top

How to Test a Free Energy Device

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Skeptics, sceptics, and Cynics Goto page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2

Tue May 01, 2007 7:04 pm PostPost subject: How to Test a Free Energy Device
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

There have been some recent posts over on the Steorn forum about the alleged difficulty in evaluating permanent magnet motors and other "free energy" devices. Mostly by we-know-who.
But it isn't so hard, really.
Zeroeth, learn how to spell "physicist", and how to do good control experiments.
First, is it self-running? That is, once it is started, can all external power sources and fuel sources be removed, turned off, disconnected, whatever, and yet it still keeps running, for a suitable time interval? If not, you don't need to go any further.
Second, take it apart and put it back together, to eliminate conscious fraud like a hidden power source. (Like Keely's air-powered devices. Other examples, not fraudulent because no claims are made, are the Finsruud art object, or the neat "PMM" displayed in the Ontario Science Center).
Third, put it in a well-constructed Faraday cage to eliminate energy reception from the sea of EM radiation which surrounds us (Crystal sets, Henry Moray-type devices, etc.)
Fourth, stick it in a sealed box, let it run, and see if the box gets warmer. I recommend using a precise active calorimeter for the box. If energy is being created, or even liberated from something like the vacuum zero point or radioactive material, the box will warm up measurably, unless there is some equivalent energy-destroying process underway that somehow knows how to leave just enough left over to run the silly thing, and to remove heat caused by friction.

Every one I've seen (and I've seen a few, believe me) has failed the first two or three tests, and others that I know about have failed the fourth. None have made it through the process successfully.
Note that these methods are relatively atheoretical, that is, they only depend on whether the device works as advertised, not on disproving anyone's theory.

But I am still hopeful, and ready to believe anyone who does good science. In fact, I am aware of several monetary prizes for any demonstration of a PMM that works, and if Gaby (or anyone else) will send me one, I'll gladly go through the trouble of testing it myself, and applying for the prizes (one of which is for a Million US Dollars) at my own expense, and I'll split the prize 80-20 with the inventor (80 percent for the inventor or builder, 20 percent for me.) That works out to 800,000 US dollars for the inventor or builder, even if you can't spell "physicist".

Just send me a personal message through this board, and I'll tell you where to send the device.

(Sound of crickets chirping....)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:20 pm PostPost subject: Easy to test an overunity device
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

Yup-- it's very easy and it doesn't take much time IF the overunity is, as Steorn claims, substantial. You can excuse a failure to find something as hard to detect as cold fusion, if indeed that exists. But 0.5 watts/cc? Simplicity itself. You don't really need a Faraday shield or fancy stuff like that.

All you need is a large empty parking lot somewhere on the weekend. Don't tell Steorn in advance where it is so they can't park any gear there. Provide them a van (that they are never alone with) to carry their stuff and provide them a glass-topped table in the middle of the parking lot. Then let's see "Orbo" run -- and, as Sean said in his interview, lift some weights. Finally, turn a Dr. Mike-equivalent loose with his screwdriver to rule out hidden sources of power-- or allow the machine to run long enough and with enough load to rule out even the most power dense known electricity or chemical sources. That would take a day-- a couple of days at most, if there is sufficient loading of some sort.

Why have they not done something like this? Because they can't!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:18 am PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

If you HAVE invented a working perpetual motion machine, then all you have to do is to build one, and use it to power your home. With the money you save from utility bills, you can build another and sell power to your neighbours. With the money from that you can hire a small start up unit and start selling reasonable amounts of power to the power company, and the income from that will enable you to build a power station of reasonable size and start making real money. This will undercut ALL competitors who rely on buying coal or gas or oil to provide power.

You don't need to demonstrate a damn thing to anyone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:09 pm PostPost subject: Easy to test...?
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

@maryyugo

You don’t happen to have a twin or close relative that goes by the name “exco” by any chance, do you? Your writing styles are nearly identical.

