Demo at STEORN offices Nov 13th 2010
A chance for all sceptic engineers and scientists to check out ssORBO for themselves
Why not...
Check it out!
demo
posted by blogtrotter | 4:10 AM
About Me
- Name: blogtrotter
- Location: Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany
I'm a sort of creative person, seeking the meaning of life . Hard to capture the essence of the mind/brain/soul - but I delight in arguing with ultra-materialists on consciousness. Ah! the smell of a rose and its redness, the smell of a fine wine, a sunset, - great stuff, and all subjective. Oh yeah and actually am Scorpio by 4 hours according to expert astrologer friend - blogger auto-star-sign system missed the fact that I'm on the cusp. Though I agree with Casius when he said "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings".
- OEDU board offer by STEORN - and Youtube video on ...
- OEDU board offer by STEORN - prove it yourself!
- I found 308% gain at Steorn!
- "Free Energy and Free Will"
- Syncronicity etc.
- solid state orbo revving up
- March for testing too...
- (provisional) Title: Humpty Dumpty & the Emperors ...
- Forest again after many weeks
- I went to the demo in Dublin end Jan - did you spo...
806 Comments:
It sounds like it will be a repeat of the 'final proof' demo, but using a solid-state device instead of the e-orbo.
In other words, same-old same-old.
Though maybe this time more than one questioner will be skeptical.
I understand it is an attend by application only event. I don't know who Steorn wants to impress or thinks they can impress with these dog and pony shows. They are really no more impressive than Joe Newman hanging out in a mall parking lot with tales of his motor that makes litnin' and thunder.
"Test after test after test has produced the same result: the Orbo effect, as we have dubbed it, means that a system can produce more energy that it consumes. Over the years, we have developed a number of test configurations with the ultimate aim of allowing any competent individual to validate our claims for themselves."
Why is that the ultimate aim? If I had invented a magic perpetual motion machine that would rewrite the laws of physics and change the universe, I think I'd have a more ambitious idea than that.
The pseudosceptics won't check it out. They don't want to see themselves proved wrong by witnessing free energy in front of their own eyes. It would ruin their belief system.
It would certainly shake what I believe to the core, yes, but if you had proof of it I'd love to see it. And if you had a working machine you wouldn't be able to hide it or control it. If you were generating magic free energy, you'd tell us about it. You wouldn't hold one pathetic little stage-managed performance after another, year after year. You'd have the power to CHANGE THE WORLD in ways you can't even imagine. You simply don't realize how massive, how huge, what a game-changer a source of free energy would be and what it could do.
You wouldn't be wasting your time posting dreary, pointless waffle on your website or holding silly staged demonstrations of a little spinny-wheely-thing. You'd have transformed the universe. You'd make money and power, as we currently understand them, obsolete. You'd be like unto a god. You wouldn't be quibbling about phone chargers and holding yet another watch-the-plastic-wheel "demonstration".
"The pseudosceptics won't check it out. They don't want to see themselves proved wrong by witnessing free energy in front of their own eyes. It would ruin their belief system."
Skeptics on the other hand did check it out and Steorn fell flat every time. For Saturday's dog and pony Steorn have set up screening to allow only those they want. This is similar to the screening process and NDA they have imposed on their OEDU board.
What we can predict for Saturday with remarkable accuracy is that:
Steorn will not show a device that powers itself.
Steorn will show a device that is externally powered and connected to test equipment in a way that violates black box testing. Black box testing would measure the input parameters to the magic box, and output parameters from the magic box without concern for what is inside.
Steorn will show a derivation based on the measurements they select that claims to show an increase in energy after excluding the majority of the energy input to the black box.
Steorn will claim that the derivation is legitimate because they will claim that the excluded energy consists of losses that can be engineered out.
Steorn will fail to show anything where these supposedly removable losses have in fact been removed.
Come Sunday or Monday, feel free to compare and contrast what transpires Saturday to what I have posted.
At this stage of the game, Steorn do not have the ability to drum up much public interest in their nonsense. They have no credibility left to undermine!
So, even if this "public" "event" was open to the "actual public", it is likely that it would only draw a handful of die-hard Steorn fanboys, and a handful of rational critical thinking sceptics who might feel motivated enough to be bothered to go along to publicly expose the Steorn nonsense for what it is, purely for entertainment purposes.
Obviously this would not give Steorn much to crow about. So they need to ensure that the latter do not attend. Therefore it is invite only. However, they now have to deal with the problem that the number of the former that they would be able to draw would be quite small. So they need to artificially inflate the attendance numbers. They overcome this by latching onto this festival, which is already guaranteed to draw a decent amount of people, few (if any) of whom are likely to have ever heard of Steorn. So the invitations will presumably go to the festival attendees purely because of their lack of familiarity with Steorn's history of FAIL.
FE Truth said...
The pseudosceptics won't check it out. They don't want to see themselves proved wrong by witnessing free energy in front of their own eyes. It would ruin their belief system.
-------------
Craig, get a grip. You lying SOS, at this point near every member of moletrap you so froth about has stated their belief that they would be happy to see proof of free energy.
It is your belief system that is shaky. You pathetic attempts to frame everyone who questions Steorn's legitimacy as inflexible dogmatists shows the true weakness of your faith. You have to lie to yourself and everyone else as the alternative is to admit that the only thing holding Steorns proof of FE back is that it does not exist.
You have trumpeted every claim Steorn has made of the years as being true beyond doubt, even when there was NO POSSIBLE way for you to know one way or another. You have discredited Steorn and the joke you are taints Steorn even more that they have managed themselves.
If you really wanted to support Steorn, the best thing you could do is shut the fuck up.
Dear Dr. Deasy,
After the event, will you please be so kind as to post the identity of some attendees, the tests they conducted, the results, and what they thought of it? Thank you!
Free Energy Skeptical but Hopeful
FE Truth said "The pseudosceptics won't check it out. They don't want to see themselves proved wrong by witnessing free energy in front of their own eyes. It would ruin their belief system."
Please lord show us! Let us in! we have been hanging around looking for proof, begging for it for years and nothing! Not one single claim has ever been shown to be real. With Steorn we have sat through years of broken promises, failed demos, changes in what is claimed, a negative jury finding, a Waterways demo full of misdirection and nothing actually shown, and now another "public" demo that the public can't attend. I went to "apply" there is no application on the application page. Same old same old.
LOL - Listen to the pseudosceptics getting upset. Too funny :)
Paul, dearie, until you can demonstrate a device with no external source of energy, where the output is connected to the input and it keeps going, then your term "pseudosceptic" applies to everyone in the world except for a handful of cranks. Are you aware of that fact? There's you, the lads at Steorn, and a few other clowns on the "yes we have magic free energy, we just can't show it to you yet" side, and everyone else in the world on the other, "pseudosceptic" side.
LMAO, Craig, don't doo that! You're going hurt these poor pseudosceptics! Are you trying to give them a hemorrhage? LOL
Do what, exactly, Paul? Talk to yourself? Whine and cry that everyone who doesn't believe in your latest made-up free energy story is a "pseudosceptic"?
That's an achievement up there with your piezo-powered LED triumph that took you 5 years.
LOL @ Craig Brown (aka 007 aka FE Truth) getting all excited and smug and gloaty about yet another upcoming FAIL from Steorn!
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me."
Fool you too many times to remember? Then you must be a freetard!
Everytime I think of Steorn's Final Fail at the Waterways I get a good laugh. One of the completely unimpressed audience members asked Sean why the demonstration was so unconvincing. Sean barked back that the audience at Waterways was not Steorn's target audience. Saturday's show promises to be no more impressive.
Anonymous ben wrote, "Talk to yourself?"
LOL, if you believe I'm Craig Brown (aka 007 aka FE Truth), then you're more delusional & desperate than previously thought, and that's saying a lot.
Paul's confused and off track ... again.
Paul, darling, you're a long way from trying to prove you have some sort of free energy device now, aren't you? You're a long way from trying to prove you have a device where you can plug the output into the input and it keeps going. And you've never come close to suggesting you have some research on the subject you'd be interested in publishing.
So, what, exactly, have you got? A piezo device hooked up to an LED? After five years? Not terrifically impressive.
Anonymous said...
Paul's confused and off track ... again.
You mean still.
Paul, we would never confuse you with Craig. You, while clearly insane, appear significantly smarter that Criag i'm-not-NewsEditor Brown.
Plus, unlike Craig, Paul probably knows which end of a soldering iron to hold.
I hope.
