudsman
> has talked today with the CEO of Steorn, and reported back at
>
> http://www.steorn.net/forum/comment...&page=2#Item_22
lol, how does this make the idiots claims more believable?
Unless they are imbeciles like you who believe everything they are told?
| |
|
|
"Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
news:NE1LO76S39033.5948958333@anonymous.poster...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:08:32 +0100, Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
>
>
> You won't have to wait that long. If they don't go public by the end of
> April, and have real products for sale, I'll apologize then.
There down south in dublin, so if i invited them up to belfast with one of
there machines, to be taken to a place of my choosing, which won't be
disclosed until we got there and then tested the device, would they do it
and would we get the results they are saying they get? I don't think they
would. First of all most likly any test would have to be done in there labs,
which rules out any non tampering. secondly if they did do it, it would give
the results becuase it quite literrally is impossible.
BTW, i'm an EE Engineer so i do know a few things!!!
| |
| Dan Reyes 2006-11-20, 1:25 pm |
| On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:51:36 +0000, puggy wrote:
>
> "Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
> news:NE1LO76S39033.5948958333@anonymous.poster...
>
> There down south in dublin, so if i invited them up to belfast with one of
> there machines, to be taken to a place of my choosing, which won't be
> disclosed until we got there and then tested the device, would they do it
> and would we get the results they are saying they get? I don't think they
> would. First of all most likly any test would have to be done in there labs,
> which rules out any non tampering. secondly if they did do it, it would give
> the results becuase it quite literrally is impossible.
>
> BTW, i'm an EE Engineer so i do know a few things!!!
It's been tested and filmed at a company in Europe. The tester, who is the
head of the company, built the machine himself from Steorn's plans. He
started it going and came back to his office after the weekend, and found
it still running.
This was reported by someone who saw the film:
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comment...ID=26243&page=1
| |
| Gym Bob 2006-11-20, 8:25 pm |
| Think again! The radiant heater has loses in the form of conductive
heat..not what is desired. They also produce noise and light...not
what is wanted.
"Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20061120072028.b283ebce.steveo@eircom.net...
> On 19 Nov 2006 12:09:49 -0800
> "darthpup" <amchitka@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>
>
> ISTR an electric radiant heater being cited as an example of a 100%
> efficient machine - all the power that goes into it emerges as heat
> (eventually) and that it what is wanted from it.
>
> --
> C:>WIN | Directable Mirror
> Arrays
> The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus
> the sun
> You lose and Bill collects. | licences available
> see
> |
> http://www.sohara.org/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| "Dan Reyes" wrote
> It's not at that stage yet, but something that makes Steorn's claims more
> believable has occurred. Somebody who volunteered to act as an Ombudsman
> has talked today with the CEO of Steorn, and reported back at
>
> http://www.steorn.net/forum/comment...&page=2#Item_22
>
> She says, among other things, that part of a documentary she was shown is
> of the CEO of a European manufacturing company, who, Steorn claims, is
> making Steorn-powered devices of some kind - laptop or cellphone
> batteries
> or something like that - and that the CEO built one of the Steorn devices
> from their plans, and that the video shows him starting it running.
>
> She checked the CEO out on the internet, and he is for real and is the
> same fellow she saw in the documentary.
And just who is this "ombudsman"? She is being portrayed as an impartial
observer, but what if she is actually in on the scam? For that matter, what
do we know about the original poster "Dan Reyes"? He is promoting Steorn -
he could be in on the scam, or maybe he is just a deluded follower. Unless
this extraordinary claim is vetted by experts - including experts on
fraud - I'll remain a skeptic and continue to rely on real science.
> The skeptics on the Steorn forum have said Steorn's claims are a scam or
> a
> hoax or a measurement mistake. The only one of the three that seemed
> possible was that it was a hoax of some kind, maybe some kind of
> candid-camera thing, but the ombudsman's report makes that very unlikely.