You’ve merely reiterated the first two steps suggested by alsetalokin and categorically stated that these steps alone are sufficient to test an over-unity (PMM) machine. I would agree with you in 80 to 90 percent of the cases, but there have been some very clever scams that have utilized ambient electromotive energy – aka “radio frequencies” and hidden batteries or other chemical reactants.

Step 3, the Faraday Cage, eliminates all but the highest frequency/lowest power EM frequencies. However, If someone can actually provide a useable amount of energy from ambient EM frequencies at a reasonable cost, I’ll be first in line to purchase the technology. Slightly over half (51%) of the electricity transmitted to the end user is lost during the transmission. Scary, no? Certainly an opportunity for someone clever…

Step 4: If the proposed machine actually passes Step 3, then the calorimeter verifies that the Second Law of the Conservation of Energy – the passage of heat from higher to lower levels – has not taken place; entropy has not occurred within this closed system. The First Law states that output cannot exceed input. The Second Law states that if there is work done [f=ma], then there will be a measurable energy loss through non-recoverable heat exchange.

Your suggestion that a “Dr. Mike” type be “turned loose with his screwdriver” is well taken, but his “screwdriver” (or any other test equipment) is likely to include a Faraday Cage and a calorimeter for precisely the reasons stated by alsetalokin.

You also suggest that the machine run “with enough load” to “run out” possible external energy sources.

How about we try this: a 10hp (7.46KWh in SI terms) Orbo machine cube that produces 0.5W/cc would be roughly 9.7 inches (24.6 cm) on a side – not too large. The Orbo machine produces “mechanical” energy in the form of a rotating shaft at 330,000 foot-pounds/min torque (the ability to lift 330,000 pounds one foot over a one minute period or the ability to lift 5500 pounds one foot per second). Water weighs approximately 8.3287 pounds per gallon, so a water pump lifting 66.0367 gallons ten feet vertically per second requires 10 horsepower (excluding friction and other energy losses). A couple large watertight containers, a two storey building, a few hundred gallons of water, a flow meter and a good 70 gpm pump will load the Orbo machine as long as you like with relatively little friction heating. The water overflows the top tank and falls to the tank below through an adequately large pipe. Dump heated water and replace with cold (20°C) water, if needed.

If a hidden battery or chemical reactant withstands two days of that, I’ll be first in that line to purchase that technology as well.

You are absolutely right about this: a machine that produces 0.5W/cc is exceptionally robust and should never experience the kind of failure offered by Mr. McCarthy following the failed public demonstration. But then, no one has effectively argued this particular point.

@exco

Sorry, but if you want to protect your PMM with a US patent, it is required that you provide a working model for the patent exam to even be considered.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:58 pm PostPost subject: For the love of... I am NOT xx yy or zz
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

"You don’t happen to have a twin or close relative that goes by the name “exco” by any chance, do you? Your writing styles are nearly identical."

I get a big laugh at people who think I'm "Pennies" or someone else. A lot of people have similar writing styles. You'd have to be psychic to figure out who I am and boy, you ain't psychic.

Edit-- added:
"[you]...categorically stated that these steps alone are sufficient to test an over-unity (PMM) machine."

I didn't think I said that and I certainly don't mean it. But I think those steps alone are quite enough as a *screening* test for devices which do not make claims that are *subtly* over unity. Steorn's/Sean's claims fall squarely into the non-subtle range by several orders of magnitude.

My point, which it seems I didn't make very clearly, was that testing of an overunity claim of *major* proportions like Steorn's is best started with a simple screening procedure. If the proponents won't even submit to that, it's pretty clear that their claim is not valid and there's no need to waste experts' time, money and other resources!

A screening test for that robust sort of "technology" is extremely simple to perform and requires no jury, no developer's forum, very few people and only a couple of days at most. That Steorn has not allowed such a test is strongly, VERY strongly suggestive that they do not have such technology and never had had. That leaves them with empty claims-- for whatever motivation.