Paul says he's used one. He's said things that imply he was never taught how to use one properly.
I've never seen Craig talk about putting anything together.
Soldering is getting tougher for hobbyists. SnPb solder was a whole lot easier to work with than SAC.
Things seem very quiet in Dublin town. I hope Sean didn't slip too much white powder into his guests glasses.
Where's the big news? We are waiting!
Well, no word from Steorn. Nothing on their website, no Twitter activity from Clown A or Clown B. None of the usual delusionals have had anything to say about it either.
What if you gave a perpetual motion demonstration and nobody cared?
Poor anonymous ben. I'm still waiting for you to explain where the energy comes from in the shielded piezo & diode experiments. Poor delusional pseudoskeptics. :-(
... sorry everyone, I couldn't resist poking the dummy. It's a bit slow around here lately.
You should explain that when you and all your "numerous academic scientists" come to publish your findings, Paul, if you ever decide to use your physics-rewriting, universe-changing technology of a piezo activating an LED to change the world for the better instead of as a basis for making Internet comments, which is all you've ever done and all you ever will.
Just like Steorn -- if you actually BELIEVED your own lies, you'd act as if they were true. You don't. That's why all you have is silly incoherent internet postings and lies and exaggerations.
And what you don't have? What you don't have, Paul, dearie, what you don't have is a device that keeps going when you connect the output to the input. That's what you need, that's what you don't have, that's what you never will have.
And, Paul, just to be clear, the population of "poor delusional pseudoskeptics" is the entire world, the entire scientific community, every academic, mechanic, engineer, scientist, and thinking layperson in the world. The people who are NOT "poor delusional pseudoskeptics", by your thinking, are you, Hugh, the Steorn clowns, and a handful of other cranks, weirdoes, and fantasists.
So I'm in good company. And you have a metal box with a piezo attached to it. And you DO NOT HAVE a device where the output plugs into the input and it keeps going. And you never will.
"Anonymous Paul Lowrance said...
Poor anonymous ben. I'm still waiting for you to explain where the energy comes from in the shielded piezo & diode experiments. Poor delusional pseudoskeptics. :-(
... sorry everyone, I couldn't resist poking the dummy. It's a bit slow around here lately."
You've only poked yourself. What energy? As I understand it, you have a box where Mr. Hand pulls on Mr. String connected to Mr. Tilt switch to act as your energy sorting device. I guess you don't understand that you are putting the energy into that system. You should really work it out.
Now, if you had an experiment that emits light or another form of energy on its own without the help of Mr. Hand, you might have something to talk about.
LOL, it's easy to get poor pseudosceptics upset. Ben, you're wrong, most people are open-minded. You and your little delusional gang at moletrap are just poor delusional pseudosceptics. I have the best poll taken so far, which shows over twice as many people believe Steorn has the real deal. Awww, poor pseudosceptics. Take a look at polls at the % of people who believe in life after death, etc. Awww, poor pseudosceptics. :-(((
Anonymous ben, you didn't answer the question. Where does the energy come from.
Anonymous poster #2, most of the experiments have have no strings or hands involved. So what's your explanation now?
I'll be waiting for your answers.
Paul Lowrance please explain how you set-up your survey and checked to insure that it is representative of the general population. Oops: FAIL.
You must be quite deluded if you want me or anyone else to explain results of experiments you have yet to accurately describe. The last I knew you said you had a rig with a tilt switch. Now you say you have something else that you use some of the time. That's lovely, but doing experiments that you don't or can't describe has little meaning.
If your experiments are so interesting, where is the interest? If you've got reliable evidence of free energy like you say, then why aren't those "academic scientists" beating down your doors? Oops: FAIL.
Oh, that's right it's not your fantastical claim that's to blame it's the fantastical idea that there is a great conspiracy against you. If one fantasy is good two must be better. Oops: FAIL.
LOL, anonymous is showing off how ill informed he is. Anon, wrong, I've posted countless experiment methods, that include part #'s, and how to replicate it. So guess again.
I'll ask you once again to take another guess as to what's causing the shielded piezo elements and/or diodes to produce the power. So we've eliminated your last guess that it's the hand. Now what?
As for the lack of interest, once again poor pseudosceptic is wrong. I just had yet another academic EE contact me, who is going to replicate my experiments.
Awwww, poor pseudosceptic. :-(((
Paul Lowrance, sure you have. Somewhere in that rubble pile of a web site you've got little tidbits and certain select details. In your universe you may think that constitutes a detailed experiment design. In the universe the rest of us live in, it does not.
If you really had the countless positive experiment results that you say you have, then one has to really wonder at what's wrong with you that you haven't built-up a free energy generator to power your house, or at least your fridge. A likely clue is in the way you miscategorize non-repeatable results as "disturbed" devices.
I know this is meant to be a Hugh thread, and I haven't followed Paul's stuff, but surely if the tilt energy supplied by Mr Hand set off the LED then it would work every time it was tilted? But I gather it only works if the box is tilted about twice a day. So how can that be hand power? Paul, what does the experiment say about that?
Anon, you still haven't answered the question.
Okay, since you seem to be stumped, then please tell everyone here why you think the string method causes the diodes to charge a low leakage capacitor (e.g., 47 uF) to over 1 volt. Hmmm? Again, it's a mechanical switch. A thin nylon string when pulled less than 1mm closes the switch contacts. The diode and mechanical switch are completely enclosed inside a 1/4 inch thick metal chassis. The nylon string goes through a pin hole in the metal chassis. Explain how that's going to cause a diode to produce over 1 volt? Hmmm? A little help for you: one can pull the string thousands of times all day till they're blue in the fact and it does not increase the voltage.
I'll be waiting for you answer, again.
I sure wish anonymous posters would supply some username, anything.
Another anon write,
---
I know this is meant to be a Hugh thread, and I haven't followed Paul's stuff, but surely if the tilt energy supplied by Mr Hand set off the LED then it would work every time it was tilted? But I gather it only works if the box is tilted about twice a day. So how can that be hand power? Paul, what does the experiment say about that?
---
That's one of numerous setups. It's true that if it was due to mr. hand, then it work every time. As you've pointed out, it does not. It took ~ 12 hours for the shielded piezo element to charge to parallel capacitance. The act of tilting the setup is only to discharge to stored energy. I've done a lot of testing where the entire unit was tilted over an over. That act of tilting the setup does not charge the capacitor, but if tilted too many times it will begin to disturb the piezo element, in which case it will slowly become disturbed and not charge to the parallel capacitance until after it's left alone for anywhere from days to months.
Anon and Paul, this is a variation on Feynman's ratchet. There is thermal noise in the environment. Paul's fatally flawed concept is that an energy rectifier, or gate if you will can be devised that sorts higher energy from lower energy elements at a constant temperature. Feynman demonstrated that doesn't work because the sorting device is in the same random environment as what is being sorted. In other words, external energy has to be added to make the sorting device work. From what Paul has said he has confirmed Feynman's position.
cont'd
cont'd
Paul likes to use capacitors. He thinks that they accumulate noise energy, and that all he has to do is get that accumulated energy into his load. For that, he uses the help of Mr. Hand. Ironically, Mr. Hand is using up many orders of magnitude more energy than Paul thinks he is harvesting from his capacitor.
According to Paul his experiment doesn't work reliably. Paul attributes that to "disturbed" parts. From what little he has described, it just sounds like what we should expect sampling a noise source as he does with Mr. Hand and Mr. Tilt switch.
Imagine if you will corks bobbing up and down on a choppy sea. From all that motion, we might think that we could get energy from the crests and do work with it dumping it into the valleys. From the surface we can't because the average energy difference is zero.
We add to this situation Mr. Hand of God to grab at one of the corks from time to time. When the cork happens to be at a crest Mr. Hand of God is able to drop the cork into a valley. It doesn't work so well when Mr. Hand grabs the cork when it is in one of the valleys. And from what Paul has said of his experiments, that is all that they amount to.
The problem with Feynman's claim is that it's all pencil pushing without experiments. I've written a lot of ratchet experiments that clearly show rectification, and I've detailed the errors in Feynman's ratchet designs. I'm not going to spent the time once again to discuss that topic.
What I am interested in is real experiments of shielded components that do indeed produce real power, and that show effects that are completely unknown. Effects such as the 10 pA constant. Effects such as paralleling the components produces *less* power. Effects such as *smaller* size components produce more power. That's are unexplainable by conventional physics.
As for mr. hand, as stated, pulling the string as many times as you wish does not charge the parallel capacitor. Read my last post.