A scam is deception for money, a hoax is deception for self-amusement, and
mistakes leading to self deception are distressingly common. Any of these
could play a role in this case. As for the "ombudsman report", well, the
ombudsman could be in on a scam or hoax, can be mistaken, and can be
deceived.
> I recommend you invest in the makers of neodymium magnets
> and their suppliers.
Not on the basis of a bogus energy device.
On the other hand, such magnets could be useful for magnetic levitation
applications, such as:
http://www.unimodal.com/
Invest in the real world - much more lucrative.
CM
| |
|
|
"Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
news:B1O9XVG539041.4001967593@anonymous.poster...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:51:36 +0000, puggy wrote:
> It's been tested and filmed at a company in Europe. The tester, who is the
> head of the company, built the machine himself from Steorn's plans. He
> started it going and came back to his office after the weekend, and found
> it still running.
>
> This was reported by someone who saw the film:
> http://www.steorn.net/forum/comment...ID=26243&page=1
and who is this "crank"?
any good scam has some testimonies from supposedly good sources, but all of
them have turned out to be false, as in some else wrote them, ie the person
or one of the people doing the scam.
Now your either a big fan who is being deluded, or more likly another one of
these fake ID's which scammers use to pull in the un suspecting ejits go go
along with these things.
one thing i did notice most of all is that you defected my original
question, would they come up to belfast and test the machine in a location
of my choosing, to verify this machine works?
| |
| darthpup 2006-11-21, 9:25 am |
| Leonardo di Vinci is quoted as saying: There are three classes of men.
Those who see
Those who can be taught to see
Those who never see
The distribution is not uniform for the above. Those who see maybe one
percent.
100 percent efficiency in any machine is not possible. (actually not
really required)
Friction will slow any system of any design
Primary evidence is derived from observing mass, length and time
Just to begin.
Not possble to deficate and conserve into a state of prosperity.
Any theory of conservation is contrary to prosperity
This Universe is perfect. After all its been here for over 1x10^13
years.
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2006-11-22, 3:25 am |
| On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:36:35 -0500
"Gym Bob" <GymBob@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Think again! The radiant heater has loses in the form of conductive
> heat..not what is desired. They also produce noise and light...not
> what is wanted.
It all winds up as heat.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
|
|
"Gym Bob" <GymBob@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45623d2e$0$21115$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
<plonk>
poster
top
A
> Think again! The radiant heater has loses in the form of conductive
> heat..not what is desired. They also produce noise and light...not what is
> wanted.
>
> "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20061120072028.b283ebce.steveo@eircom.net...
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
| |
|
|
"puggy" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:Yhj8h.43665$Ib.26819@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
> news:NE1LO76S39033.5948958333@anonymous.poster...
>
> There down south in dublin, so if i invited them up to belfast with one of
> there machines, to be taken to a place of my choosing, which won't be
> disclosed until we got there and then tested the device, would they do it
> and would we get the results they are saying they get? I don't think they
> would. First of all most likly any test would have to be done in there
> labs, which rules out any non tampering. secondly if they did do it, it
> would give the results becuase it quite literrally is impossible.
>
> BTW, i'm an EE Engineer so i do know a few things!!!
Maybe they know more than you then.
| |
|
|
"Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
news:B1O9XVG539041.4001967593@anonymous.poster...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:51:36 +0000, puggy wrote:
>
>
> It's been tested and filmed at a company in Europe. The tester, who is the
> head of the company, built the machine himself from Steorn's plans. He
> started it going and came back to his office after the weekend, and found
> it still running.
>
> This was reported by someone who saw the film:
> http://www.steorn.net/forum/comment...ID=26243&page=1
I didn't see on the link what you wrote above. But this was mildly
amusing......