Incidental note: if you make the above statements on the Steorn forum, it may be enough, alone, to get you banned. I wonder why THAT is. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:37 pm PostPost subject: I sure ain't psychic
WaBoy
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Pacific NW - US/Canada

Reply with quote

You're right, I'm certainly not a psychic, just a dumb engineer.

Again, I agree with your two-step process in 80 to 90 percent of the cases - including Steorn's Orbo. In Orbo's case, Step 1 was more than adequate - as demonstrated.

Alsetalokin mentioned, and I reiterated, that the last two steps are required for some of the more sophisticated scams. I'm sure that, on reflection, you'll agree.

[BTW, you were kidding about SuperMag, right?]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:16 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

Sure, many additional steps might be needed to prove "overunity" if such a thing existed. But the simple and FAST screening steps I suggested should be sufficient to rule out all but the cleverest or most subtle scams and delusions. What I'm emphasizing is the ease of RULING OUT overunity-- you keep going back to the idea of proving it! That's not necessary until deception, delusion and fraud are screened out. Being over-elaborate wastes time and energy and Steorn is a prime example.

If Steorn had ever had a gadget to show, application of my simple suggestions could have ruled it out as overunity almost certainly and in a very short time instead of the almost three years now that everyone has been "fiddle farting" around with this thing. And who knows how long Sean will be able to keep the farce going-- the claim is almost overunity itself!

The real reason I was banned from the Steorn forums was that I kept insisting that there was no need for a jury. a developer's forum or any sort of sophisticated testing. All that was needed was for Steorn to make one of their devices available to someone like Dr. Mike for a day or two (as they had promised to do and then blatantly and flagrantly refused to do) and then have some graduate students in physics and engineering test the device in an open field on a glass table long enough to rule out known sources of hidden power. Oh... and maybe a clever debunker magician to rule out trickery.

Sorry... I said it before. It's worth saying again.

Debunking most overunity devices is trivial. If (and it's a big if!) you can get your hands on the device and a little time with it.

Yes I was kidding about SuperMag-- sorry, I thought that was self-evident.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:43 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Obviously what has been said on this thread makes a lot of sense. However, there has always been the slight possibility that Shaun's anal retentiveness and paranoid refusal to show anybody a working model were due to his commercial need to hang on to his "secrets" to the point where he could get a commercial return for his investors.

In view of the enormous importance of his claims, if true, it was not unreasonable for people to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially if you have reasons to believe, as I do, that mining energy from the magnosphere is not intrinsically impossible.

However, as time goes on and the the pillars of the Steorn temple collapse one after another, the point is reached where one has to face up to the disappointment that they do not have what they claim. The failed demo was not so much the last straw, more the roof caving in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:20 am PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

"...especially if you have reasons to believe, as I do, that mining energy from the magnosphere is not intrinsically impossible. "

If you think it's possible then do it. If you can't, then you are probably wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:22 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

Exactly. There have been so many defective claims for free energy in the last few decades, ALL of which turned out to be wrong, that it's silly to waste any time on somebody's "reasons to believe". When you have a device to test, let us know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:19 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

exco wrote:
"...especially if you have reasons to believe, as I do, that mining energy from the magnosphere is not intrinsically impossible. "

If you think it's possible then do it. If you can't, then you are probably wrong.

I am not a doer - never have been. I was employed for 39 years in the First Division of the Scientific Civil Service. The Second and Third divisions are the ones who plan the nitty gritty of the experiments and carry them out. The First Division sit in their offices, write the reports and take all the glory. Well, sometimes they condescend to add a worker as a co-author. Wink

I quite possibly am wrong. But I don't think I am. And the publications that accepted my work presumably thought the ideas were worth exploring. You sound like a clever chap. Perhaps you would like to read my key papers and tell me where I have slipped up. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:35 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

maryyugo wrote:
Exactly. There have been so many defective claims for free energy in the last few decades, ALL of which turned out to be wrong...

Quite true. But at least they tried which is commendable.