So nice try, but no cigar.
As far as it not working doesn't work reliably. Incorrect. It works all the time, but you only have to be careful to not disturb the component. I can successfully repeat the experiment every time.
Once again, I'll ask you to tell us where the energy comes from. Your mr. hand theory is incorrect. Again, you can pull the string a hundred times, and it's not going to charge the capacitor. Hello? So now what's your theory?
To the person who posted this -->
___
I know this is meant to be a Hugh thread, and I haven't followed Paul's stuff, but surely if the tilt energy supplied by Mr Hand set off the LED then it would work every time it was tilted? But I gather it only works if the box is tilted about twice a day. So how can that be hand power? Paul, what does the experiment say about that?
___
If you're still around, could you please comment if it seems clear to you that these opposers are obviously trying to avoid the truth? For example, he keeps going back to mr. hand, even though I keep telling him that pulling the string more times (ten times, hundred times more) does not increase the stored energy in the capacitor. Doesn't their intent seem a odd?
That's just one of countless examples. Ben kept saying the video he posted that shows someone bouncing a piezo element & LED on a table explains my experiments. Yet I kept telling him over & over that my piezo element & LED were inside a metal shield that was not bouncing, and that a lot of setups require no tilting or strings, just a solid-state electrometer.
btw, as far as diodes, I do *not* believe the effect we're seeing is caused by rectification. Also, a diode is not a ratchet. A diode has an intense internal E-field, which I believe is the cause of the effect. Piezo elements also have an intense internal E-field, which according to the data I've found is ~ 10 times greater than a diode. And interestingly enough, thus far piezo elements produce ~ 10 times more DC voltage than diodes.
ps, I type extremely fast here, so please excuse all of the typos and such.
Me again, with username this time. I think what everyone wants is a set of clear experiments. All the doubts have to be dealt with. Any input of external energy is a cause for doubt, so everyone asks for self sustain. You say you have a continuous current in one of your setups, that is indeed very intriguing, I must rad up more of your stuff.
Cool, even though you didn't answer question, ;-), but one clear experiment is: One LED, one piezo element, one tilt switch, a capacitor (optional), all contained in a metal chassis. Pin hole for LED. Tilt the thing a few hundred times-- No flashing LED. Let it sit undisturbed for ~ half a day, tilt it, it flashes. Tilt it again, no flash. Wait another half day. Tilt it again. Tilt it a few hundred times-- no flashing. Vigorously shake it, piezo element enters 1st disturbance stage where the voltage slowly fluctuates up & down by significant amounts as the voltage *slowly* decays down to the point where the piezo element will no longer charge the capacitor until after it's been left alone anywhere from days to months.
and it goes on, other effects such as,
* The 10pA constant, regardless of how large or small the component is, regardless of the diode or piezo element type or part number.
* Paralleling components decreases the power.
* Increasing the size of the component decreases the power. I think the present record of nearly 8 volts DC is nothing compared to what a single microscopic piezo element would produce. Perhaps well over 100 volts.
* Component does not produce the power after being physically, electrically, or thermally disturbing.
That's just an outline. When summed up, I refuse to believe that any thinking human being would not see the need to reproduce such experiments.
Anyhow, that's enough for today. Bye
"Anonymous Paul Lowrance said...
The problem with Feynman's claim is that it's all pencil pushing without experiments. I've written a lot of ratchet experiments that clearly show rectification, and I've detailed the errors in Feynman's ratchet designs. I'm not going to spent the time once again to discuss that topic."
If you think you have bested Feynman, write a paper and submit it for peer review. If you've done it, you will gain instant fame and credibility. Since you have not, you will be properly dismissed as just another goofball who doesn't understand even that which has been explained by a great teacher like Feynman.
Paul, you are a strange, bitter, sad man who plays around with hobbyist electronic components you buy online. There'd be nothing wrong with that if you didn't think you've reinvented physics every time you make an LED light up.
Literally, every time you encounter a result that you think is anomalous, why, then YOU'VE INVENTED PERPETUAL MOTION.
You haven't. You haven't done anything. You don't have the support of "numerous academic scientists". You're just some clown playing with piezo devices.
Oh no, it's the angry ben coming out waving his hands like a baby making ambiguous claims. Sorry anonymous ben, but there's really nothing to comment on your post. Nothing of substance in it, just anger.
Let us all know when you're ready to explain where the energy comes from, at your own leisure, mind you. LOL.
To the other anonymous: You must think I'm an army alone to have the time to do everything, including write a scientific paper to closed minded ding dong academics that clearly shows a ratchet does indeed rectify. If I thought for one second it would make a difference, I'd have written it by now. There are numerous scientific papers written by academic scientists that show diodes should rectify ZPE near absolute zero. Do you hear anything about it? No. Because it's pencil pushing. You people sure have a fictitious understanding of academic science community. Pencil pushing math & theories are a dime a dozen. One of the PBS documentaries showed a poor University scientist whose super string theory work was ignored for ages. Dime a dozen.
The most time I spent with "academic scientist" on the ratchet was with Avik Ghosh. He's a notable academic scientist who specializes in Brownian ratchets. We exchanged ~ 30 emails. I had the guy so stumped. Feynman's ratchet pencil pushing is so outdated, overly simplified, and worthless. He assumes the ratchet will slip. Wrong! He assumes an *Infinite* time window. He ignores 1/f noise. Etc., etc., etc. I presented to Avik a simple macro scale ratchet that would have no slippage. Avik could not find any a single flaw with it. Why? Because it would work. I wrote far too many numerical analysis ratchet simulations to know better.
Yeah, Paul, that's great. Lovely story. You don't have a perpetual motion machine that keeps on going or anything like that, do you? No? Thought not. Carry on.
There is a recurring theme here, though, Paul. Every time you claim that an "academic scientist" or "EE" is supporting you -- the truth is that actually, no, they do not. Quite the opposite. They distance themselves from you, enthusiastically, and want nothing to do with you. Funny, that.
Sure do-- Piezo or diode. Still waiting for you to explain where the energy comes from.
Anon ben wrote,
---
There is a recurring theme here, though, Paul. Every time you claim that an "academic scientist" or "EE" is supporting you -- the truth is that actually, no, they do not. Quite the opposite. They distance themselves from you, enthusiastically, and want nothing to do with you. Funny, that.
---
Man, you're brain is so FUBAR. You can't get any facts straight, can you? LOL Yet one more time for crackhead anon ben -->
A lot of academic EE's and physicist have successfully replicated my diode & piezo experiments. Here's a new academic EE that contacted me just recently -->
EE contacts me
And yes, he's very interested in replicating my piezo & diode experiments. He's also purchased the MAGAMP cores to replicate my TOR. Awww, poor pseudosceptic. :-(((
I'm thankful to Craig for informing everyone what you moletrap cynics are --> pseudosceptics.
Paul, it's just terrifyingly sad that you're proud of what those people are saying about you, and that you'd quote them and think that did you a favor.
That's just painful.
Paul, you need some help, mate. This is beyond me. You need some help.
Anon ben wrote, "Paul, it's just terrifyingly sad that you're proud of what those people are saying about you"
What's painful is how you can never seem to get anything correct. Try reading and maybe you'll see that it was *my* email quoted in the blog, not the EE's.
Yawn, I'm logging off.
And so round and round it goes. Paul Lowrance flips from seeing himself as persecuted victim to crowning savior without even blinking. From his imaginary free energy, to imaginary nefarious forces of evil deleting his imaginary posts Paul insists he sees things no one else can see. He doesn't question whether that is a problem.
Your common pseudosceptic trying to explain something --> a2.gif
wow if you lot only knew the easy way to OU I just thought of. Gotta test it first though and it's a spinner... and different to Steorn's e-orbo.
Paul, you said that "numerous academic scientists" had verified your magic box. Then you said that you, yourself, were an academic scientist.
None of that was true.
There is one mysterious Electrical Engineer that you have shown your box to. He's so impressed that he was, in your own word, "furious" when you attempted to attach his name to your piezo silliness.
The simple fact is that no-one -- NO-ONE -- is impressed by your magic box. No-one believes that you have discovered a source of magic free energy.
You're just a clown tinkering with some off-the-shelf electronic components. And, every time something happens that you don't fully understand, you believe you've rewritten the laws of physics. You haven't. You haven't accomplished anything.
LOL, always great fun to watch cynics throw their hands around.