"I asked Sean if there was a Eureka! moment, and what it felt like, and he
said no there wasn't - they spent six months trying to figure out what was
wrong with the measurements, and trying to find ways to eliminate the
problem. So it was a very gradual dawning on them that there wasn't a
mistake, it was happening. "
They were trying to fix the problem for 6 months. :-)
| |
|
|
"CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote in message
news:yVy8h.1592$1s6.1224@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Dan Reyes" wrote
>
> And just who is this "ombudsman"? She is being portrayed as an impartial
> observer, but what if she is actually in on the scam? For that matter,
> what do we know about the original poster "Dan Reyes"? He is promoting
> Steorn - he could be in on the scam, or maybe he is just a deluded
> follower. Unless this extraordinary claim is vetted by experts - including
> experts on fraud - I'll remain a skeptic and continue to rely on real
> science.
They have a team of them to do just that. ...And they are not asking for
money and will not accept any. I can't actually see where the scam is.
> A scam is deception for money,
They are not asking for money.
| |
|
|
"puggy" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:I8z8h.46126$Ib.9481@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> one thing i did notice most of all is that you defected my original
> question, would they come up to belfast and test the machine in a location
> of my choosing, to verify this machine works?
Why should they? They are having a team of people test it in their place.
What does Belfast have to offer them?
| |
|
|
"Dan Reyes" <ladanrey@ipkall.com> wrote in message
news:VI14VNKO39032.5188657407@anonymous.poster...
> Are you guys aware of Steorn (www.steorn.net)? They expect to be selling
> their first products by April of next year. They have tested motors up to
> 550bhp in size.
>
> All other forms of energy will become irrelevant as soon as they can be
> replaced by the Steorn devices.
>
> Take a look at the forum at www.steorn.net and please add your comments.
Say this works. What would the machine cost? Would it be worth my while
buying one putting it in the garden and running my house 24/7 on free
electricity. What is the payback time. Probably not worth it, as the
payback would be past my lifetime.
A South African crank name O'Brien, is making a similar device in Germany,
called the Parendev. He said he would lease it out and only big ones too.
Not cost effective for the little man.
All his demos have been cancelled at the last minute - surprise, surprise.
He drives a top of the range Jag too.
Steorn are having independent experts test this, and until about April it is
not worth mentioning, as currently it falls into the "could be and wait"
category.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-11-22, 9:25 am |
| News wrote:
> ...And they are not asking for
> money and will not accept any. I can't actually see where the scam is.
Asking for and accepting money turns a hoax into a crime (scam).
One might speculate that they don't accept money because they
don't want to go to jail.
That said, just because you don't have enough information to see
where they are scamming people doesn't mean that they aren't (or,
for that matter, that they are)
..
It's like a magic trick. Just because you can't see how it's done
doesn't mean it's for real.
Anthony
| |
|
|
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jfX8h.8261$Fg.1238@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> News wrote:
>
> Asking for and accepting money turns a hoax into a crime (scam).
Yep. And they are not asking for money. So what do they want if this thing
doen't do what they say it does? Nothing hits me in the face.
> That said, just because you don't have enough information to see
> where they are scamming people doesn't mean that they aren't (or,
> for that matter, that they are)
Exactly. So as I can't see any scam I must give them benefit of the doubt
and will not call them scammers until April.
> It's like a magic trick. Just because you can't see how it's done
> doesn't mean it's for real.
Yep, but no one is charging me to see the trick.
| |
| Morris Dovey 2006-11-22, 9:25 am |
| News (in 456445ae$0$97231$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net)
said:
| "Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in
| message news:jfX8h.8261$Fg.1238@tornado.socal.rr.com...
|| News wrote:
||| ...And they are not asking for money and will not accept any. I
||| can't actually see where the scam is.
||
|| Asking for and accepting money turns a hoax into a crime (scam).
|
| Yep. And they are not asking for money. So what do they want if
| this thing doen't do what they say it does? Nothing hits me in the
| face.
|
|| That said, just because you don't have enough information to see
|| where they are scamming people doesn't mean that they aren't (or,
|| for that matter, that they are)
|
| Exactly. So as I can't see any scam I must give them benefit of the
| doubt and will not call them scammers until April.
|
|| It's like a magic trick. Just because you can't see how it's done
|| doesn't mean it's for real.
|
| Yep, but no one is charging me to see the trick.
Methinks what we're seeing here is the downside of a premature
announcement. If there's actually a breakthrough, we'll see it when it
becomes available; and if there's not (requires extraordinary lab
conditions, difficult to reproduce, miscalculation, measurement error,
overmuch optimism or zeal, whatever) then there'll be a lot of
(perhaps undeserved) bad press for an idea that (again, perhaps)
needed a bit more gestation time.
I'd suggest marking April (in pencil) on the calendar and taking a
"wait and see" attitude.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-22, 9:25 am |
| News wrote:
> "CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote in message
> news:yVy8h.1592$1s6.1224@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> They are not asking for money.
Of course they're not. Con's _never_ ask for money up front - they get you
to volunteer it.
Funny how you started posting under what looked like a real name, but now
that there's a bit of heat you've turned anonymous.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-22, 9:25 am |
| News wrote:
>
> "puggy" <none@none.none> wrote in message
> news:I8z8h.46126$Ib.9481@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
> Why should they? They are having a team of people test it in their place.
> What does Belfast have to offer them?
Credibility?
--
derek
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:mqvd34-i8a.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> News wrote:
>
>
> Credibility?
The scientific testers will provide that, not some fella in Belfast.
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:qovd34-i8a.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> News wrote:
>
>
> Of course they're not.
> Con's _never_ ask for money
> up front - they get
> you to volunteer it.
They will not accept money even if you offer. I fail to see where the scam
is, if there is one.
If these people believe they have something as big as this and they don't
need external money to prove it, why should they want money before the full
patent is issued? They would be fools to unnecessarily get others in at
such an early stage. If it does do what they say then they get the lot. Once
proven then they strike deals with companies who will make the motor.
They say they have been looking into this for 3 years wondering what errors
they made as the test instrument figures didn't appear right to them. They
don't need cash for development as that has been done.
They say they have something and can replicate it. They openly say they have
a team of independent scientific testers to verify their claims and will not
accept any money even of you offer.
If someone can tell me where the scam is I would like to know. It may not
work, but I see no scam.
> Funny how you started posting under what looked like a real name, but now
> that there's a bit of heat you've turned anonymous.
> --
> derek
I have been News, and only News, for about 8 or 9 years or so. Do a Google.
| |
|
|
"Morris Dovey" <mrdovey@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:45644a4c$0$496$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> News (in 456445ae$0$97231$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net)
> said:
>
> | "Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in
> | message news:jfX8h.8261$Fg.1238@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> || News wrote:
> ||| ...And they are not asking for money and will not accept any. I
> ||| can't actually see where the scam is.
> ||
> || Asking for and accepting money turns a hoax into a crime (scam).
> |
> | Yep. And they are not asking for money. So what do they want if
> | this thing doen't do what they say it does? Nothing hits me in the
> | face.
> |
> || That said, just because you don't have enough information to see
> || where they are scamming people doesn't mean that they aren't (or,
> || for that matter, that they are)
> |
> | Exactly. So as I can't see any scam I must give them benefit of the
> | doubt and will not call them scammers until April.
> |
> || It's like a magic trick. Just because you can't see how it's done
> || doesn't mean it's for real.
> |
> | Yep, but no one is charging me to see the trick.
>
> Methinks what we're seeing here is the downside of a premature
> announcement. If there's actually a breakthrough, we'll see it when it
> becomes available; and if there's not (requires extraordinary lab
> conditions, difficult to reproduce, miscalculation, measurement error,
> overmuch optimism or zeal, whatever) then there'll be a lot of
> (perhaps undeserved) bad press for an idea that (again, perhaps)
> needed a bit more gestation time.
That is true. Cold fusion was announced too early. Many scientists are now
back working on it after it was shelved because of bad publicity.
As you say it may be true, but full fully replicable just yet. However it
actually be the truth.
> I'd suggest marking April (in pencil) on the calendar and taking a
> "wait and see" attitude.
Yep. Stop talking silliness and wait for 6 months and see.
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2006-11-22, 1:25 pm |
| >They are not asking for money.
Aha! That's the really tricky part of the scam, and it fooled you, too. :> )
Gordon Richmond
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-22, 8:25 pm |
| News wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:qovd34-i8a.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> They will not accept money even if you offer. I fail to see where the
> scam is, if there is one.
You can't possibly know that. There _is_ either a scam, a hoax, or complete
scientific stupidity, because it is provably not possible to do what they
claim.
> If these people believe they have something as big as this and they don't
> need external money to prove it, why should they want money before the
> full patent is issued?
You _do_ know that they won't get a patent for it either...
> They would be fools to unnecessarily get others in at
> such an early stage.
Of course they would - my point precisely. They'll get others "in" only
after they've adequately set up the con.
> If it does do what they say then they get the lot.
> Once proven then they strike deals with companies who will make the motor.
I.e., _scam_.
> They say they have something and can replicate it.
Pons & Fleishcmann said the same.
> They openly say they
> have a team of independent scientific testers to verify their claims and
> will not accept any money even of you offer.
"They openly say". We have _their_ (and your) word for it. That's NOT
independent.
[color=darkred]
> I have been News, and only News, for about 8 or 9 years or so. Do a
> Google.
OK, so perhaps you're not "Dan Reyes" - however, googling is never going to
prove that to me, any more than you or Dan are going to "prove" this isn't
a scam by quoting Steorns press-releases and websites.
--
derek
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:e8ee34-o4d.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> News wrote:
>
>
> You can't possibly know that.
They have openly said they will not accept money.
> There _is_ either a scam, a hoax,
I can't see one. Please point out where.
> or complete scientific stupidity,
> because it is provably
> not possible to do what they claim.
The only stupidity is what you write. No one has tested it and it is being
tested over the next 6 months. We shall see. Your rambling, which is based
on the laws of physics, is just that.,.ramblings. The stupidity is anyone
who thinks that these man-made laws explain all about matter and sundry.
They may have tapped into something outside of current knowledge. The
history of these laws is one of being added to or amended as knowledge is
increased.
>
> You _do_ know that they won't
> get a patent for it either...
If it does what they say it does they get a patent.
>
> Of course they would - my point precisely.
> They'll get others "in" only
> after they've adequately set up the con.
I can't see the con. Please point it out? And don't babble about a con you
might "think" is there with no proof. A panel of Scientists will verify the
claims. If they conclude it doesn't work then it disappears into thin air
and no one will offer money at all.
>
> I.e., _scam_.
Please point it out. Assertion not proof.
>
> Pons & Fleishcmann said the same.
They did. These have a panel of Scientists to prove it does or doesn't
before having a media splash. Ponds and Fleishman never.
>
> "They openly say".
> We have _their_ (and your) word for it.
> That's NOT independent.
All the Scientists ARE independent. The calibre and who they are we will
get to know.
>
>
> OK, so perhaps you're not "Dan Reyes"
Never heard of him until this thread.
> - however, googling is never going to
> prove that to me, any more than you
> or Dan are going to "prove" this isn't
> a scam by quoting Steorns press-releases
> and websites.
I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear scam
and I will be convinced. If you imagine one then in your mind there is a
scam. I'll wait until April.
| |
|
|
"CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote in message
news:ouc7h.8648$ig4.1339@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> If it works by trickery (and there are many ways to pull off the
> deception) that is hardly "overwhelming evidence".
Not over many months with a team of reputed scientists there is not.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-23, 9:25 am |
| News wrote:
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:e8ee34-o4d.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> They have openly said they will not accept money.
Do you get scammed often? You're the sort of victim cons look for. Cons
will _always_ tell you they don't want your money - right up to the point
where you're ripe for the picking. Believing that they won't take your
money because _they_ tell you they won't is just making it easy.
>
>
> I can't see one. Please point out where.
Claiming an overunity device is _by definition_ one or the other.
Insisting that it can't be because they tell you it can't is terribly
naive.
>
>
> The only stupidity is what you write.
No. I'm trying to help you here, but you insist on being insulting. On
your own head be it.
> No one has tested it and it is being
> tested over the next 6 months. We shall see. Your rambling, which is
> based on the laws of physics, is just that.,.ramblings.
It's based on the LAWS of physics. If you can't get that through your head,
there's no point in further argument, except:
> The history of these laws is one of being added to or amended as knowledge
> is increased.
Please cite _one_ instance where an accidental discovery led to a new source
of power. It hasn't happened since fire - and one can argue that even
proto-humans were already aware of fire, just not what they could do with
it, or how to start it at will.
> If it does what they say it does they get a patent.
No, it doesn't. It would require changing the law in the US and other
countries, because the patent laws now _specifically_ exclude perpetual
motion devices.
> They did. These have a panel of Scientists to prove it does or doesn't
> before having a media splash.
In the first place, how do you figure that? They have already made the
media splash. In the second, name one of these Scientists. They "freely"
assert that every scientist (really, it doesn't need to be capitalized) who
has agreed they have something will only do it "off the record". Extremely
suspicious.
> All the Scientists ARE independent. The calibre and who they are we will
> get to know.
LOL.
> I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear scam
> and I will be convinced. If you imagine one then in your mind there is a
> scam. I'll wait until April.
<plonk>
--
derek
| |
|
|
"Terryc" <newsonespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:455a2821$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Dan Reyes wrote:
>
>
>
> lol, do you have shares, or are you an "employee"? Seems it isn't only
> women that will let themselves be screwed for a cheap drink.
>
> What I want to see is a paper clearly outlining how the device works,i.e
> "the science (new or old)" behind the device.
In April I believe. That much has been said.
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2006-11-23, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:33:34 -0400
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> You can't possibly know that. There _is_ either a scam, a hoax, or
> complete scientific stupidity, because it is provably not possible to do
> what they claim.
No it is not. What they claim is contrary to currently accepted
theory but nothing is provably impossible. Personally I think it is likely
to be a hoax but I'd love to be proved wrong.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-23, 8:25 pm |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:33:34 -0400
> Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> No it is not. What they claim is contrary to currently accepted
> theory but nothing is provably impossible. Personally I think it is likely
> to be a hoax but I'd love to be proved wrong.
>
The modern ignorance of science is astounding. Yes, it is provable.
See "Thermodynamics, Laws of".
--
derek
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-11-24, 3:25 am |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> The modern ignorance of science is astounding. Yes, it is provable.
> See "Thermodynamics, Laws of".
There is the point that you can't prove a negative. It's up to
those making the claim to prove it and this has not yet been done.
That said, over thousands of years and uncounted inventors, not
one person has demonstrated a device that is contrary to the
currently accepted theories of physics. An over unity (or perpetual
motion) device is the closest thing to an impossibility as we've
got in our universe.
Anthony
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-24, 9:25 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> There is the point that you can't prove a negative. It's up to
> those making the claim to prove it and this has not yet been done.
You don't need to prove a negative. Use of the first & second laws of
Thermodynamics is sufficient to prove that it can't work without an energy
input from _somewhere_.
--
derek
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2006-11-25, 3:25 am |
| On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:46:29 -0400
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> The modern ignorance of science is astounding. Yes, it is provable.
Yes it is astounding - that there are people who believe that there
is such a thing as a scientific proof. Any real scientist knows that all
there are are hypotheses which after sufficient testing are regarded as
theories and which are ready to be tossed out at as soon as a verifiable
observation falsifies them.
> See "Thermodynamics, Laws of".
A well established theory with no known falsifications. It is not
and cannot be proven. Remember Newton's laws of motion stood for 400 years
before the odd little details that falsified them came to light (pun
intended).
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-11-25, 1:25 pm |
| Hogwash. Our scientific system is based on these principles.
With that approach nobody can prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4, either.
Certain laws or rules are set down as standards and never provable.
The rest of science is built on these "standards" and proven aginst
them as supporting or not.
"Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20061124062150.b6997e01.steveo@eircom.net...
> Yes it is astounding - that there are people who believe that there
> is such a thing as a scientific proof. Any real scientist knows that
> all
> there are are hypotheses which after sufficient testing are regarded
> as
> theories and which are ready to be tossed out at as soon as a
> verifiable
> observation falsifies them.
>
>
> A well established theory with no known falsifications. It is not
> and cannot be proven. Remember Newton's laws of motion stood for 400
> years
> before the odd little details that falsified them came to light (pun
> intended).
| |
| Marcus Red 2006-11-26, 9:25 am |
| News wrote:
> I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear
> scam and I will be convinced. If you imagine one then in your mind
> there is a scam. I'll wait until April.
>
April 1st would be my bet.
| |
| marika 2006-11-26, 1:25 pm |
| News wrote:
>
> They have openly said they will not accept money.
this sounds like it will make an interesting movie
mk5000
"The dresses I wore in Idlewild are the most glamorous things you've
ever seen"--Paula Patton
| |
|
|
"Marcus Red" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xodah.31399$GX2.22871@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> News wrote:
>
>
> April 1st would be my bet.
Could be, but as it stands this is no scam. Please point where it is. I am
wanting to see it.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-26, 8:25 pm |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> A well established theory with no known falsifications. It is not
> and cannot be proven. Remember Newton's laws of motion stood for 400 years
> before the odd little details that falsified them came to light (pun
> intended).
>
It is sufficient to point out that Newton's Laws of motion are _still_ true.
His _theories_ didn't adequately answer all the problems presented in a
relativistic universe, but the Laws have not been falsified.
--
derek
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2006-11-27, 3:25 am |
| On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:30:06 -0400
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> It is sufficient to point out that Newton's Laws of motion are _still_
> true. His _theories_ didn't adequately answer all the problems presented
> in a relativistic universe, but the Laws have not been falsified.
They have been falsified, in this rather precise sense. The
universe does not behave as predicted by Newton's laws of motion.
The relativistic theories do provide a better match to the
behaviour of the universe than Newton's laws, however both fail badly when
modelling the behaviour of the universe on very small scales where only
quantum mechanics gives answers that correspond closely to reality.
it seems to be that you are thinking that I meant falsified to
imply some logical inconsistency rather than a failure to model the
universe accurately.
I stand by what I said, and will go further to point out that the
second law of thermodynamics is one of the very few scientific theories
with no known falsifications. Another one is that the universe is logically
consistent - it might not be. I would be very surprised if either of these
were to be falsified but I do not make the mistake of considering it
impossible.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
|
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:45642d2e$0$97219$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "puggy" <none@none.none> wrote in message
> news:I8z8h.46126$Ib.9481@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
> Why should they? They are having a team of people test it in their place.
> What does Belfast have to offer them?
queens universities Electrical and Electronic engineering department,in the
ashby building, which is one of the leading EE departments in the world.
But the department there would quickly find out it's a hoax so there's no
chance it would happen!
| |
|
|
"puggy" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:Cdzah.62808$r4.49570@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:45642d2e$0$97219$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> queens universities Electrical and Electronic engineering department,in
> the ashby building, which is one of the leading EE departments in the
> world.
>
> But the department there would quickly find out it's a hoax so there's no
> chance it would happen!
Why should these people go to a foreign country when they have eligible
people to test it from all over the world? Also in a part of a country
where the likelihood of people hating them because they are of a different
faction of Christianity is very high. Get real!!!! If I was them I would go
nowhere near Ulster. Belfast? They built the unsinkable Titanic.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-11-27, 9:25 am |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:30:06 -0400
> Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> They have been falsified, in this rather precise sense. The
> universe does not behave as predicted by Newton's laws of motion.
>
1st Law: "an object at rest tends to stay at rest ..." - still true
2nd Law: F = ma - OK, that one may be a bit iffy. I confess I don't know
if it actually collapses at relativistic speeds. Wikipedia suggests that
the law - as he wrote it - does not: "At speeds comparable to the speed of
light, the second law holds in the original form F = dp / dt".
3rd Law: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" - also
still true.
> it seems to be that you are thinking that I meant falsified to
> imply some logical inconsistency rather than a failure to model the
> universe accurately.
Don't be insulting. It's entirely reasonable to assume that people you
argue with are smart enough to be able to use the same terms you do.
Otherwise you're just showing off.
--
derek
| |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith 2006-11-28, 3:25 am |
| On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:48:04 -0400
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>
> 1st Law: "an object at rest tends to stay at rest ..." - still true
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is invoked in areas where this
one fails.
> 2nd Law: F = ma - OK, that one may be a bit iffy. I confess I don't know
> if it actually collapses at relativistic speeds. Wikipedia suggests that
> the law - as he wrote it - does not: "At speeds comparable to the speed of
This one is falsified - and is grossly out when dealing with speeds
approaching that of light, it is wrong at any speed although the error may
be too small to measure at low speeds.
> light, the second law holds in the original form F = dp / dt".
Yes that is still usable, mainly because of careful definition of p
and t.
> 3rd Law: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" - also
> still true.
Hmm I think that one still stands.
>
> Don't be insulting. It's entirely reasonable to assume that people you
I did not intend to be - my apologies for any assumed insult.
> argue with are smart enough to be able to use the same terms you do.
> Otherwise you're just showing off.
I was considering the possibility that you were using them in
different ways, not that you were unable to use them.
We have wandered a long way off my original point, which was that
it took a very long time for the cracks in Newton's work to show but the
cracks are indeed there. Any theory may turn out to be false, even the
sacred second law of thermodynamics but if it is the cracks are very hard
to find.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
| |
| Terryc 2006-11-28, 3:25 am |
| Marcus Red wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>
> April 1st would be my bet.
Doesn't count.
| |
| Sunkist 2006-11-30, 9:25 am |
|
CM wrote:
> "Dan Reyes" wrote>
> Not on the basis of a bogus energy device.
> On the other hand, such magnets could be useful for magnetic levitation
> applications, such as:
> http://www.unimodal.com/
> Invest in the real world - much more lucrative.
>
> CM
Wasn't that device featured on an episode of the "Simpson"?
| |
|
| >>> If the gizmo works, is that overwhelming evidence?
>
> Not over many months with a team of reputed scientists there is not.
Where did you get the "many months" from?
"Reputed" scientists sounds about right - all carefully chosen by the
scammers. Not a single expert in deception.
Of course, a really skilled con artist can keep scams going for a very long
time, sometimes keeping their marks believing in the scam years after the
con artist has been caught, tried, convicted, and jailed. The gullible
simply think it's all part of a diabolical plot to "persecute that nice
honest man".
An example is the "Omega Fund" scam, pulled by the appropriately named
Clyde Hood. He promised very high returns in nonexistant bank debenture
funds back in the '80s, conning gullible christians in church, and was
uncovered when he had trouble laundering all the millions coming in. He was
caught, tried, and convicted years ago, but most of his victims still
believe that any day now a UPS truck will pull up and deliver a big package
stuffed full of millions or billions of dollars.
CM
| |
|
|
"CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote in message
news:%Qtfh.8580$sf5.5594@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Where did you get the "many months" from?
Read their web site.
|
|
|
|
|