I believe the reason they failed is because they didn't have an adequate understanding of the true nature of the magnetic field.
When that defect is corrected I've no doubt commercial exploitation will soon follow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:45 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

"When that defect is corrected I've no doubt commercial exploitation will soon follow."

Well, you are extremely gullible then.

When they gain a better understanding of magnetic fields they are far more likely to realise they are chasing a will-o-the-wisp, and abandon the attempt.

Nor do I see anything praisworthy about a group of people daft enough to think they can overturn CofE, rather than check their results more carefully and learn a little physics. You might as well praise a bunch of jokers for trying to prove the earth is flat. There really is no point in encouraging idiocy.

This is on the assumption, of course, that they are fools rather than knaves...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:10 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

It wouldn't involve overturning CoE but merely tapping an as yet unrecognised source of energy. Once upon a time the oil under the ground wasn't recognised as a source of energy.

I know Shaun talked about creating energy and overturning CoE but he is either being very stupid if he believes that or else being deliberately provocative to get the attention of science.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:25 am PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

What rubbish!

You are clutching at straws. Either it is 'free energy' (aka 'magic') or it some form of energy that has been unnoticed by the - probably millions - of perfectly competent and sometime brilliant engieers and scientists that have worked with rotating magnets or rotating magnetic fields over a very long period of time.

The first is impossible. The proof of it is that if CofE doesn't hold, then neither does much of the physics that allows us to exist in our present form. We DO exist in our present form, therefore CofE holds. QED.

The second possibility is not impossible but vanishingly unlikely. Despite the respect with which the steorn forum holds scientific ignorance (It may have been you that made a sneering remark there about calculus being just another way scientist use to blind themselves) the probability that a bunch of tinkerers (which is what steorn are) fronted by a fast-talking salesman should stumble upon such a thing approaches zero.

On the other hand, the combined probability that the steorn lot are either crooks or fools is pretty close to unity.

Now you can go ahead and invoke gamma atmospheres and any other scientific gobbledygook if you wish, and the very best of luck to you. Personally, I will ignore you and other proponents of perpetual motion, unknown energy fields, zero point energy mines and the like until you produce a working model - or even a reproducible proof that there is some effect inexplicable to conventional science.

When you've done so, write a paper and get it published through peer review. Then I'll listen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:58 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

"This is on the assumption, of course, that they are fools rather than knaves..."

The best evidence at the moment is that Steorn are mainly knaves with a liberal addition of foolishness and gross incompetence. They are either stumped (unlikely) or hiding fraud (most probable). Honest people at this point, if they were stumped, would divulge what they know and ask scientists for help in deciphering it. They would feel dreadful for wasting all the time and effort of hundreds of busy people in July and would act accordingly. And that's not to mention the delay in revolutionizing science, relieving people of huge energy costs and saving the planet. Obviously, they don't seem to feel bad and as far as we know, they aren't doing anything at all.

"It wouldn't involve overturning CoE but merely tapping an as yet unrecognised source of energy. Once upon a time the oil under the ground wasn't recognised as a source of energy. "

Frank, you're applying logical fallacies and reasoning appropriate to religion to science. It doesn't work. That people at one time didn't know oil was valuable is irrelevant to anything. Nobody denies that there are all sorts of phenomena and facts about the universe which aren't known. But that doesn't in any way suggest that "free energy" is somewhere to be had. Arguing that it does is the classical logical fallacy somewhat misnamed as "argument from ignorance".

The obvious fact that there may be unknown sources of energy for humans to tap says nothing at all about whether or not Steorn or anyone else has done so. The only thing that would speak to this issue would be a discovery that can be objectively tested with proper peer review. If you have a theory that suggests where such energy can be found, get some help in designing "falsifiable" theories and then do or have someone else do the experiments which will prove or disprove your theories. What you're doing at the moment is just venting hot gas. That might be fun but all it does is waste people's time, exactly like Steorn did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:30 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

"Hot gas" is a very good source of energy as a matter of fact - Very Happy

And so are the offsets in magnetic potential from the ambient magnetic pressure. Of course, if you don't have an adequate theory of the magnetic field you will not be able to see this anymore than you would have ever discovered the vapour pressure laws for water.