BTW anonymous ben, once again you have your facts wrong. I posted the *first* name and the country of an academic EE that tested my diode & piezo experiments. He *DID* measure the voltage and current produced by the diodes & piezos. Okay, get that straight. And he was only upset because he didn't want to take *any* chance of someone figuring out his identity, and probably because of insane people like you. I can't think of how anyone could possibly learn of his identity. BTW, he was upset for only one day. We have exchanged dozens of emails since then.
Ah, and anon ben, today yet another academic EE who also has a PhD in physics (that's what he says) contacted me who wants to replicate my diode experiments. And he found my research from this thread here. Time will tell me if he's a EE by what he knows. At this point I have no reason to doubt him.
Paul, that's a lovely spin on events you have there. The fact remains that when you said "numerous academic scientists" had endorsed your claims, you were lying. When you said that you, yourself, were an academic scientist, you were lying. So, when you say that some electronic engineer has chosen to distance himself from your claims and does not want his name associated with your piezo tomfoolery, I'll draw my own conclusions as to why, thanks very much.
And, you know, you could make all this go away, all the doubt, all the "pseudoskepticism" -- you could end it all immediately and change the world beyond all recognition, in an instant, if what you said was actually true and you could prove it.
It isn't. You can't.
Back to the subject of this blog: Hugh there's not been a peep in the press about this event that was supposed to be a big deal.
What gives? Did Steorn cancel? Did they just show some scope plots to their attendees and declare overunity?
Anonymous ben lies again -->
---
"The fact remains that when you said "numerous academic scientists" had endorsed your claims, you were lying."
---
LOL, anonymous ben, you must be the father of lies, because you can't seem to complete a post without lying.
I challenge you to show my quote where I said an academic scientist endorsed my research. That's your own word, "endorsed." Do you know what "endorsed" means? Look it up. I said they replicated my experiments, and they measured the voltage and current.
I'll be waiting for you to show my quote. Soon people will see you for who you are. LOL, poor pseudosceptic :-(((
Sean already said that they did not video the event, that they did not see it as a big event.
Also in Sean's facebook page someone congratulated Sean on a victory, and job well done. Sounds like to demo went well. :-)
"I said they replicated my experiments, and they measured the voltage and current."
And did these "numerous academic scientists" get results that proved that your rig had created magical free energy? If yes, then the word "endorsed" is correct. If no, then, well ...
Sean already said that they did not video the event, that they did not see it as a big event.
Also in Sean's facebook page someone congratulated Sean on a victory, and job well done.
That's just brilliant. Not a big event, eh? You're demonstrating perpetual motion to the world and it's (a) not a big event so we won't video it but (b) something that achieved a "victory" for Steorn's mumbojumbo and it went well.
You don't even see the contradiction, do you?
How many types of magic free energy that don't exist are there? Your piezo thing, your copper-coil thing, Steorn's magnet wheel, Steron's "solid state" thing ... the list of useless aggregations of ordinary components not doing anything goes on ...
They claimed they were demonstrating Fire 2.0 and all it got was one anonymous congratulation on Sean's FB page? That sounds like a disaster to me. Hugh, was it really that bad of a flop? Was there no press presence at all? Did no one from academia show up?
Again, Sean said they never saw this as a big event. So I think the cynics are reading to much into this. And yes, so far I've seen just 1 person who gave appraise. One for one is still batting a 100%. ;-)
sorry, appraise should be praise
Demonstrating perpetual motion in public is, apparently, "not a big event", and hearing that some guy said something about it on Facebook is as good as it's going to get.
What would be a big event, Paul? A demonstration of perpetual motion doesn't cut it. The opening of the Seventh Seal, maybe? James Dean crashlanding a UFO into the Loch Ness Monster?
You believe that someone has just demonstrated a perpetual motion machine, in public, but that it wasn't a big event, there was no point in videoing it, and the fact someone posted to Facebook about it is plenty. Gotcha.
Chalmers: Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? A this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?
Skinner: Yes.
Chalmers: May I see it?
Skinner: Oh, erm ... No.
"'It’s difficult to conceive of a technology that is more innovative than Orbo. We are not only doing something that has never been done before, we are doing something that is generally believed to be impossible. A world in which our technology was widely disseminated would be very different to the one in which we live today. Our global addiction to fossil fuels would be broken. Indeed, all traditional sources of power would be rendered obsolete. Society as a whole, top to bottom, would be transformed. We have never asked anyone to “take our word for it” regarding Orbo and completely understand the scepticism that any scientifically literate person will feel. But even the very idea that such changes could emanate from a small company in Dublin should excite anyone with a genuine interest in innovation.'"
Never been done before...
Impossible...
World changing...
Society as a whole, top to bottom, would be transformed...
Should excite anyone with a genuine interest in innovation...
Now that it's been ignored, it was "no big deal". LOL!
Anonymous ben, I having nothing more to say to you. You claimed that I said academic scientists endorsed my research. You couldn't show my quotes where I used such language. I made it very clear they did not go public. Why don't you tell everyone here how they can endorse something without going public? Hmmm? Truth is you lied, again, and you know it.
I'm done correcting all of your endless lies. Sorry to say it, but you're just a pathetic human being. The only thing you have are your lies, and everyone knows it by now. You're not worth talking to. :-(((
Paul Lowrance, so you are saying that none of the academic scientists who have reviewed your work will endorse it? Why doesn't it trouble you that if you believe that they agree with your findings of OU, that they would not endorse them? Do you really believe that any scientist with personal hard evidence of world changing science would do anything other than want to get in front of it?
The only problem here is pseudosceptics. Nobody else.
You know what, I'm not going to explain it again. Put yourself in the shoes of the academic scientist. These experiments are not so obvious as to where the energy comes from. Nobody knows where the energy comes from. We're dealing with ~ 50 pico watts (50 e-12 watts). They can *not* explain where the energy comes from, but they do not want to end up as another Pons & Fleischmann case (cold fusion). Hello?
The only problem, Paul, is that you and a bunch of other clowns say you've invented perpetual motion and completely destroyed the current scientific consensus, changed the universe, and rewritten physics. And you haven't. You don't have a perpetual motion machine where the output can plug into the input and it keeps going. And you have not even attempted to publish your work or do any research.
So, Paul, did the "numerous academic scientists" who copied your experiments get the results you claimed, or not? If so, then they "endorse" your magic device. If not, then you're a bit stuck, aren't you?
"We're dealing with ~ 50 pico watts (50 e-12 watts)."
"Nobody knows where the energy comes from."
And still you don't see the problem. That's amazing, simply amazing.
When Steorn first started hawking their claim in 2006 over 88,000 people signed up to be notified of the jury validation. Several thousand people applied to be on the jury itself.
And now, four years later, they are holding private showings to a handful of people without any recording while downplaying the whole thing.
Anyone who has ever worked in PR or marketing can tell you what that means.
Paul, if I've misrepresented what you said it's only because you obfuscate so confusingly.
When you say "numerous academic scientists" have replicated your experiments, how many?
When you say:
They can *not* explain where the energy comes from
Is that what they said? Did these "numerous academic scientists" say that yes, they have replicated your experiments, yes, they have detected surplus energy, but no, they cannot explain where that energy comes from?
I don't think that's what's happened. I don't think there are any academic scientists or engineers who have that interpretation of your tinkering.
What is this, the Ben and Paul show? Why don't you two kids carry on your discussion in email instead of destroying every thread here?
Looks like anonymous ben's conscience is getting the best of him. What's the matter ben, too many lies in one day is getting to you?
To the other anonymous, measuring 50 pW (5 volts @ 10 pA) is extraordinarily easy these days. Just about any low op-amp with low Ib can detect that with ease. And besides, if you knew anything about measurements you would know lower limits is about energy, not power. In the case of the piezo and diode measurements it's a capacitor (typically 1uF, up to 47uF) charge to 1 volts to 7.5 volts DC. Even a cheap voltage meter can consistently measure that every time. Hello?
Phil Watson just commented, asking if there's any light at the end of the promotion tunnel. Perhaps in reference to Steorn?
LOL! And yet you still don't see the problems! This is like watching an old Abbott and Costello.
I've got free energy, it's really easy to show.
Really then why don't you show it?
Because, it's really hard to show.
Really then how do you know what you've got is free energy?
No, it's really easy to show and lots of academic scientististeses have seen it.
Really, who are they?
They don't want to say.
Really, they endorse your finding of one of the biggest discoveries in the history of physics and they don't want to speak-up?
I didn't say they endorse it.
Really, then what do they say?
They, I mean I say that you are a mean pseudoskeptic poopy head.
I doubt any scientists would say such a thing.
Oh yeah! Well that's because you are a mean stoopid pseudosskeptic double poopy head.
Third base.
1. I've shown the devices.
2. Parts #'s and everything required to replicate the experiments has been provided from the start.
3. You're a fool if you think academic scientists have not replicated it when I get ~ 100,000 web page views per month.
ps, you poor pseudosceptics are trying to hard. People might notice, LOL.
Hi Hugh,
As one of those appearing in the Steorn 'it works' video, could you please tell us what happened on Nov 13?
Was the event held? Did you attend? If so, what was shown and what was it to represent?
Thanks in advance.
1. I've shown the devices.
Yes, you've shown your "devices"
2. Parts #'s and everything required to replicate the experiments has been provided from the start.
Yes, and no-one cares what part numbers you need to build a stupid metal box that doesn't do anything. And, again and again this is made clear to you, but it doesn't sink in. You keep on burbling "I provided the part numbers" as if that mattered to anyone.
3. You're a fool if you think academic scientists have not replicated it when I get ~ 100,000 web page views per month.
SO THAT'S IT! Your claim that "numerous academic scientists" have replicated your thing is based solely on the number of pageviews you've got. So, when you said that "numerous academic scientists" had replicated your experiments you were flat-out lying. "Because I got x pageviews, therefore academic scientists have replicated my experiments."
That's pretty pathetic, even by your standards, Paul.
Seriously, you're saying because your silly blog gets pageviews, that means that academic scientists must have replicated your silly piezo tinkering?
You are more stupid and delusional than I believed possible. Well done!
I see yet another person asked Sean on facebook how the demo went, will any photos be posted, etc. Wow, Sean isn't saying much about all of this.
Does that surprise you, Paul? Almost five years after they claimed they had a perpetual motion machine ... they don't have a perpetual motion machine. Just like you!
Seconds ago Sean just wrote that he's sorry, but nobody took pictures or photos of the recent demo. :-( Oh well. Hmmm, seems like some secrecy going on in there, LOL.
[cont.] sorry, meant to write "pictures or videos"
Yeah, Paul, we're all on tenterhooks here. "Have a bunch of con-artist clowns really discovered perpetual motion or not?"
http://www.iol.ie/~inscc/My_Orbo_Blog/Blog/Entries/2010/11/9_Proto_Board.html
Phil Watson writes after a long time. He may show us some graphs.
What happened to the SS demo ? Anyone attended ? Plz share.
I wasn't at the Nov 13th event. Like all others on the SKDB, I'm waiting to hear what happened.
Hugh.
Of course. Busy working on that heater. How's that going, by the way?
The analogy “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” comes to mind.
Steorn urgently need a product launch to start earning royalties that will help dig Irish finances out of the big black hole that currently exists. It is possible that Steorn will be the largest corporate tax payer in the Irish Republic in the years to come.
No. No it isn't. There is no chance whatsoever of that happening.
Steorn doesn't do anything. It has no products apart from basic probes that you can buy cheaper from a more reputable, full-service supplier, and no prospect of creating any.
If Steorn did what it has claimed to do, and make a working perpetual motion machine, then the whole notion of money and taxes would be instantly irrelevant.
Blogger blogtrotter said...
I wasn't at the Nov 13th event. Like all others on the SKDB, I'm waiting to hear what happened.
Hugh.
6:56 AM
Hugh, why didn't you go? When do you expect to get your OEDU board?
Don't be a slave to the old clock - as the Tailor once said :-)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I deleted your vile comment, Ben. I think you know why. Keep a civil tongue in tha empty head of yours, please.
Hugh, you know the truth. You know you've lied. You never tried to make a "heater" or a "phone charger". You know you didn't. You never "got 300%" from a magic Steorn device. You lied about that, too.
You lied and lied and lied and you're still lying. To yourself. To everyone.
You're a liar, Hugh.
Why did you push this "Demo at STEORN offices", Hugh? You never had any intention of going to it. You never really cared. Why is that, Hugh? Why do you not care about magic perpetual motion being made real, and demonstrated? What sort of twisted logic is this?
What have you been doing with the various Steorn gadgets you got, Hugh? You've told us again and again how it's SOOOOOOO EASY to make magic perpetual motion devices out of them!
But, you don't, do you, Hugh. You just lie about it. You lie about having these things, you lie about results you say you've got out of them, and you lie about what you say you're going to do with them.
That's why you say it's SOOOOOOO EASY to make a heater and a mobile phone charger out of your magic Steorn devices, but you don't do it.
You don't have any Steorn devices.
You know they don't do what you say they do.
You know you can't make them do anything.
You know you haven't put a minute or an ounce of effort into making a heater or a mobile phone charger.
But you're happy to lie about all of those things.
You like telling lies about Steorn's magic perpetual motion devices, don't you, Hugh?
Why is that?
It's a real shame your claims aren't true, Hugh, isn't it? If your heroes over in the Docklands had a real working perpetual motion machine, then no-one would be jeering at you and calling you a pathetic, gullible, lying fool.
But, the sad truth is what it is.
Ben sounds like a ill-bred kid full of anger, but he is right about Steorn and its believers: if they have OU, why not close the loop?
If Steorn said that they had an odd result in their laboratory but can't scale it up, but are still trying, at least that would be honest (assuming that is what they have - I am just guessing); instead, they claim OU, and their True Believers claim OU, but, as the unpleasant Ben points out, believers like Hugh do not seem to care.
Hugh must know that the 'OU' is really something that is not that big a deal.
What?! a deleted comment?
Don't you know Craig will all over you for your 'jackbooted' oppression.
What? It was a FE skeptic? Oh that will be fine then.
LOL at the claims made by the freetards and the total lack of proof forthcoming. If FE is a reality, why is it NOT ONE of you freejects can show a convincing proof?
Really, Why? What is hold up?
All this frivolity aside, Hugh there doesn't seem to be much in the way of progress here.
blogtrotter said...
I deleted your vile comment, Ben. I think you know why. Keep a civil tongue in tha empty head of yours, please.
Why? Did he call you empty headed?
Well, it was a non-event. This was to be expected. I am predicting that Steorn will die in 2011 or at least cease to exist as a functioning company with offices. They will be reduced to a web page, an email address, and Sean's cell phone number.
I suppose that the die hard Steorn supporters will still clinging on to hope, but that's all they will have.
MileHigh
So when do the boards start shipping?
Soon? (smirk)
Hugh, you seem to be involved with Steorn, what is the hold up with releasing the boards?
Did you test one before backing their claim on video?
Hugh, you've been rather quiet about when you might get an OEDU board to play with. It's been almost two months since you did your testing at Steorn's place. October came and went without any boards, and November's soon to be gone as well. That's kind of a long time for them to get you a board of your own. I'd have thought they would have wanted to get boards out right away to people like you and Phil after you guys spoke up for them on their video. You haven't by any chance received a letter from Steorn like this have you?
Thank you again for your interest in the Orbo Evaluation and Development System.
Due to supply constraints we have prioritised the applications received. For logistical reasons the first group to receive Evaluation Units are drawn from those based in Ireland and the UK.
As additional Evaluation Units become available we will facilitate applicants from other regions.
We appreciate your patience and we will be in touch soon with an update.
Best regards,
The Steorn Team
Paul Lowrance is a crank. Sean McCarthy is a criminal. Steorn has nothing and never will have anything. I only stick around so I can be informed of the trial date.
[p1 of 2]
Great news! It's slow here, so I'd like to post this bit of news regarding my diode research. Someone who claims to be a EE and also has a PhD in physics found me on Hugh's blog site here, and contacted me via email. He's provided his 1st and last name, location, and said if I google his name that it will show the company he works for, which he's described. I haven't checked that out, as I'm not nosy enough yet. Anyhow, he just emailed his preliminary measurements of a diode producing 450mV, and gave me permission to post his results so long as I do not reveal his identity --> [see next post]
[p2 of 2]
EE with PhD in physics confirms results
Now this is only the start of his measurements, and it appears he's going to order diodes and piezo elements, and conduct more elaborate measurements.
And the delusions roll on. Alert the press when you have experiments that actually show diodes, not Mr. Hand, moving/sorting energy by themselves.
BTW: Which side of the diode is supposed to be the higher energy end? Is it the anode or the cathode? Then ask yourself why you think that end is the higher energy side and not the other.
Maybe, just maybe if you contemplate those questions you will finally figure out why your diode energy harvesting scheme can never work. Most likely you won't.
LOL, poor pseudosceptics, posting gibberish ambiguous unscientific arm-waving chitchat, crossing their fingers readers will think they know what they're talking about. Poor pseudosceptics :-(((
I would ignore all of these moletrap LOL pseudosceptics.
Unbiased people: Go ask any academic scientist if a single diode or piezo element that's contained in thick closed metal shielding and up to 2 feet of thermal shielding will produce *DC* power in rural areas, and even underground in rural areas.
Ah, and now it appears a EE who also has a PhD in physics has done some preliminary experiments that so far confirm my claims.
And if you're an academic scientist, then by all means contact me if you're interested in doing these simple experiments. There are reasons why this effect has not been discovered yet, due to the disturbance effect.
Click on my name in this post to go to my website, and then click on "Contact me" in the upper left part of the web page.
Also this EE who has a PhD in physics (his claim) provided some helpful information. He said that photomultiplier tubes show this same disturbance effect I've been blogging about for ages, which is they are well known for being sensitive to 'disturbance'. He said that one time he saturated a photomultiplier and it took a week of it sitting >>>in the dark to recover<<<.
Hello? That's exactly the same effect I've been documenting with diodes and piezo elements.
No higher energy side to the diode means no energy harvest from ambient. You can't identify a higher energy side because there isn't one. And by the same token there is no energy harvest from ambient.
The guy who claims to be a EE with a PhD in physics wrote this morning saying the diode current went down to ~ 10pA. I replied that he should expect it to continue dropping since he's handled it and done a lot of things that will disturb such a component. After it's disturbed, the component will slowly recover after placing it within sufficient shielding and leaving it alone. :-)
He said so far he's been unable to explain this with conventional physics. Again, he's a EE (Electrical Engineer) and a PhD Physicist. He'll discover that the more the components are shielded and untouched, the more power they'll produce, and without becoming disturbed.
How much continuous power production do these experiments demonstrate?
How much greater is that than an antenna of similar size used as a control experiment? You do run control experiments don't you?
Paul, if you want 'unscientific', then some lying quack rambling about what he says some unnamed "academic EE" says about his stupid tinkering around with piezo devices is right up there.
If there was anything remotely true or accurate about your claims, then you'd let us know. There isn't. Just a sad man playing with electronic components and making up fairytales.
Ben, the components aren't the only things associated with those experiments that are disturbed.
I'm sure we all remember the last time the world came to know of an unprecedented breakthrough through some guy not quoting a non-existent person (with impressive credentials!) on someone else's blog. Just wait for the royalty cheques to roll in there, Paul.
On another note, November has drawn to a close. And no one seems to have received one of those wonderful OEDU boards that Steorn said would be available in October. It's starting to look like someone let all that great smelling overunity out.
Hugh, why haven't you received one yet? Steorn had pictures of at least four boards lined up back in September.
And it is *bitterly* cold in Darmstadt right now. Well below freezing, with snow on the way. Hugh was going to build himself a magic-powered heater, because he said it was "Soooo easy!"
I wonder why he didn't. Oh, no, wait. I don't.
Ben, it's obviously too cold for the batteries. Non-working PM Orbo doesn't work because the lights are too hot. Non-working eOrbo doesn't work because the audience isn't right. And non-working ssOrbo doesn't work because the batteries are too cold.
But ... what if you had all three of them together? I bet that would take up a lot more space!
The SKDB is doing their version of the board. Components have all been shipped and are being assembled.
We're getting those 'home made' versions while others get them direct from Steorn.
Yes, it is cold, but I've been too occupied with inventing to notice. Watch this space for news thereof, oh ye oh little faith.
This sounds as some form of "velvet" revolt in SKDB. Is is really revolt or Steorn is starting pay to non-paid SKDB staff?
when is anonymous ben going to get tired of talking to himself?
Hugh, why would anyone have "faith" in you? You're an eejit who makes up silly stories about free energy.
Paul, you're in the weird position of coming to whinge and lie on Hugh's blog because you don't allow any dissenting comments on your own. How stupid is that? Why, it's as stupid as a man who thinks he's made a perpetual motion machine out of a piezo device, and thinks that people will believe him when he makes up transparently stupid fantasies about academic scientists validating his perpetual motion stories.
Looks like the EE who has a PhD in physics (his claim) is convinced about what he’s measuring, and is now in the process of shopping for Hammond chassis, LED’s, piezo elements, and various other parts. Here's the email I just sent him -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/12/01/email-to-ee-who-has-phd-in-physics/
And there in black and white Paul describes in more than sufficient detail the complete futility of his experiments. The comic tragedy is that even after it has been explained to him over and over, Paul still doesn't understand it. Paul thinks he's got a revolution in science when what he's done is a built a bad experiment he doesn't understand.
Hugh, what is this about the SKDB doing their own version of the board? What are the reasons for that, and how does that version differ from the one Steorn keeps promising but never delivers?
I remember Paul finally admitting that he based his claims that "numerous academic scientists" had evaluated his silly piezo thing on the number of pageviews his blog got. That was funny, in the usual sad way that Paul's antics are funny.
Now, Paul claims that this guy who claims he has a PhD has evaluated his piezo system and taken detailed measurements -- accurate to within an electronVolt! -- but, oh, yeah, now he needs the shopping list of components again for some reason.
Sort of how Hugh doesn't have one of the Orbo boards he claims to have disassembled and reassembled and measured.
You clowns can't even keep your own stupid stories straight over the course of a few posts.
Incorrect anonymous ben the liar.
Ben, I conclude that Paul isn't so much a deliberate liar as mentally screwed-up. He expresses both poor comprehension of the subject material and obsession with getting one up on academics and professionals who seem to intimidate him.
LOL, anonymous ben pretending to be different people as he talks to himself. I get a lot of these pseudosceptics pretending to post comments under different user names, but the IP address come from the same location. Poor pseudosceptics. :-(((
Yeah, Paul, that's exactly right! I post under different accounts just to interfere with your legions of academic scientists who are proving the impossible thanks to your piezo device!
How's that going, by the way? Keeping you warm this winter?
Keep on LOLing, saddo.
Ben, you better watch out or Paul will use his super stealth reverse ping on you and give you cancel.
Is the super-reverse-ping device powered by piezo magic?
It's powered by piezos, or pretzels, or animal research waste products. No one is really sure because it relies on out of body and/or out of mind experiences.
LOL, psycho ben still talking to himself?
Anyhow, some great news. I just confirmed the identity of the guy who's been replicating my diode experiments and who claims to be a EE with a PhD in Physics. He is as he's claimed. Details -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/12/02/ee-with-phd-in-physics-confirmed/
That's really impressive stuff, Paul. "This guy, I swear he exists, really, well, I found out his name .. well, not really, but I think I know what his name is ... and, if that is his name, then, he's a real PhD! I swear!"
That's Just SCIENCE!
Do you always make up quotes? I'm beginning to think you're incapable of telling the truth. Anonymous ben, father of lies.
It's called *paraphrasing*. I am taking the substance of what you said and rendering it in a humorous fashion to show what a pathetic clown you are. You claim that some guy you claim to have talked to really is a PhD! Brilliant! Who cares? You still haven't rewritten the laws of physics. You're still just a saddo playing with electronic components you don't understand.
We're getting those 'home made' versions while others get them direct from Steorn.
Really? Are you saying definitively that boards have shipped?
Funny that after Steorn used you they can't even get you a board. You delusional apologist crack me up.
Incorrect, what you do is not paraphrasing.
As far as you falsely believing I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to diode and piezo research, that's hilarious. I tried my best to get you enter into a mathematical discussion on semiconductor physics. Do you know anything thermionic emission, diffusion, work function, electron affinity, intrinsic carrier density, band gap, semiconductor permittivity, electron mobility? Hmmm? Of course not. You're pathetic poor pseudosceptic. Such knowledge is a requirement to write numerical mathematical analysis, which I wrote long ago in an attempt to predict the DC voltage produced by diodes. I'd be more than happy to email anyone the source code and math of my work.
Anonymous ben, describe what the following is -->
Aast = 4 PI q m k^2 / h^3
In case you don't know much about semiconductor math (based on QM), m is electron mass ~= 9.11e-31 kg. Anyone physicist should the rest.
Awww, so sorry google won't help you there. Poor pseudosceptic! :-(((
Yeah, Paul. Got a working perpetual motion machine yet? No.
Do you understand, Paul, that this isn't about me? I'm just some guy taking the piss out of you. And you could make me shut up, permanently, by demonstrating what you say to be true.
But it's not true. You're a pathetic, delusional liar making up fantasies about "academic scientists" and "an EE with a PhD" and piezos and diodes that don't do anything special.
You're not going to change the world or rewrite the laws of physics by LOLing and whining and trying to snipe at me. Go make your perpetual motion machine, saddo, and come back when you do. That'll make a difference. Until then, you're a pathetic clown who people laugh at and/or pity. Clear on that?
You keep saying "pseudoskeptic", Paul. You know that everyone's a pseudoskeptic except you, Hugh, Sean, and some other sad liars who say they have perpetual motion machines but DON'T. So why do you keep saying it? People don't believe you because you present untrue statements as fact, without supporting evidence. That's all.
Oh anon ben, looks like you're wrong again. Maybe I do know what I'm doing. The answer to my question is that it's Richardson constant. What's the matter, you don't even recognize Richardson constant? How about Richardson velocity?
You see, it's not all about me when pseudosceptics such as yourself start telling lies about my research.
You say I can't demonstrate a perpetual motion machine. Another lie. I've provided all of the part #'s and instructions. The truth is you lie on your a** not doing anything when other scientists are working hard. I've invited you replicate it countless times.
As far as you calling everyone else a pseudoskeptic, that's wrongly insulting to people. Most people are skeptical, not a pseudoskeptic. Look up the difference so you'll know who you are. You're also a perpetual liar who's too afraid to replicate anything to see for yourself.
Yes, Paul, that's more weeping and crying and being really angry and upset with me.
It's not a perpetual motion machine, though, is it? You don't have one of those. And you never will. You'll have a shed full of electronic components and fantasies about "numerous academic scientists" who don't exist, and you'll yell and cry that the entire world except for your cabal of sad-sack losers are "pseudoskeptics".
But you don't have a perpetual motion machine. And you never will.
This is my absolute favorite Paulism:
"You say I can't demonstrate a perpetual motion machine. Another lie. I've provided all of the part #'s and instructions"
YES, PAUL, WE KNOW YOU'VE PROVIDED PART NUMBERS.
They are NOT the numbers of parts of a perpetual motion machine, you utter moron. Your shopping list of everyday components CANNOT be used to make a perpetual motion machine. If they could, you would have made one. You haven't. You do not have a perpetual motion machine. You have a list of part numbers. That's very different.
LOL
Well, I think it's kind of funny that you've spent five years of your life making a metal box that doesn't do anything. I fail to see why you do, though.
[cont.] so sorry anon ben, but you sure wouldn't know because you haven't built it. Like I've said, I've provided part #'s, and have shown the photos of my diode arrays. Numerous academic scientists have replicated and verified.
What you've proven is that you know nothing about physics. If you think I'm a liar, then replicate it. Or accept my legal bet, but you'll need to provide your full identity because I don't do business with people who hide behind an anonymous name, anonymous ben.
ps, anonymous ben, I do have to thank you for one thing. I'm sure it was your nasty lies and attacks on my research that help encourage the EE with a PhD in physics to contact me, who btw found me at this blog site here. :-) Look it up, pal, human psychology 101. Thank you very much. It's called compassion, and it does influence peoples decision, thankfully. So thanks for the lies and attacks.
"Like I've said, I've provided part #'s, and have shown the photos of my diode arrays."
Yes, Paul. You've provided part numbers and shown photos of useless things that don't DO ANYTHING.
"Numerous academic scientists have replicated and verified."
No, they haven't. Not a single "academic scientist" anywhere in the world has replicated your system and said that yes, you're right, you have a working perpetual motion machine.
Why do you expect anyone to believe this nonsense? The consequences of "numerous academic scientists" verifying perpetual motion would be so earth-shattering, so enormous, that you wouldn't be bleating on someone else's blog and talking about your part numbers. You'd have changed the world.
You haven't.
Oh no, the almighty anonymous ben who's afraid to death to reveal his identity has spoken. He says no academic scientists have replicated it. LOL
All academic scientists are more than welcome to get my email address from my website and contact me. I do *not* sell anything. You're more than welcome to replicate the simple experiments. Shield the passive component as much as you like and for as long as you like. You will discover as others have that they do indeed produce DC power.
Paul, your claim that "numerous academic scientists" have independently verified that your device produces perpetual motion is not true.
Not a single academic scientist has reproduced your diode/piezo device and agreed with your assertion that it produces free energy. Not one. Not a PhD, not someone who came to this blog, or your blog. Not someone with a name, not someone who is "furious" at you for using his name. No-one.
If your claim were true, the universe would be a very different place from what it is. You don't understand that.
[cont.] BTW, I'd imagine that the EE who has a PhD in physics wouldn't mind other *academic* scientists contacting him. Therefore, any academic scientists who are interested in joining this research please contact me. Although that's entirely up to the EE PhD Physicists.
They need to do research? But you said they had already verified your perpetual motion machine! Why not lead with that news, and do more research later? You've done the most important part!
And why do you need MORE scientists when you already have verification from "numerous academic scientists"? I mean, unless you're lying.
You already know the answer that I've told you countless times. You're just trying to cause problems. Again, they do not know where the energy comes from or how why it's happening. All they know is that the shielded undisturbed passive components can charge capacitors, they can produce DC current through a resistive load. That's it, okay pal. Got it, again?
In case you don't know what I just wrote, it means they don't where the energy comes from. It could be dark matter or dark energy or dark flow for all they know.
Paul, again, let's be quite clear. The number of "academic scientists" who have replicated your piezo toy and drawn your conclusions about magic free energy being created by it is ZERO. No-one has. Not an academic physicist, not an academic EE, not a man with a PhD. No-one.
Paul Lowrance you said:
"You say I can't demonstrate a perpetual motion machine. Another lie. "
Are you saying that you can demonstrate a working perpetual motion machine? Now that would be quite extraordinary. How much continuous output power does your working perpetual motion machine produce?
ben said...
They need to do research? But you said they had already verified your perpetual motion machine! Why not lead with that news, and do more research later? You've done the most important part!
And why do you need MORE scientists when you already have verification from "numerous academic scientists"? I mean, unless you're lying.
Or perhaps he is merely insane. Perhaps he doesn't comprehend that if "academic scientists" had working perpetual motion experiments they would be all over the news. They wouldn't be contemplating whether they are welcome to contact a very confused and obsessed tinkerer.
World Cup Football goes to Russia and Qatar. Both are oil rich states that can afford to build brand new infrastructure for the events. So no one told them about Steorn and how it might be wise to hang onto their cash in sovereign wealth funds.
So far it's ~ 5 to 10 volts @ 10pA >>>per component<<<, and experiments indicate that smaller components produce more power. At a conservative 1um spacing you can fit enough to produce 10000 watts in a small 10 cm cubic square.
Presently the research is working with one to 10 components, so it's low power experiment for now, but easy to measure. Reason being, because there's a lot to understand what's happening, especially with the 10pA effect.
Perhaps he doesn't comprehend that if "academic scientists" had working perpetual motion experiments they would be all over the news.
Incorrect. You don't understand the situation, and you don't understand academic science community. If it was a device you plop on a desk that can power your home, then yes, academic science community would want to be all over it if it's open-source, but that's not the case here. It would take trillions of microscopic components to produce usable power, but the 10pA effect presently prohibits devices being connected in-parallel, so it would be one heck of a design breakthrough to overcome the limitation, and hence the necessity for the research.
No, Paul. So far it is ZERO (0), and there it will remain. Your devices, your components, whatever you call them, do not produce any energy. Your breath, your jiggling, your observational errors, all of those things might explain the miniscule, 5 X 10^12 Watts that you think you're seeing. But you make up a lot of stuff in general, telling absurd stories about "numerous academic scientists" and all that, so there's no need to even look for observational error in what you're doing. You just make it up.
What you do not have is any sort of device that produces any energy without an external source.
Paul, there is not a single "academic scientist" who would look at a homemade component set-up that sometimes produces 0.000000000001 of a Watt and put it down to anything other than experimental error. No-one would. Only you.
That's why you can talk and talk and talk about not one, not two, but NUMEROUS academic scientists and not one of them is willing to endorse your claims in even the most cautious fashion -- or even mention them. You literally don't have the name of a single scientist, EE, PhD, anyone who will even admit to knowing who you are.
I just copied & pasted a recent email I sent to the EE with PhD in Physics (confirmed) -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/12/02/email-to-ee-with-phd-in-physics/
I have the full names of numerous academic scientists who've replicated my experiments who know I'm telling the truth. :-)
That really bugs you, doesn't it anonymous ben, LOL.
This is kind of like your "but I have the part numbers" chorus.
No-one cares about the part numbers for an inert box that does nothing. If you had evidence of something that did something, then the part numbers would be relevant. You don't. They're not.
No-one cares about your delusional email to an imaginary EE PhD Scientist who you made up. If you had an email FROM someone who had validated your work, or thought it worthy of further investigation, or thought there was something there, then you'd be on to something. You don't. You're not.
btw, your math is incorrect. Last time I checked 5V * 10pA = 50pW (5E-11 watts), not 5E-12 watts. At 1um spacing that comes to 10000 watts for a 10 cm (~ 4 inch) cubic square.
How many names, Paul? A precise number, please.
Paul, if what you were saying is true, why are you whining and bitching at me on someone else's blog instead of changing the world? If what you say is true, then you are costing human lives every second that you withhold this information from the world.
And your "numerous academic scientists" are complicit.
Why do you hate the world, Paul? Why are you killing people?
You want a name, anonymous ben? Thomas Valone, PhD, academic scientist, emailed me saying he measured over 400mV from a single diode. Anonymous ben, very few people would dare come forward so soon for such as scary claim. Most academic scientists would want to know where the energy comes from and how before making such a public statement, and for obvious reasons.
ps, you're trying to hard. They might notice. ;-)
Oh, that's hilarious! This Thomas Valone, Paul?
This Thomas Valone?
Yeah, he's right up your alley all right! Do you have an endorsement from David Icke, too?
Anyway, he's not an academic scientist. Count still at 0.
How many, Paul. HOW MANY?
Give a single number, Paul. Give a number. Go on. Why won't you give a number?
If what you say is true, then you are costing human lives every second that you withhold this information from the world.
LOL, you're such an idiot, sorry, but it's so true. Ever heard of taking a rest, a vacation, to recuperate, to rejuvenate, huh? You idiot! LOL You're good entertainment though. I work 5 to 7 days per week, nearly 52 weeks per year, pal. What are you doing, besides spending your life trying your absolute best to destroy someones research. You're such an idiot you have no idea how much you've help already. Most people can't stand the likes of your kind. :-(((
It's this Thomas Valone -->
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Valone
Hmm, looks like he has a Masters and PhD. Awww, poor pseudosceptics. :-(((
This Thomas Valone, Paul? He's your "academic scientist"?
Because you think the "Integrity Research Institute" is an academic body? Really?
So, that's zero "academic scientists" so far. You said "numerous". I think you weren't telling the truth.
Yeah, Paul, that's the Thomas Valone all right. A loony quack just like you, only with a PhD. That does not make you an "academic scientist", but you knew that.
Total of academic scientists identified by Paul so far: 0.
How many to go, Paul? How many of these "numerous academic scientists" are there? Just give the number, OK?
No, anonymous ben, I already told you he is not the EE with a PhD that I have been talking to.
The last time I talked to Thomas Valone was last year.
I'll make it very clear for you. The EE with a PhD who I have been talking with is *not* involved in free energy research, and he has written a lot of scientific papers on LEDs and lasers.
Poor pseudosceptic. :-(((
There's a EE in Spain. Another EE in Sweden. And another EE who has not revealed his location. And Thomas Valone, PhD. And the recent EE with PhD in physics. Need more? I'd have to look through my emails, but who cares at this point.
Poor pseudosceptic. :-(((
OK, Paul. So the people who have verified your device are Thomas Valone and the mysterious unnamed doesn't-exist EE PhD Science Guy.
And, even Thomas Valone is someone you talked to a year ago. He hasn't actually built, measured, and verified your unmeasurably-small-energy effect. No-one has.
So, there aren't "numerous academic scientists". There isn't one. If there were, I think we'd have heard of it elsewhere rather than a sad-sack posting on another sad-sack's blog, no? Or is that the way you think ground-breaking, universe-changing research is done?
One, two, THREE EEs! All around the world! None with names. They have countries, now, which is great.
Are they EEs or "academic scientists"?
So, five people have independently verified the production of energy without a known source, and they're all playing coy. They don't want to publish anything. They want all information about this revolutionary universe-changer to be published either on your ridiculous, unreadable eyesore of a blog, or in the comments section on Hugh's.
That's how research is done, right?
Oh, wait: 1 EE in Spain. 1 in Sweden. 1 in an undisclosed location. One who has a PhD in Physics but also lives in an undisclosed location. And the ridiculous quack Thomas Valone.
That's a count of zero academic scientists, Paul. And no indication of what these mystery men are actually saying about your piezo playtime. Just that you've talked to them.
I'm just a big mean ol' pseudoskeptic because I don't automatically believe your ridiculous made up stories, I giess.
LOL away, Paul. How many academic scientists, Paul? Give me a number. Go on. So far, it's zero.
I'll save you a world of pain and ulcers, anonymous ben. Go ask 3 well respected academic scientists if they would publicly publish the results along with their identify if they saw a shielded diode producing several volts @ 10pA, but they had no idea where the energy came from or how.
I challenge you. Go ahead, ask them, LOL. ... you ding dong!
That scenario is impossible, Paul, because any academic scientist worth his salt would recognize that a production of power that microscopically low from a setup like yours is down to experimental error.
If you have actually consulted with any academic scientists, that's what they told you. But you don't hear things you don't like.
Presumably this is why people are "furious" with you for revealing their names in connection with your nonsense.
I already gave the full name of one academic scientist (only because he's already in the free energy community) who has PhD, pal. I could care a less if you don't think he's a well respected scientist. He has a masters and PhD. Got it!
That's one name I gave you already, pal. I can't give out the names of the others without their permission because I'm not a scum bucket like you. Got it!
No, Paul, he's not an "academic scientist". Having a PhD does not make you an "academic scientist". Having a teaching or research position at an accredited academic institute does.
So, you've revealed one name. And he's a quack like you who makes up stories about perpetual motion. And then you blithered about a contingent of mysterious Europeans without names or supporting information.
Number of academic scientists identified: zero.
The number of academic scientists you claim there are? Oh, right, you won't say. Just "numerous".
Do you think this is how science gets done, Paul? Vague, shifty replies .. anonymity .. made-up stories ... refusal to commit to numbers ...?
That scenario is impossible, Paul, because any academic scientist worth his salt would recognize that a production of power that microscopically low from a setup like yours is down to experimental error.
Incorrect. You can't even recognize Richardson constant equation. Who are you to tell people this? You're a ding dong if you think it's difficult to measure 1/2 to 7.2 volts on a 5uF low leakage capacitor charged! Ding Dong!!! Go ask any EE you ding dong, LOL.
Furthermore, a lot of experiments have no active components, yet they charge up the low leakage shielded capacitor enough to flash an LED.
Why don't you have their permission, Paul? What have these people said to you? Have they actually said words to the effect of "yes, I have verified that energy is produced using this device, not from a known external source, but I'm not willing to go on the record yet?"
How many people have said something along those lines, Paul? How many people have unambiguously said that they have confirmed your free-energy results, using your rig, but asked not to be identified?
I'm going with zero. It's a familiar number, dealing with your nonsense. Zero energy, zero credibility, zero clue.
Are you denying the existence of experimental error, Paul? You should ask one of your numerous academic scientists about the concept. Pick one! Any one!
You'd think that if you had actually talked to "numerous academic scientists" about your rig, at least one of them would have said, you know, with a rig like this an "output" of 5 X 10^-12 W is probably due to experimental error. Strange that no-one said that.
Unless, of course, your "numerous academic scientists" are all figments of your imagination, or quacks like Thomas Varone.
You don't even know what "academic scientist" means -->
American Heritage Dictionary:
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."
He has a Masters in Physics from the State University of NY at Buffalo, and a PhD in General Engineering from Kennedy-Western University. I'd call him an expert, pal. The only problem here is you. So you can't count. I've provided the full name of one academic scientist. The others don't want their names public right now until we figure out where the energy comes from and how.
No, Paul, that's not the definition of "academic scientist", is it? You didn't look that up under "A", did you? You looked it up under "S", for "Scientist".
So, just another little lie about your "numerous academic scientists", but that's really not important.
You don't have a perpetual motion machine. You say you do, but you do not. You have poorly-conceived experiments and a deep desire to get certain results.
You claim to have support from the academic science community, but you do not. You have the support of the usual kooks and quacks who desperately want there to be perpetual motion.
Post a Comment
<< Home