Have you ever made and published any significant scientific discovery Mary Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:04 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

@Frank

As it happens, I have done a lot of science and made contributions but that has nothing to do with anything discussed here, does it? Frank, did you know tangentiality, which is what you're exhibiting, is often a sign suggesting a mental problem? What do my accomplishments (or perhaps lack thereof) have to do with your posting nonsense?

If you have some special knowledge about unknown energy sources, develop it, publish it, demonstrate it. And I will be happy to help you test a free energy device of any sort once you have it. So will many other people, given at least some persuasive evidence. Spouting about jargon like "ambient magnetic pressure" in forums won't help the world and doesn't constitute a discovery. Of course there is such a thing but nobody has extracted energy from it. The kind of hot gas you spout isn't a good source of energy-- it's a huge waste of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:51 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Your accomplishments or lack of them have everything to do with what your opinion of my opinion is worth. I had a very controversial paper of mine on the nature of mass, for example, bitterly opposed by my Director Rex Watson (dumped on us from Porto Down). He couldn't fault it himself so he gave to his Division Heads to tear to pieces. They couldn't either. It eventually went to the Chief Scientific Advisor to H.M Government (Sir Herman Bondi) who didn't find it nonsense either.

We don't know who you are or what your achievements are whereas mine are on the net and available for all who might be interested. Unlike you, I am an open book. People can make their own judgment of what your opinion is worth. As far as I am concerned, not much.

Like Pennies you seem to have an agenda, possibly the very worthy agenda of tracking down and emasculating scams - but you should stick to that and not pontificate on subjects you haven't bothered to explore, like the evidence for the existence of the Beta and Gamma atmospheres.


Last edited by Frank on Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:05 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Mary,

Are you prepared to give reference to you word and links if there are any available. I would be interested to read them.

I believe this forum has a facility for private communications so you don't have to reveal who you are. Or you can mail me at frankgrimer@fsmail.net but I think you already have my email address since I sent some info I seem to remember.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:19 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

Frank, you missed the whole point. Please reread my earlier post -- who I am and what I did has nothing to with the lack of evidence for what you claim. My accomplishments, such as they are, have nothing to do with anyone else's claim. I answer to facts and evidence-- not to you. If there's anything to explore in the "Beta and Gamma atnospheres" by all means do some experiments, publish some math in properly refereed peer reviewed journals, build a device, do SOMETHING other than talk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:10 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

No. You miss the point, dear. You are not in a position to judge whether my published work is rubbish or not because you know nothing about it and if you did you are probably not competent to comment intelligently on it. You've got a ruddy cheek - or should I say chutzpah.

I ask you for evidence of your competence and you ignore the question yet you are ready enough to criticise McCarthy when he is evasive. At least I know who McCarthy is - his date of birth - where he was born - the full legal name on his birth certificate. What do I know about you and your motivation for being here? I only know you're a colonial cos you write math instead of maths. What have you got to hide.

Your opinion of my posts is worth b****r all, to put it mildly.


Last edited by Frank on Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:57 am PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Good Grief!
For a moment there I thought I was on the Steorn forum.
Razz
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:27 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
Good Grief!
For a moment there I thought I was on the Steorn forum.
Razz

You are. The Steorn forum in exile. Laughing

Still things could be worse. You could be in the SPUD with the earnest experimentalists. Rolling Eyes
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:59 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

I see grimer is publicly claiming that he knows how to extract power from magnetism on the wacco steorm forum, but there is no need to build anything. No, no! All that is needed is a logical argument!

As 'proof' that this is perfectly adequate, he points out that euclid - with nothing at his disposal but his brain - was able to prove that the number of primes is infinite.

Then with a mighty leap of grimer logic, he points out that he, too, has a logical argument as to why a perpetual motion machine can be knocked up with some 'mere engineering' And as Euclid's proof worked, so does his! (Still with us here?)

Well I too, have a logical argument. It goes like this: If grimer can miss the fatal flaw in his euclid/grimer argument (which is that although Euclid got it right, grimer might have got it WRONG) then the chances are that he has made even more glaring errors in his 'logical argument' about perpetual motion.

However, I try to be open minded. If grimer can indulge in a little 'mere engineering' and knock up a working machine, then I will read his 'logical argument'. Yes, even if it's full of bollocks about gamma atmospheres or whatever he's calling it today.

Fair enough, I think. Don't you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:12 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

There is an interesting new message string on the now open again Steorn forum in which Crank responds to questions about the jury. I can't really understand what her motivation could possibly be but apparently she says she could call two jury members -- she has their names. But she decided not to. Hey Crank: WHY???!!! Afraid of what they will say, are ya?

EDIT:

Here is some of what Crank said:
"The way I'd look at it is...I was shown the names of two jury members. At any time over the past six months if Sean pissed me off sufficiently (and Sean is good at pissing me and everyone else off ) I could have phoned those scientists and asked them if they really were on the Steorn jury. If they weren't, they could and would have publicly disassociated themselves from the Irish crackpots who were using their name in vain. So if it was a house of cards, it would all have come tumbling down over quite a simple thing.

Therefore...the names he gave me had to be genuine. Therefore...there is a jury. Therefore...anything Sean has stated publicly about the jury has to be real, or jury members would be kicking up a fuss.



The message string is here (click):

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59319&page=2

Does this make sense to anyone? It just gives me a headache. Why doesn't Crank just call the damn jury members and find out what if anything they have ever been given -- which would NOT violate any conceivably reasonable NDA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:36 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

You have to realise that crank enjoys the 'mystery' of not knowing whether steorn have perpetual motion or not.

I suspect that she suddenly finds herself at the centre of what (she believes) may be something really exciting, and doesn't want to see it exposed for what it is - hot air!

All good reason to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality.

To my mind, this is barmy behaviour. But I suppose we suspend our disbelief to enjoy Harry Potter so why not. The problems only ensue when the performance comes to its inevitable end.

It's finished now, crank! Back to dull reality I'm afraid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:35 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

Quote:

You have to realise that crank enjoys the 'mystery' of not knowing whether steorn have perpetual motion or not.


Yeah-- that's what I was trying to get her to explain but all I did apparently is make her become defensive.

I just can't understand why anyone would prefer "mystery" to information when it comes to something like Steorn's claims which would instantly transform everything we know.

The only rationale or excuse I can dream up for Crank not making two simple phone calls, since she won't provide a coherent one herself, is that she is profoundly, deeply ignorant of how "how things work" and how science is used to get a handle on them.

There is also a flavor of inconsideration here. Crank doesn't seem to care about bamboozled investors, Dr. Mike's (and many others who came to Kinetica) wasted time and effort, and the general degrading of life brought about by scammers and thieves of all stripes. Scamming investors, if that is what happened here, is a serious crime. Two phone calls could shed some light. But no, we have to have more mystery. A solid year of Sean's evasive bullshit (no mystery there!) apparently ain't enuf for Crank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:54 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

Well, as I say, it's all over now. It doesn't matter a damn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:40 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

exco wrote:
Well, as I say, it's all over now. It doesn't matter a damn.
How do you mean "over"?

Steorn is still technically in business and their claims have not changed. They have a failed demonstration on their record and they've been silent for a month. How does that spell "it's all over now"? Haven't you seen Parendev, Bearden, Dennis Lee, Frank Goldes, and all the similar schlockmeister continue to attract incautious investors and believers all these years despite being unable to make a single credible demo? And not only does it continue on and on but new FE scams and delusions crop up all the time!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Skeptics, sceptics, and Cynics
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum