OEDU board offer by STEORN - and Youtube video on main page now!!
It looks like they made good their promise to officially release the test board offer in October - the Halloween release. Our video is up there too: views shot up from 10,000 to 15,000 overnight!:
http://www.steorn.com/
.
http://www.steorn.com/
.
posted by blogtrotter | 1:57 AM
217 Comments:
Most company's consider release to mean product available for purchase. Steorn thinks it means changing their web site to say they'll maybe ship something to customers of their choosing if they so choose in another month or so.
I hope you realize that even with the ridiculous equipment requirements they set, Steorn still have not properly specified what is required to evaluate the board.
I hope you also realize that Steorn's claim of time variant magnetic interactions is total nonsense. There is no such thing.
Steorn are exercising magnetics in the non-linear region near saturation. That's no more time variant than a diode is.
Join the SkDB under this offer and get the answers on cheaper workarounds for the testing process and on how time dependent effect are indeed key, saturation being just one of them.
Time dependent is not time variant.
Non-linear is not time variant.
Systems that have very large non-linearities like ones that saturate very square magnetic materials are easily configured in circuits where limited dynamic range of the measurement system can easily result in large measurement errors. They no more make free energy than does biasing a tunnel diode.
When all is said and done, the 308% you think you got will prove to be 100% less losses.
Oh the bliss of ignorance! Boy are you moletrappers in ]for a rude awakening. Hee hee - can't wait for that!
Revisit it in a year, or five or ten Craig. There still won't be a working free energy machine from Steorn or anyone else.
Congratulations to Steorn on their latest achievements!! Although I would disagree that time variant magnetic interactions is the only way. My magnetic theory, which is based on conventional physics equations, shows two methods. The first method is magnetic viscosity, which is what is referred to as time variant magnetic interactions. The second method is guided dipole rotation. Guided dipole rotation was discovered by companies in the early 2000's. I've detailed all of this in the blog.
"Join the SkDB under this offer and get the answers on cheaper workarounds for the testing process "
WTF!
Right, buy now, get details of what you bought later.
Yet another scam supporter like Craig.
As far as the hits on the video, let's face it, most of it is debunkers sending the link to friends to they can have a good laugh. I know I sent it out. Some of my friends refuse to believe Steorn is anything but a performance group stuck on a single joke.
You mean pseudoskeptics, not debunkers. In order to debunk you have to present something that's unambiguous such as math or experiments.
Paul Lowrance, the First Law of Energy is as definite as anything can get. Steorn claim to violate it. Steorn have never shown any evidence that supports their claim. Their own jury patiently waited two and a half years before giving up on them.
Thus far you've presented ambiguous information, anonymous.
Sean suggested in his last speech at the Waterways in Dublin that maybe the energy might come dark matter. That's not a violation of CoE. And besides, last time I checked, humanity did not create the Universal laws, so get off your high horse and stop suggesting CoE is an ultimate fact. Take a look at how long Classical Mechanics lasted before crumbing with the onslaught of experiments in 1900's from low temperature to nanoscopic experiments. QM has it's days numbered.
As far as the jury, they've proven nothing. "Tired of waiting" is not scientific data, nor does it debunk anything.
Yes, Steorn made good on what they said they'd do. The pseudoskeptic establishment defenders will never admit this though.
They also don't ask obvious questions like "Why would Steorn subject ANYTHING to testing by other people If it did not work?"
That one REALLY get's em :)
And nice to see the "You can't do that because of the law of BLAH!" mob have turned out in full force.
According to these guys we already know EVERYTHING about physics and the universe and there is nothing else remarkable to EVER find.
Arrogant doesn't adequately describe these insects.
Paul Lowrance the Gap of the Gods argument is a classic fallacy. CoE remains the law until disproven.
It wasn't up to the jury to disprove Steorn. It was up to Steorn to prove their claim to the jury. The jury's responsibility was to fairly evaluate and test what Steorn provided as evidence in support of Steorn's claims. In some two and a half years Steorn never showed the least bit of credible evidence to the jury that Steorn could produce energy as they claimed they could and had previously "always proven to work". And so the jury disbanded with the conclusion that Steorn failed to demonstrate the production of energy. Steorn failed to offer any evidence challenging CoE as they claimed to violate, or of any new energy source.
In more than a year since the jury disbanded, and Steorn claim they solved their problems. Steorn have shown nothing that credibly demonstrates energy production.
Simply and succinctly: Steorn fail.
Craig, Steorn declared they had a CoE violating process that they had "always proven to work". That was a bald face lie as has been much that Steorn have said, including their promise some four years ago to teach you members of their developer's club how to make free energy, their promise to you three years ago to show video of a working PM Orbo, their promise a year ago to show academic and engineering validations of the eOrbo, and of course their promise from the beginning to publish whatever the jury report, no matter what.
How you manage to be confused on how real science works when it has been explained to you many times is an amazing mystery. Science evolves and advances on the basis of evidence. Steorn don't offer evidence. Steorn never have. Steorn make unsubstantiated outrageous claims.
Actually numerous scientists have verified the Steorn claim; e.g., Dr. Hugh Deasy, Phil Watson.
Paul Lowrance vague comments on a video that offer conclusions from an undisclosed experiment do not a validation make.
Try again.
Anonymous, I'll tell you something I've blogged about for years, but you'll never hear it out of Sean's mouth: Heaven forbid if a company string people along in order to prevent companies from developing competing technology. Welcome to the world of business, anonymous. You confuse business with science. Steorn is a business. Hello?? When you can look at it as such in an objective manner, then all of Steorn's actions will make sense.
ps, I've done the measurements, brother. It's real!
"Paul Lowrance vague comments on a video that offer conclusions from an undisclosed experiment do not a validation make. "
And there's your problem. *You* have not seen the measurements. Dr. Hugh knows, and you are essentially trying to discredit Hugh and the others. You can cry all day that Dr. Hugh has been vague. Did it occur to you he's under a NDA? Hmmm? I shouldn't have to explain the obvious to you all the time.
Steorn, a business??? ROFL, Steorn aren't a business matey, they are a joke, a worn one.
Science requires evidence. Steorn don't offer any. Fail.
You don't offer any evidence either. Your experiment descriptions are the worst kind of incomplete trash.
Oh, what a terrible pity it is! You think Steorn have Fire 2.0 but no one can offer any evidence because of Steorn's NDA. You may be interested in this lovely bridge I have for sale. It spans from Manhattan to Brooklyn.
"You don't offer any evidence either. Your experiment descriptions are the worst kind of incomplete trash."
For example? ... Yawn.
Diode free energy: Fail
Piezo free energy: Fail
Tiny Orbo free energy: Fail
Incorrect. Let me know when you're interested in replicating my diode or piezo element experiments. Numerous scientists, by profession, have replicated my claims, and they measured the DC current & voltage from highly shielded diodes and piezo elements. :-)
Regarding Steorn, here you go -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/11/01/steorn-is-a-business/
See you tomorrow, anonymous, you poor little devil.
ROFL! Voltage is neither energy nor power. Current is neither energy nor power.
You fail again.
"ROFL! Voltage is neither energy nor power. Current is neither energy nor power."
You're delusional. Show my quote where I said voltage is energy, or voltage is power, or current is energy, or current is power. You can't show my quote because I never said. You're either delusional, a liar, or both.
I've said countless times over the years that the highly shielded diodes & piezo elements produce a DC voltage across a load, that they produce DC current through a load. I've provided countless experimental details, giving the resistance, the voltage, the current, and further details.
I'm still waiting for you to back up your statement --> "Your experiment descriptions are the worst kind of incomplete trash." Explain in a coherent and technical fashion why you believe my experiments are the "the worst kind of incomplete trash." This is the 2nd time to ask you. You can't because there's nothing wrong with my experiments. What's wrong here is you. You are an exact match for a delusional pseudoskeptics. You talk big, as if you truly believe in your hand-waving methodology, that you don't need to prove anything you say, saying the experiments are trash, etc. etc., yet you can never provide any coherent unambiguous scientific data. The best your kind can muster up are comments such, "Their own jury patiently waited two and a half years before giving up on them." How sad that you believe that's unambiguous evidence.
Paul Lowrance you are a complete fruitcake. You can't even keep track of a simple thread when it is right in front of you.
All of your experiments including your diode experiments are a big joke. All of the energy, every last femtoJoule you think you harvest from diodes in your diode experiments comes from Mr. Hand. See if you can figure out why that is a hard fact. If you can't, and you probably won't despite how obvious it is, you can ponder whether your diodes are the only thing that's disturbed.
If you are still unclear about just how bad your experiments are, consider why they have never gotten any traction.
Another anonymous post filled with ambiguous hand-waving.
Again you can't even get your facts straight. One of many examples: Highly shielded piezo elements producing over 1 volt at 10 pA for well over several weeks alone before I ended the experiment. What's the matter, you can't do the math? That's 1V * 10pA * 2 weeks * 7 days / week * 24 hours / day * 3600 seconds / hour = 12 uJ. Awww, sorry your math is off by over 10000000000 times. :-(((
And gee, lets see, academic scientists have been able to detect the energy of a single 700nm photon for ages. I'll do the math for you. That comes to h * c / 700e-9 = 3e-19 joules. Lets see, 12e-6 J / 3e-19 J = 4e+16 times more energy. So please keep your lies to yourself that modern equipment can't *easily* measure over 5.5 volts @ 10 pA. You're showing your ignorance. ... Awww, poor pseudoskeptics.
I'll ask you again: Explain in a coherent and technical fashion why you believe my experiments are the "the worst kind of incomplete trash."
ROFL! You are totally fruit loops.
The anonymous crowd have appeared again. The anonymous cowards who have no backbone to put their name or moletrap username beside their own comments.
Pathetic, weak and most importantly of all.
FAIL
"The anonymous crowd have appeared again. The anonymous cowards who have no backbone to put their name or moletrap username beside their own comments.
Pathetic, weak and most importantly of all."
Says the scam supporter who has denied being Craig Brown as 007, FETruth, NewsEditor and I suspect several more sock puppets.
Hell, you even post here under at least two names, neither of which is Craig (smart as a bag of rocks) Brown.
Dolt.
My guess is that pseudoskeptics rarely give out their first & last name because they could easily get fired at work. What company would want to employee someone who continually attacks people who are trying to help this world.
So, Paul, got any appliances running on Steorn or magic diodes yet?
No?
Funny, that.
As stated countless times -->
Diodes & piezo elements have a major issue where it appears they disturb each other (Instability effect) when connected in-parallel. Although I have a setup where a single piezo inside a metal shield with a small pin hole will flash an LED when the entire unit is tilted. A tilt switch discharges a capacitor across an LED. The piezo element then charges the capacitor.
All of my Orbo replications were short lived. Most of the time the magnets broke off the spinning disc.
Orbo technology is owned by Steorn, and I made the decision months ago to focus on my own magnetic device, the Hue device.
Connect the dots. Maybe you'll understand the real world is not an ideal world as envisioned in your head. Go read some science history books to get a general idea how long it takes to prove big claims; e.g., Einstein took over a decade to prove gravity from the Sun bends star light.
"Funny, that."
ROFL!!! Of course they have a problem: They don't harvest any energy from the quantum background.
Yes, Paul someday you too can learn what noise is, and why every bit of the energy you think you are harvesting with your flaky diode and piezo rigs is all provided by Mr. Hand.
LOL, son, if you knew what you were saying. Here's an infinitesimal fraction of the math and numerical analysis I used to work on ages ago -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/11/03/diodes-thermal-noise-dirty-details/
Let me know if you ever want to enter into a *scientific* debate, rather than you're pseudoskeptic hand-waving ambiguous drivel. You poor little devil.
One of the problems some crazy people have is that they don't recognize that they are crazy.
What you call your research is laughable crap. Figure out why Mr. Hand is responsible for all the energy you think you harvest, and you will have learned something. Or keep living in your make believe world where what you think you know you can never quite make work.
Explain in a scientific manner why you believe "Mr. Hand" is responsible for the energy.
LOL! Your experiment descriptions already have explained that quite well.
Explain in a scientific manner why you believe "Mr. Hand" is responsible for the energy.
LOL
But now there's the exciting new 400Euro .... whatever it is ... that Steorn is saying, so your magic machine should be up and running soon, yeah?
And Deasy, for his part, doesn't share your scepticism. He doesn't think that making magic perpetual motion machines is hard at all. He said it's "sooo easy" and has committed himself to producing a phone charger and a heater running on magic Orbo free energy this year!
Care to place a small wager on either of you clowns actually producing a magic phone charger, heater, or anything else -- this year, or ever?
It's a bit perplexing as to how you expect people to respond "in a scientific manner" to a clown burbling about magic diodes and publishing links to an eyeball-searing website that consists of other clowns ranting about insane conspiracy theories and congratulating themselves for things they haven't done.
Come up with a machine that actually works, or some research done in a competent fashion, and describe it, instead of blustering and screaming and pointing to links on that stupid "globalfreeenergy" site as if that meant something. Or don't, and keep on cementing your already-safe reputation as just another loony quack.
Ewww, mr. hotshot anonymous ben is using big words now such as "clown." I'll challenge you in a scientific debate any day pal.
Anonymous ben wrote, "It's a bit perplexing as to how you expect people to respond "in a scientific manner"
It's no surprise that perplexes your little mind. The guy claims the energy from the shielded diodes comes from "My hand." It's sad how you pseudoskeptics are so unscientific with you hand-waving delusional mentality.
Anonymous ben wrote, "Care to place a small wager on either of you clowns actually producing a magic phone charger, heater, or anything else -- this year, or ever?"
Actually for years I've been trying to get you pseudoskeptics to accept a legal bet that my claims are correct. So all of a sudden you offer a childish bet, which btw demonstrates the level of your intelligence. I never said anything about "magic phone chargers" or any deadlines as to when Steorn or I will produce a product you can buy. My claim is a scientific claim; e.g., that shielded diodes or piezo elements produce current through a load. Anytime you want to accept a legal bet on my claims, then bring it on pal.
Once again in all of your drivel your entire post is ambiguous. I've provided the experiments, the data, and the math.
Third time to ask: Explain in a scientific manner why you believe "Mr. Hand" is responsible for the energy. Poor pseudoskeptics. :-(((
You say "scientific debate", but I don't see anything that looks like science from you. I see a lot of fuming and bluster, a lot of links to a silly website, and you making vague and protean claims about what your magic diodes do.
I don't see anything that looks like grown-up research that a scientist would do. When you say you've been "CHALLENGING" the scientific community have you, you know, submitted a research paper to any peer-reviewed periodicals? If so, what response did you get?
And I certainly don't see anything that looks like it's going to power your mobile phone charger for free.
So, you can keep yelling and screaming and raging about everything and everyone, but until and unless you produce either some research or a working device, then no-one outside your silly globalfreeenergy website is going to take you seriously, as you have already found out.
As far as "scientifically proving" that your self-reported non-results are nothing more than measuring error, that's rather trivial. You claim to have measured an excess of energy under circumstances that no-one else has. You cannot use that energy, cannot make it do work, make it move or heat anything. Therefore our two options are (1) the laws of physics are wrong in a way that only you can detect or understand or (2) it's a measuring error, and you're a clown.
I just explained. You missed it. You claim to have measured energy being produced. But you cannot use that energy, cannot make it do work, cannot produce replicable results. Therefore it's a measuring error.
Your dribblings on the stupid globalfreeenergy site are not results. You have not tried to write up a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed publication. You haven't even tried. You haven't produced any device that demonstrates energy being produced from your magic diodes. You've got precisely nothing.
It's pretty extraordinary that you present that page about dirty diodes or whatever and expect people to say It's TRUE! He HAS produced magic free energy! It's a bunch of equations and numbers that don't describe any experiment you did, or its results, or its methodology, or how it might be replicated. It's just a word/data salad or stew of stuff. It's not a coherent experimental protocol. Do you not realize that, on some level? Do you not compare what you do to what actual science does? No, of course you don't.
How can anyone give a "scientific" response to your weirdie pages stuck up on globalfreeenergy? How can you give a "scientific" response to a clown shrieking 'MY MAGIC DIODES WORK THEY DO THEY DO THEY DO YOU'RE A PSEUDOSKEPTIC'
Oh no, big boy is still using big words such as "clown" and "stupid." Such big words, LOL.
Anonymous ben wrote, "You claim to have measured energy being produced. But you cannot use that energy, cannot make it do work, cannot produce replicable results. Therefore it's a measuring error."
If you wake up you would realize I already showed an experiment where it produced something. Contained inside the thick metal chassis, one LED, a small mechanical tilt switch, and one piezo element, it continues to flash the LED.
Ah, and so now you make another claim, as you write, "It's not a coherent experimental protocol."
And again I'll ask you to explain yourself in a scientific manner. Explain why do you believe "it's not a coherent experimental protocol." Name one thing about the experiments that are not coherent? Hmm? Instead all you have is endless hand-waving claims such as "No, no, no, it's bad, it doesn't work, it's stupid, you're a clown." Poor pseudoskeptic. :-(((
You'd expect someone who had made such an amazing scientific discovery that could change the world so dramatically would want to share his results, and tell the world what he did and usher in a new global era of peace & prosperity through unlimited free energy.
But you don't. You want to yell at people. How can I "name one thing about the experiments that are not coherent" when NOTHING about it is coherent? I looked at the page "Diodes & Thermal noise – Dirty Details". There is no description of an experiment you made. There's no methodology. There's no research. It's just a bunch of ... stuff.
If you could do an experiment that worked and proved your thesis, you'd have done so. But, no, just more yelling, more bluster, and more tedious word-salad gibberish posted on the globalfreequackery site.
Have you ever even sent a proposal for a paper to any peer-reviewed scientific publication?
Can you even name one?
Anonymous ben wrote, "You want to yell at people."
Prove I'm yell. ;-)
Anonymous ben wrote, "Have you ever even sent a proposal for a paper to any peer-reviewed scientific publication?"
No because the research is still incomplete due to the Instability effect. Ah, you didn't think of that, did you ben. As stated numerous academic scientists have replicated my diode & piezo experiments, and have measured DC voltage and current produced by these passive shielded components.
Anonymous ben wrote, "You'd expect someone who had made such an amazing scientific discovery that could change the world so dramatically would want to share his results, and tell the world what he did and usher in a new global era of peace & prosperity through unlimited free energy. But you don't."
What results have I withheld?
Anonymous ben wrote, "NOTHING about it is coherent"
Hmm, you still can't name one, and explain it in a scientific and unambiguous manner. You see, anonymous ben, that's what separates pseudoskeptics from normal coherent people. Normal coherent people can explain their reasons in a normal unambiguous manner. The pseudoskeptics, on the other hand, attacks researchers with endless *claims*. Even a 3 year old kid can make a claim. Are you a baby, ben? Baby ben?
One of us is making "claims", about magic diodes and unnamed academic scientists and conveniently unfinished research. He's also blustering and shrieking a lot. That would be you. I'm sure all the great scientists made their reputations by acting the way you do.
The rest of the world is going to carry on as before until you provide some credible research and evidence to support your magical claims. Maybe if you could demonstrate a working machine like the one you claim to have? Or show some actual research that isn't just reprinting a list of the Work functions of various elements? You know, something you've actually done?
Paul Lowrance, I've offered you a business proposition that would reward you handsomely if you can actually deliver a device that harvests free energy from the quantum background. You have not seen fit to take me up on my offer. I can only conclude that is because you lack the necessary confidence in the experiments you say you have already completed.
Say the word and we can get this deal moving under the terms I have previously outlined on this site.
ROFL! No because the research is still incomplete due to the Instability effect.
IOW you have non-repeatable results. Why? Go learn about noise. Then figure out what you are doing with Mr. Hand.
It's truly amazing you pseudoskeptics can carry on in everyday life without the help of others.
Anonymous ben wrote, "I'm sure all the great scientists made their reputations by acting the way you do."
Go read a book on the life of Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton makes me look like the Dalai Lama.
Anonymous ben wrote, "Maybe if you could demonstrate a working machine like the one you claim to have?"
Numerous times I've offered to demonstrate whatever I have here. I have several ongoing piezo element experiments, and five broken "tiny orbo replications."
Anonymous ben wrote, "Or show some actual research that isn't just reprinting a list of the Work functions of various elements?"
If you think I'm reprinting, then I'd like to see you show the original source. Hmmm, can you do that, anonymous ben? Or is this just another one of your pseudoskeptic delusional hand-waving drivel, your attempts at convincing people without showing one shred of evidence. Go ahead, show the quotes. I've provided a lot of math. Show where I got this, where I'm "reprinting." And that includes the math example problem that I provided.
Sounds like you're cooling down a lot. Did you run out of steam, LOL? No kiddie words such as "clown" or "stupid" in your last post. ;-)
Anonymous wrote, "Paul Lowrance, I've offered you a business proposition that would reward you handsomely if you can actually deliver a device that harvests free energy from the quantum background. You have not seen fit to take me up on my offer."
Actually you are a liar. In the other thread here I showed the quotes. Numerous times I accepted your challenge, but you would never reply.
Anonymous wrote, "Say the word and we can get this deal moving under the terms I have previously outlined on this site."
Again, I'll accept any bet so long as it's legal. I'll wait for your reply.
Anonymous wrote, "IOW you have non-repeatable results."
Incorrect, I've outlined the process how to obtain results every time. Ah, poor pseudoskeptics. :-(((
"Numerous times I've offered to demonstrate whatever I have here. I have several ongoing piezo element experiments, and five broken "tiny orbo replications.""
Then why haven't you done it? It looks to me like you yell, shriek, call people names, and get all upset and angry like someone's done you a bad turn. But all you'd have to do is show off your magic always-on LED, include diagrams so anyone else could try to replicate your results, and we'd be done. But, no. No publication, no detail, just bluster and fury and rage and anger and rage.
As for the Work Functions of various elements, I found them all on Wikipedia, as you probably did. Wait, are you now claiming that you did the original research determining Work Functions for all the elements? COOL! What's the citation for that published article?
Anonymous ben wrote, "No publication, no detail, just bluster and fury and rage and anger and rage."
Publication is not required to demonstrate something. I've provided all details, part #'s, and construction details. What do you have to say now?
As far as fury, rage, and anger, prove it.
Anonymous ben wrote, "As for the Work Functions of various elements, I found them all on Wikipedia, as you probably did."
Oh no, I provided a work function table, LOL. Are you for real? Do you have any idea how many scientists include a work function table? Again, take a look at *my* math, and show the errors -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/11/03/diodes-thermal-noise-dirty-details/
Anonymous ben wrote, "call people names"
You're a hypocrite. I refer to you as pseudoskeptic. You call me big boy names such as "clown" and "stupid." LOL
I'll ask you again: Explain in a coherent and technical manner why you believe my experiments are the "the worst kind of incomplete trash." Poor pseudoskeptics. :-(((
Again, that seems to be mostly about work functions and the Boltzmann constant. It doesn't describe how you made your magic LED machine and how it operates. It certainly doesn't look like original research of any sort.
It seems that you claim you have invented some machine that can power an LED indefinitely without any external energy source. If that's true (it's a remarkable claim) then I'd really love to see it in operation and learn more about how it works, and I think you should publish your research and your findings so they can be assessed, replicated, and verified. I don't understand how your page of Work Function tables enables anyone to do that. Could you explain?
The work function table is used in only a few equations in that work. The page goes into detail how to calculate effective densities of states, band gap, intrinsic carrier densities, built in voltage, depletion width, etc. All of the math is required to calculate zero bias resistance, Ro, which is the basis to write a numerical mathematical analysis to predict the voltage that diodes produce, which I've written plenty. The old website contained the numerous numerical analysis source code that allows the user to enter complex semiconductor parameters, and thereby predicted the DC voltage produced by the diode. It's the best math anyone's ever produced so far in predicting the DC voltage produced by diodes, but it does not explain the Instability effect.
Anonymous ben wrote, "It seems that you claim you have invented some machine that can power an LED indefinitely without any external energy source."
That's not what I said. I said it can produce enough energy to *flash* the LED, only several times per day.
Unlike the other anonymous poster and MileHigh, the energy we get from the diode has absolutely nothing to do with the hand. A lot of the experiments do not require a "hand." A very good EE who's replicated my experiments did some great data logging that does not require the "hand."
It's not caused by electrochemical reactions, or a diode rectifying ambient thermal energy, stray temperature gradients, stray charges, or any other know source or means. Connecting two components in-parallel does not produce twice the power. In fact it produces *HALF* the power.
OK. You have this device, you've shown it to all sorts of scientists and engineers, it works, it's revolutionary, it changes the entire scientific understanding of the nature of the universe, but you won't let anyone see it. Gotcha. I believe you, sure. Why not.
Anonymous ben wrote, "but you won't let anyone see it."
Incorrect. A blatant lie. Why do you insist on lying? You think you'll fool some readers? I've shown photos of the diode arrays, the various types of shielding, of it being buried ~ two feet under ground, oscilloscope shots, the fiber optic cables for the first detector along with the equipment, named numerous rural locations where I had conducted experiments of the diode arrays that were contained in three layers of metal shield (large, medium, and small metal shielding).
... And I said people are more than welcome to see it.
Hello??? LOL
Oh, I see, because it's buried in a secure rural location behind three types of metal plating, that's why I can't see it. Only a few academic scientists who don't have names and some of your electrical engineer friends who don't have names can actually see it and are allowed to determine what might be going on. Everyone else in the world just has to take your turgid ramblings on faith. Understood.
And yet, amazingly, no-one believes that you have a unicorn in your garden. You've done such sterling work in convincing me that some random clown who posts tables of work function numbers on freeenergyquackery.com, has annulled all of modern physics. You have a secret perpetual motion machine buried in a top-secret rural location. Gotcha. Understood. Right.
Fruit loops, Paul Lowrance you are absolutely fruit loops.
Anonymous ben, you have some serious mental issues. Perhaps you skipped over the part where I keep telling you I've provided the photos. Click on the link in my name, Paul Lowrance, for this post to see some photos. Those photos have been available to the public for nearly a half a decade.
And again, people are more than welcome to come over here, in Los Angeles, California, USA, to see the experiments. Did that sink in. Man you have some serious mental issues, pal.
Awww, so sorry to disappoint you that your assumptions of me and what I've done are wrong, and to crush your false understanding of reality.
Well, sure, maybe I have serious mental issues. Or maybe the person with the mental issues is the gibbering clown who says he's made a magic top-secret perpetual motion device contrary to all known laws of physics, that could solve all of the world's problems and win him a Nobel Prize, but he's buried it in an undisclosed rural location under sheets of metal and won't reveal anything about it except to a few supremely-qualified "academic scientists" and "engineers" who don't have names. I think I know which way Occam's razor slices on this one.
Wait, did you say "nearly half a decade"? You've been sitting on the most miraculous, world-changing discovery in scientific history for years, and you've talked about it with unidentifiable "academic scientists" and nameless "engineers", and they all say it checks out and works great, but you're not getting any traction?
No wonder you're upset! You should maybe hire some marketing folks or something. It really sucks that you're sitting on the philosopher's stone down there in rural Los Angeles and no-one wants to buy your diode.
Who said I'm upset? You should really see what "LOL" means, LOL. The only person who looks upset is the kid that's calling people "clowns" and "stupid."
Lets sum this all up -->
* Anonymous claims the energy comes from "my hand." When confronted numerous times, anonymous can't explain why.
* Anonymous claims my experiments are the "worst kind of incomplete trash." When confronted numerous times, anonymous can't explain why.
* Anonymous claims I won't let people see my device and experiments, despite the fact that I've said numerous times beforehand that I have shown the device, and welcome people to come out here and analyze it. I've even shown the photos.
* Anonymous claims I hide the details, despite the fact that for years I've provided all of the part #'s and complete instructions to replicate the experiments.
Anonymous, you're batting average isn't doing so great. ;-) I'm still waiting for you to show some math or experiments or *anything* that's unambiguous.
Huge scientific claims that go against modern physics theories require a lot of time and effort before drawing world attention. I'm amazed at how many academic scientists have successfully replicated my claims so far. It took Einstein over a decade to have one of his experiments tested, and the first scientist who tested it said Einstein was wrong. <<>>
:-)
You claim have a perpetual motion machine, and you don't. You claim you've had it "verified" by scientists and engineers who remain anonymous, and you haven't. And say you've had it for almost 5 years, and no-one has come around to your way of thinking yet. That sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it?
And you compared yourself to Isaac Newton. A small difference might be how successful and recognized he was and how his ideas became widely disseminated during his lifetime, whereas all you can do is cry that no-one believes in your hidden secret magic box that has a diode in it that can sometimes power an LED for a while before breaking.
It's almost like nothing has gone right for you in your half-decade-long campaign to rewrite the laws of physics in pure gibberish. So, clearly, the entire world except you must still be wrong.
Poor pseudoskeptic. All he has left are lies. You little devil, you liar. :-))
ps, you're trying to hard. They might notice. ;-)
Tell me, Paul, what devices are being powered by one of your magic diodes right now?
Take your time, count them all. Consult any of your favorite academic scientist-engineer, "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named", and write up a full list.
Don't miss any!
1) The only point you make is that you're trying to hard.
2) I already answered your question numerous times --> The present shielded piezo element experiment flashes an LED up to several times per day.
Wait -- you've discovered the piezoelectric effect? Only 130 years after the Curie brothers did? YOU'RE A GENIUS!
Again, piezo element is inside sufficient shielding.
ps, you're running out of lies.
So, you have demonstrated that you can light up an LED using a piezoelectric sensor of some sort. Let's get the NOBEL PRIZE IN CLOWN PHYSICS over here! Well done. What's next, are you going to prove that an apple will fall if you drop it? Half a decade of effort to make an LED blink occasionally using a known mechanism.
You are a sage of our time. You are the new Newton. You should go to market with your 'making an LED blink on with a piezoelectric disc' invention -- oh wait someone has already done it on YouTube.
This certainly clears up why your "scientist" and "engineer" friends agree that yes, you have made an LED blink using a piezoelectric disc. And why you haven't published your findings yet.
"piezo element is inside sufficient shielding" -- well, it's obviously not if the LED is blinking on and off. DUH. But clowns like you never think like that, do you? You know a piezo element can make the LED blink on and off, and when it does so you don't think "oh, the piezo element must be doing that".
No, not you. You're special.
You think "I'VE INVENTED MAGIC! I'VE DESTROYED PHYSICS! TREMBLE, MORTALS!"
Just typical clown logic: "Oh, no, it couldn't be the piezo disc you're using to make the LED blink, the way they do, oh no. I've discovered the Philosopher's Stone!"
Anonymous ben wrote, "You are a sage of our time. You are the new Newton. You should go to market with your 'making an LED blink on with a piezoelectric disc' invention -- oh wait someone has already done it on YouTube."
He's dropping the piezo element on a table. It's not shielded. Numerously scientists, including myself, have extensively shielded the piezo element.
One experiment is where the piezo element was contained inside a thick Hammond Aluminum diecast chassis, which was inside ~ two feet of thermal insulation. In that experiment the piezo element produced DC current through a load for several weeks non stop. It continued to produce DC current, but the experiment was halted to conduct another experiment.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Thankfully every intelligent person reading this thread is now aware of the tactics pseudoskeptics use-- blatant lies. Poor pseudoskeptic. :-(((
If there was NOTHING to all of this then it always amazes me how strong the opposition is to NOTHING -lol
76 posts and counting.
Debunkers, pseudoskeptics you are scum!
So, you have a device that can make an LED blink on if there is a piezo unit used as part of the device but not otherwise?
Let's be clear -- the unit does not work, and the LED does not come on, without the presence of the piezo unit?
See where this train of logic goes? No. You don't! That's what's amazing. Any schoolchild can see what's going on here, but it takes a true clown to say "NO THE PIEZO UNIT ISN'T DOING IT, IT'S MAGIC! AND I INVENTED IT!"
You have made an LED blink on powered by a piezoelectric unit. And, on that basis, you think you've overturned the entirety of modern science and rewritten the laws of physics. And at no point, not once, do you consider "hmm, maybe I'm doing something wrong." No. No self-examination, no looking at matters objectively, no countenancing any criticism. You have created magic, you have shaken science to its foundation. You really, really want that to be true, so it must be. And, yet, five years of this and no-one takes you seriously. Amazing, that, no?
Ben you have a clear agenda to debunk while presenting no evidence to support any of your claims and everyone can see it.
Anonymous ben, you're still talking out your a**. You have no clue what the scientists who are working on this research know.
Within the diode is an *electric field* caused by the junction of dissimilar elements. Within the piezo element is an *electric field* caused by the ferroelectric property exhibited by certain materials. The research has made some interesting correlations such as the thus far the typical piezo E-field is ~ 10 times that of the typical diode E-field. The correlation is that the piezo elements produce ~ 10 times the DC voltage as diodes.
Any half way intelligent scientist would see the interest in such a correlation between the components internal E-field and the DC voltage they produce. The mystery still to be solved is why the internal E-field is causing the excess energy effect.
Anyhow, by all means, don't let me stop you from from your endless lies.
Paul Lowrance you said:
"Numerous times I accepted your challenge, but you would never reply."
This is great! When will you have:
* A device ready for test?
* The $100,000, plus lab costs to place into escrow?
I have the piezo element experiment ready right now. My $100,000 will come from an investor, but that comes after we agree on the details and write up a contract. Please contact me. We can't work out the contract on Dr. Hugh Deasy blog. Go to my blog website and click on "Contact Me." Will you contact me?
Blogger 007 said...
Ben you have a clear agenda to debunk while presenting no evidence to support any of your claims and everyone can see it.
Hi Craig Brown/007/FETruth/Lying retard,
You appear to think debunking is bad and try to use it pejoratively as an insult. Therefore I must assume you think bunk is good.
Explains a lot really.
Hurry up, I hear your short bus coming.
I will only purchase a device that unambiguously demonstrates production of energy from the quantum background at macro scale thermal equilibrium without external intervention. If you go into this you had better be damn sure you have such a device. I remind you again that such a device is impossible by current understanding of physics. Otherwise, your $100,000. plus the lab expenses will be gone forever.
As soon as you believe you have such a device, and you have your $100,000. ready, let me know.
LOL, awww, what's the matter anonymous pseudoskeptic, did I call your bluff. You can't even contact via email. What's your first, middle, and last name?
Just as I thought. And your recent new additions are very revealing, quote "unambiguously demonstrates production of energy from the quantum background at macro scale thermal equilibrium"
I challenge you to show my quote where I claim the energy comes from the quantum background. I, as any reasonable scientist would, have speculated. You demands show your insincerity because as far as I'm aware humanity does not have a "quantum background" meter.
Again, the bet is about my claim, which is --> The energy is not produced by any known effect.
If you were even 1% serious, you would have contacted me via email by now. What's your first, middle, and last name? Huh? LOL, pretty difficult to do business with someone who can't provide his name, much less who's even afraid to email you.
Poor pseudoskeptics. :-(((
Paul Lowrance, when you have the money and a device, I will be happy to engage the deal. Learning my identity is not part of the deal.
Let me know when you have a device you think works and the money.
"Learning my identity is not part of the deal."
LMAO. Poor pseudoskeptics. :-(((
I have the device, and access to investor who has the money. Now contact me.
Balls in your court now, anonymous pseudoskeptic.
Stating clearly what the device is supposed to do is necessary for the performance aspect of the contract.
I am not going to purchase a device from you that harvests room vibrations. I can buy those off the shelf. As far as I understood you claimed to be able to generate useful energy from a macro level equilibrium. With diodes you were claiming Johnson Noise harvest, which is the quantum background.
Maybe you should try and state what it is that you think your piezo devices do that is special.
Wow, lets get this straight -->
1. You want to conduct a $100,000 business deal.
2. You want to remain anonymous.
3. You want to conduct this so-called business deal over Hugh's blog site.
Okay ........... sorry, but it's difficult, no, it's impossible for anyone to take you seriously. For all I know you could be a child. When you can be serious, I'll spend the time to reply to your *incorrect* statements.
1. Contact me outside of this blog website.
2. Provide your contact information that *any* business person would require.
As any business person would require, I'll continue to remind you of the above two items until you have complied.
Escrows work just fine for business deals. They are common place in B-B exchanges.
You are conveniently avoiding making any statement of what you think your piezo device does that is special.
You're a liar. Nobody except thieves conduct anonymous business deals, especially $100,000 business deals.
The fact that you want people to somehow believe you're trying to conduct a $100,000 business deal, anonymously, speaks volumes about you & pseudoskeptics.
1. Contact me outside of this blog website.
2. Provide your contact information that *any* business person would require.
I have in the past posted my first, middle, and last name, and my address where I live. I have nothing to hide. Obviously you do. If you're not a child, then maybe you work for, ... oh say Exxon Mobile oil company. Hmmm?
ps, your questions were already answered in this thread. You know what I've claimed. Your tactics are pathetic. Please stop your lies about me and my claims.
Paul Lowrance, despite your offensive and childish rants, my offer is genuine. You would do well to research B-B exchanges. A lot more money changes hands in individual deals than $100,000 at a time.
You can either compose yourself and cooperate to make a deal happen here or not. There will be no private communication until you've demonstrated that you are serious.
I don't care which magical device you wish to sell. It can be a diode based machine or a piezo device based machine. Whichever you decide, the machine has to deliver usable energy that is neither depletion of an internal source, nor conversion of any external source. For purposes of this agreement the quantum background / zero point field will not be considered an external energy source. Whereas any one or combination of the following would:
cont'd
cont'd
External electrostatic source
External magnetostatic source
External E/M source (other than quantum background)
External macro scale temperature gradient
External force gradient
External mechanical vibration
External mechanical manipulation
External chemical fuel supply
If you can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics with a device that makes its own hotter and colder from an isothermal reservoir, that would qualify. If you can get there with a device that harvests Johnson Noise into a power source at macro level isotherm, that would qualify as well.
It is up to you to state clearly what the special behavior the device exhibits externally so that a proper test protocol can be devised. You must state the magnitude of the energy and power levels you claim the device can produce under test conditions so that instruments of the appropriate sensitivity can be specified.
So far you cannot be taken seriously. If you want to conduct a $100,000 business deal *anonymously*, then you must provide proof that you have the $100,000. If you can't provide that information either, then there's nothing to go on because a child could type what you're typing.
I'm ready to *prove* my identity. You've provided nothing but a bunch of hot air. Hello???
I'll be waiting for you to prove some form of sincerity. Listen guy, everyone here knows you can't show any signs of sincerity. They all know you will not reveal identity. They know you will not show any evidence of the $100,000. So who are trying to fool?
So I'll ask you, again, show something. I'm not going to continue wasting time on you when you can't even show proof you're not a child.
Anonymous, it's very clear you will refuse to reveal your identity. It makes one wonder why you people are so dedicated to trashing any research that would bring about global free energy. Gee, now why would anyone in this world not want everyone to have free energy? ;-)
You won't even show proof that you're not a child.
Listen guy, you have no idea how much I'd love to do this *legal* bet with you, but hell will freeze over before I conduct a $100,000 dollar bet with an anonymous person. There is *NO*, and I repeat, *NO* investor in this world that would conduct a $100,000 bet with an anonymous person. My investor would slam the door in my face, and you know that.
You are being insincere and childish. Who do you think you're fooling in this thread. Everyone knows it.
Proving the funds are in escrow once they are there is a trivial procedural matter. If it makes you feel better, we can instruct the escrow agent to present you that proof at the time you meet to deposit your money. It won't cause me any fret to put my money in a day or two early. I am already extending you benefit of the doubt that you can raise the funds as you admit you don't have them yourself.
The proof you should be worrying about is proof you can break the laws of physics as we presently understand them. From all that you have said so far, you haven't a prayer of doing that. If putting up $100,000 will educate even one fruit loop like you, I can afford to put my side in escrow for the few weeks it will take to do that.
Let me know when you are prepared to proceed.
Paul Lowrance about the only thing you have correct is that I will not reveal my identity. Who I am does not matter. Escrow assures that the terms of the business deal are met by both sides.
This deal is a purchase agreement. The goods you offer must meet the conditions set out in the contract. In consideration of the very speculative nature of what you claim as the goods' performance and the value of my time, you are agreeing to pay me a diligence fee as a condition of entering into the agreement with you. If the goods meet the contract requirements, the sales price more than covers the diligence fee, leaving you with a healthy profit. This is not a wager. There is no element of chance.
Let me know when you are ready to proceed.
Anonymous wrote, "Proving the funds are in escrow once they are there is a trivial procedural matter. If it makes you feel better, we can instruct the escrow agent to present you that proof at the time you meet to deposit your money."
Send me the email address of the escrow agent so I can verify your $100,000. So far you've done nothing but blow a lot of hot air. I've provided the experiments, the data, part #'s, build instructions, my full name, exact location (my home address), my age, a photo of me. You've done nothing.
Clock's ticking. Provide something that a child can't. Thus far you're burying the reputation of all pseudoskeptics. Wait, did pseudoskeptics every have a reputation, LOL?
Contracts first, money at contract inception that goes both ways.
I have explained to yo that all of your experiments require the external intervention of Mr. Hand. Mr. Hand is doing what your devices cannot do by themselves, which is move energy.
Specify the energy and continuous power levels that your device will supposedly produce under laboratory conditions without Mr. Hand.
[part 1 of 2]
Sad, your intent is so obvious that it's not worth talking to you. I'm being very honest here when I say that in my firm opinion you're worse than the scum & viruses that exist outside in the gutter.
To sum this up:
* You refuse to reveal your identity in the $100,000 bet. You demand to conduct the $100,000 bet anonymously.
* You refuse to send me an email, as you want to conduct business over this blog site.
* You refuse to even provide the email of this fictitious escrow agent to prove you even have the $100,000.
* I have posted in a public web page my full name.
* I have posted in a public web page my exact location, my home address.
[continued]
[part 2 of 2]
* I have posted in a public web page my age.
* I have posted in a public web page a photo of myself.
* I have posted in a public web page my experiments and claims.
* I have posted in a public web page the experimental data.
* I have posted in a public web page the part #'s.
* I have posted in a public web page the build instructions.
Who knows who you are. You could easily be some nigerian scam artist who came across my bet who's thinks he can scam me / my investor out of $100,000.
Rather than waste further time on you, I'm merely going to remind you of the above until you can even show one thing.
Also, Paul, you've published in a public forum the fact that you've made a piezoelectric disc light up an LED. And NO-ONE CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM YOU. You and millions of schoolchildren around the world are united in having used a piezo device to power an LED. That's SCIENCE!
Why has this topic been hijacked into a Paul Lowrance thread?
Comments here are for the purpose of slamming Steorn, not Lowrance (or praising Steorn of course).
Please go to fizzx.org or to overunity.com for Lowrance stuff.
It's exactly the same thing! Some clown says he's invented perpetual motion. He hasn't. He gets upset about the fact he hasn't, and rages against the people who tell him he hasn't. There's no difference.
Lots of words by pseudoskeptics as usual, all hand-waving claims, no unambiguous science. It's the pseudoskeptic way of life.
Let's get to scientific facts, then, Paul:
1. You have managed to build a rig that uses a piezoelectronic device to power an LED.
2. You have, for reasons best known to yourself, build a metal box as part of this rig.
3. You have never attempted to submit any research for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
So, what do you want from the world, Paul? What are your demands?
Anonymous ben: I've used thick Hammond chassis, I've built my own chassis, I've placed the Hammond inside larger chassis, and that inside an even larger chassis, I've used ~ two feet of thermal insulation.
Furthermore, EE's and physicists by profession who used to be highly skeptical of my claims have used their own electrical and thermal shielding. They succeeded in verifying my claims.
I've provided the direct correlation between the piezo diode internal E-field's and the DC voltage they provided.
I've explained to you why I have no written a scientific paper yet.
"So, what do you want from the world, Paul? What are your demands?"
I have no demands. You sure have a funny way of twisting what people say. If you or anyone wants to replicate my experiments, then by all means contact me.
Yep, you've built a big metal box, to which you have attached a piezoelectronic device that powers an LED. Sadly, we already knew that you can power an LED using a piezo. In fact, we know that you can do it without the metal box! You can achieve your life's goal of using a piezo to power an LED WITH NO BOX! The results that took you five years are achieved in seconds, every day, without any box construction necessary!
Thus, really, no explanation is required as to why you haven't published your ground-breaking scientific paper "How I spent five years building a metal box".
LOL, anonymous ben, for any intelligent person reading this tread it is so clear what your intent is. You are trying so hard to make the research appear completely different than it is.
You are wrong. According to conventional physics the piezo element will produce a pulse only when there's an appreciable change in temperature or vibrations. The piezo elements in our experiments are exception shielded against temperature fluctuations and vibrations.
Furthermore, another experiment that's been done countless times is to disturb the piezo element by handling it or banging it. This places the piezo in the disturbed state. When the piezo is in the disturbed state, and after it has had time to settle down, it will *NOT* produce the excess energy.
ps, if for one second you think you're accomplishing something here by wasting my research time, LOL, then guess again. I type rather fast, and my time spent here is free internet time in between my break periods. Now, I'm going to log off the Internet now, and eat dinner. See you tomorrow.
The facts are:
1. You have built a box.
2. You have used a piezo device to power an LED.
Neither of those things is a discovery, an invention, or constitutes research. Like nerdy boys the world over, you tinker around with stuff and make LEDs blink on and off. A fine hobby if you're 12; most 12-year-olds are able to keep themselves grounded enough not to don't draw outlandish conclusions from their tinkering about. Then, of course, there's you! Nice LED you've got there, Paul. Love the way it blinks. Using a piezoelectronic disc, are you? Yes, that's one way of powering an LED. Good for you.
To be honest, this thread is encouraging become it's showing how desperate the opposers have become. The few legit researchers in the alternative energy community such as Steorn and myself must be on to something huge, global free energy technology. I would encourage all sincere skeptics to take a look at this thread to see the level of desperation.
I have no idea who these anonymous people are, and the other moletrap pseudoskeptics, but a few years ago I took the time to obtain the IP address of one hardcore pseudoskeptics. His IP address traced back to a server owned by Exxon Mobil.
Exxon Mobil was recently caught red-handed paying millions of dollars to politicians and organizations who actively oppose global warming.
Again, I would encourage people to go over this thread in an objective manner to observe how the opposers continually and blatantly warp the truth, and how they hide behind anonymous names refusing to show their identity.
Personally I think the "free energy" community would be a glorious side case for a PI (private investigator). It could be a PI's find of the century. It would be interesting to see just how many people are being paid under the table, and I contend a lot of "believers" are as well.
Ah, the logic of the delusional.
"Everyone is against me so I must be revealing some great truth"
"They wouldn't try so hard to point out the failings of my system if I wasn't correct"
"It must work, because the nasty people say it can't (and they all work for Big Oil)"
"I have no idea who these anonymous people are, and the other moletrap pseudoskeptics, but a few years ago I took the time to obtain the IP address of one hardcore pseudoskeptics. His IP address traced back to a server owned by Exxon Mobil."
LOL. Remove the tinfoil, it is crushing your brain or limiting your oxygen too much.
First of all, three of those quotes are not from me. That supports the fact of just how desperate the opposers are now becoming.
The following three quotes made by the previous poster are not from me -->
"Everyone is against me so I must be revealing some great truth"
"They wouldn't try so hard to point out the failings of my system if I wasn't correct"
"It must work, because the nasty people say it can't (and they all work for Big Oil)"
Of course the opposers have to reply, and with lies. The last thing they want is some PI investigating them and the "free energy" community. Fact remains that Exxon Mobil was recently caught red handed paying millions of dollars to politicians and organizations who oppose global warming science.
Opposers are:
1) Pseudoskeptics. They make ambiguous claims without showing a shred of evidence to back up their claims hoping readers will simply ... believe me.
2) Liars. You could call them the fathers of lies. Furthermore they will twist the truth by rewording facts and leaving out important parts.
Fact remains that I and numerous academic physicists and EE's done built carefully done experiments consisting of diodes and piezo elements contained within heavily shielded (electrically and thermally) closed systems resulting in the component producing DC current through loads.
A single heavily shielded piezo element has produced nearly 10 volts DC, while the best producing single diode has produced just over 1 volt DC. That's a difference of nearly 10 times. What is interesting is that the internal E-field within the piezo element due to the ferroelectric effect is ~ 10 times that of the diodes.
These excess energy effects only occur when the component has been undisturbed for a significant time, ranging from days to months. The simple act of touching a piezo element will result in immediate ultra low frequency fluctuates, which slowly decays till the component is producing significantly less DC voltage. Heavily disturbed components can take *months* to recover before they are once again producing their normal voltage.
This is leading edge science, but unfortunately the Internet is flooded with people who are taking desperate measures by out right lying to make it appear as bad science.
There are a lot of facts already known already, but IMO the researchers are still far away from writing a scientific paper.
btw, sorry for any oddly written sentences. I type these sentences at an incredibly fast rate, usually making numerous changes before posting, which often results in extra words, incorrect words, etc. :-(
Paul Lowrance if you actually believe what you post, you should look into professional psychiatric treatment. You're off the reservation dude.
Oh anonymous, we're all so overwhelmed by your overwhelming detailed hand-waving science! LOL Well, I guess that's all you can do, since your agenda is a lie.
To all the pseudoskeptics -->
Scientific skepticism
Actually I apologize, the previous blog page is an insult to skeptics. The pseudoskeptics usually offers no or very little technical detail. At least the skeptics quoted in the blog make some attempt.
Paul, again, some very simple, specific facts, presented for your elucidation in equation form:
1. Piezo + LED = LED goes on.
2. Piezo + LED + Paul's Box = LED goes on.
3. THEREFORE, Piezo + LED = Piezo + LED + Paul's Box
4. THEREFORE, Paul's Box = 0
It's not complicated. You have built a big metal box that doesn't do anything and you've spent five years doing it. And somehow you seem to think you're entitled to adulation or the right to rewrite all the world's physics textbooks or that you've discovered something or done something.
The proof lies in your own descriptions of your work. You have built a metal box that doesn't do anything. And what do you want? What do you expect people to say? "Well done Paul can we copy your box?"
LMAO, anonymous ben, can you provide your full name so I can include your quote in my skeptics page?
Poor pseudoskeptics! :-(((
You can include whatever you like in whatever web page you like, Paul, with the same result as your 5-year project to build a useless metal box.
Aw, shucks! You're not going to reveal your identity? Now that's a surprise!
Hey, that was cool how you magically transformed "LED goes on" into only "LED" in your kiddie equation. Did you learn that in Fudge-factor 101 class at the sandbox academy, LOL? Back to Science 101 & Comic 101 you go.
No, Paul, that was a very simple set of equations but I guess you can't follow. Let's simplify again.
P = a piezoelectric disc
L = an LED
T = (for "true") the state of the LED being on
B = your box
With me so far?
P + L = T (the LED goes on)
P + L + B = T (the LED goes on)
THEREFORE
P + L + B = P + L
THEREFORE
B = 0
It's that simple. No fudging. Just using the information you've provided that proves you have taken the simple task of using a piezoelectric device to activate an LED, and then spent five years building a box, after which you have .... a piezoelectric device activating an LED. Five years well spent, wouldn't you say?
So, you have a box. And you have done no research. But you demand, what? Scientific respect? What do you want people to do in response to your ground-breaking "I built a metal box" work? What do you expect? Stop complaining and whining and just tell us what you think should happen now.
LOL, no, I was only quoting your kiddie equation. The "LED goes on" disappeared, LOL. Science is obviously not your forte.
So now if your version 2, 2nd attempt at kiddie math, the following -->
"P + L = T (the LED goes on)"
magically becomes -->
"P + L + B = T (the LED goes on)"
Wow, that's amazing how you can just add "B" like that, LOL.
Good God, I had no clue what I was getting myself into when I invited you to a math debate. Someone please rescue me from this.
LOL, you fail at Comedy 101, and Science 101.
Poor pseudoskeptics! :-(((
OK, Paul, One more time, even slower and with annotations. Now, please, try to keep up. There are two situations. Two.
In the first situation, a piezoelectric device is used to power an LED. The LED goes on. We describe this first situation thus:
P + L = T
In the second situation, you spend five years making a box, and, with the box, use a piezoelectric device to power an LED. The LED goes on. That situation is described thus:
P + L + B = T
They are two different situations. One without your box (P + L), one with it (P + L + B). With me so far?
The outcomes of both situations are equal:
P + L = T
P + L + B = T
If two things are equal to the same thing they are equal to one another. Right? Therefore:
P + L = P + L + B
Now, what can we substitute for "B" that will make this equation balance? Why, I know the precise number! Actually, it's more of a concept than a number. That would be our old friend zero.
Your box does nothing. By your own description, by your own account, you have spent five years building a metal box that does nothing.
Q.E.D.
Now, you've made your box and done no research and made no attempt at publishing anything. So WHAT DO YOU WANT?
You confirmed what I said. You magically transformed "P + L = T" into "P + L + B = T"
Maybe in a few decades you'll work out your kiddie problem.
This will have to be my last reply to your kiddie equation. It's a most embarrassing topic, your kiddie equation.
Poor kiddie pseudoskeptics! :-((((
No, Paul, it's not magic. It's very simple algebra. Two situations. In the first situation, without your box, just using a piezoelectric device and an LED, you can make the LED go on:
P + L = T
In the second situation, using your box, the LED goes on:
P + L + B = T
The outcomes of the TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS are the same. We got the same result with your box as without it.
P + L = T
AND
P + L + B = T
THEREFORE
P + L = P + L + B
That's not magic. It's basic, fundamental logic. If two things are equal to the same thing they're equal to each other.
But, every time you see anything you can't understand, you assume it's magic. We've established that.
Shhhh, it's okay anonymous ben. Everthing's okay.
Now lets let other people chat, you know, about Steorn.
Okay? Enough already.
Ben Paul Lowrance doesn't get it. He has some mental disorder that prevents him from processing the very simple zero identity that you present. It's probably because Paul thinks it's his piezo devices that are magic. He thinks the piezo devices magically produce free energy. The box is a prop that is supposed to block external energy sources. It might even work alright, except that his piezos don't deliver any energy to any load. Mr. Hand sees to that.
LOL
Shhhh, kiddies. It's okay. Your magical kiddie equation of adding a "B" is great stuff, great logic.
Now again lets please let other people chat about Steorn.
I'm just curious as to what Paul's next step is. He's spent five years making a box. What can he do in the next five? Make a bigger box?
"prevents him from processing the very simple zero identity that you present."
Indeed, only in kiddie land is a 1/4" thick metal chassis is = zero, LOL. Only in kiddie land does one knowingly add a zero identity and magically think they've done something, something that's solved an equation, LOL. Sure, that was real impressive. Advanced mathematics there. ... sigh.
Calm down now. Enough. Shhh
Paul, I think you don't understand.
The "B" represents your box. Your device.
The simple case is P + L. We use a piezo device to activate an LED. That's stage one. The light comes on.
P + L = T.
Now, we spend five years building your box, which is called "B". OK? We're not "magically adding a B". We are building your device, including it in the process, and, lo and behold, with your box, we can use a piezo to make an LED go on. That's the second case. It took you five long lonely years, but you built your box. We are not magically adding the B. You BUILT that B. You've earned it, buddy. So, with your box, B, we make the light go on:
P + L + B = T
Have you got that? It doesn't get much simpler.
Without the box:
P + L = T
With the box:
P + L + B = T
I don't know how much simpler it can get. Those are two different observations, from two different situations. One represents the case that you can see on YouTube videos, the second represents your case, with your five-year box project. Have you got that?
Paul, petal, it is absolutely true that "a 1/4" thick metal chassis is = zero" when it comes to the difference it makes in terms of a piezo device making your LED blink. Whether you have your box, or you don't, the piezo makes the LED come on. Therefore, the results of your five years of building a thin sheet of metal are ZERO.
Man, you can't drop the subject, LOL. Even your pal admitted you added a "zero identity" LOL. Gee, lets add something we *think* is zero, then cancel both sides of everything else out so we can ... end up with zero, ta da!!! LMAO
Shhhh
ps, hint, a 1/4" thick metal chassis != 0
Paul, I'm not trying to drop the subject. I'm trying to explain it to you.
Situation one: A person uses a piezo to activate an LED. Using our algebra, we represent that as P + L = T
Right?
Situation two: You build a metal box, "B". With your metal box, you use a piezo to activate an LED. Using our algebra, that's P + L + B = T
OK? I'm representing one situation, where we don't have your 1/4 of metal, as P + L, and the other, where we do, as P + L + B.
Is that OK? Where am I wrong so far. Please point out.
So I'm not adding something I "think" is zero. I'm deducing that it is zero because we get the same result with it as we do without it.
When we don't use the box, P + L, the light goes on. T.
When we do use the box, P + L + B, the light goes on, T.
Therefore the two things are equal.
THEREFORE B is zero.
Your 1/4 " of metal has no effect on whether the light goes on or not. It's just a quarter inch of metal. It doesn't do anything.
No, the issue is that your concept of math & science is that of an Orangutan. Your kiddie equation concept is embarrassing to even talk about.
The error in your kiddie equation is that you're adding "B" to one side of the equation, but adding *nothing* to the other side, which *remains* "T". That's called an emballanced equation unless you think B = 0. If you *think* B is zero, then you're a bigger ding dong than previously thought for wasting your time by adding zero.
btw, only a kiddie pseudoskeptic believes a 1/4" thick chassis = 0.
Why not hush up and leave the poor thread alone for awhile. Everyone else must be very agitated over our discussion by now.
imbalanced
Paul. I am describing the two situations. The two situations have the SAME OUTCOME. Whether you use your quarter-inch box or not, you get the light to come on. It's from this that we DEDUCE that your box isn't doing anything. Because the outcome in situation 1 is the same as the outcome in situation 2, we can deduce that there is no effective difference between them.
Therefore, the quarter-inch metal box that you spent five years building is NOT DOING ANYTHING. Its role in powering the LED is ZERO.
Or, to put it another way, if the first instance is
P + L = T (the light goes on)
What should be on the RHS in the case of
P + L + B = ????
Does the light go on ... more? Is there a more intense or brighter light?
The error in your kiddie equation is that you're adding "B" to one side of the equation
Yes. I'm adding "B" to one side of the equation. This represents YOUR BOX.
but adding *nothing* to the other side, which *remains* "T".
I am adding nothing to the other side, because nothing changes. The outcome remains T because exactly the same thing happens. The light goes on. Just as it does in the first place.
That's called an emballanced equation unless you think B = 0.
Thus, we deduce that B = 0.
Q.E.D.
Anyone who's interested, here's a web page describing the excess energy process using dipole bending, Dipole Bending
All dipoles and domains rotate. The best title thus far for this excess energy process is Dipole Bending, as it's a special case where the dipoles bend (rather than snap, producing avalanches) in materials with high Magnetocrystalline anisotropy.
Got it generating a lot of excess energy, do you? Can your device power itself? Does it include a piece of 1/4" metal that doesn't do anything?
For anyone who's really interested in dipole magnets, check out this description by CERN of How the LHC works. The LHC includes "1232 dipole magnets of 15 m length which are used to bend the beams, and 392 quadrupole magnets, each 5–7 m long, to focus the beams" -- so believe that the CERN folks really know what dipole magnets are and how they can be used.
Note the entire lack of commonality between the way that Paul talks about these things and the way CERN does. Paul is uniquely intelligent and gifted and is the proud designer of a 1/4" metal box that doesn't do anything, and all CERN does is split subatomic particles in a massive supercollider.
Ben you will likely never bring Paul Lowrance around to reality. When one free energy scheme runs into the inevitable brick wall, he just switches gears to another.
I love that pLOL has threadjacked the comments for blog entry with his comically insane deluded rantings! It places the whole Steorn conversation firmly and correctly in the domain to which it belongs: tinfoilhatland!
Actually the above poster raises an interesting point:
Hugh, are you not concerned about the damage you are doing to your professional reputation by publicly associating yourself with the likes of Steorn, who by now indeed have firmly established their residency in tinfoilhatland?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Not at all! The boards will soon be in use and maybe 1 or 2 other inventions that will raise eyebrows.
This place has been hijacked by pseudoskeptic opposers who have become desperate, flinging their arms in every which direction hoping they'll cause some distractions.
Fortunately scientists pay attention to math & experiments, not anonymous pseudoskeptics who are fearful of revealing their identity.
Hugh, it's solidly November now. Have you got your rig from Steorn yet?
I should think that it would only take an afternoon to exercise it. Where are the all the reports from you and the other OEDU board purchasers?
It is indeed taking a bit longer than planned - may be a few more weeks. Didn't really care as am working on another related and exciting idea - the sims are looking goodish but need more.
one afternoon is not sufficient for evaluation because fading effect (remember Kinetica), half year for endurance test is more appropriate
A "half year for endurance test"?? LOL Academic scientists would be interested if it produces excess energy even for a brief moment in time. The pseudoskeptics are becoming desperately paranoid.
Hugh, I hope for your sake that soon doesn't mean soon the way Steorn have so often used it.
"Academic scientists would be interested if it produces excess energy even for a brief moment in time"
Paul, duckie, the entire world would be so far beyond interested; we'd be astounded and amazed to an unprecedented extent if you did anything that produced excess energy ever. But, you haven't. You have a metal box that doesn't do anything. It took you five years to build. Then you got bored with it and started "working" on a copper coil that doesn't do anything.
"Fortunately scientists pay attention to math & experiments"
Paul -- I paid attention to your "experiment", did a bit of math, and deduced that your "experiment" consists of a metal box that does nothing. Bully for you, Einstein.
"It is indeed taking a bit longer than planned - may be a few more weeks. Didn't really care as am working on another related and exciting idea."
Only in magic perpetual-motion-land does a clown claim to have an almost-working version of the Philosopher's Stone and then get bored with it and start on another one. If you were close to building a machine or device that could do what you claim then it's pure evil for you not to complete it. Think of all the African villagers who are dying because you're too flighty and easily-distracted to finish the job, Hugh. For shame.
Oooh, it's getting cold in Darmstadt. Icy rain, below freezing at night. What's a clever scientist to do?
"Heater this winter, mobile charger next year. No problem. Soooo easy...."
That was in May, Hugh. You have no heater, do you, Hugh? Not even anything remotely close to a heater. You haven't really even tried, have you? Why is that?
Anonymous ben, people here probably thought you were just being silly with what you refer to as "math." Wow, so you're truly serious about that kiddie math, eh. In all seriousness, how embarrassing for you, LOL.
As far as proof, I've already done that. It's extremely simple to prove that highly shielded diodes & piezo elements produce DC current through a load.
Paul, all I have done is represent your "experiment" in simple algebra. By your own admission, by your own representation, you get exactly the same result using your inert metal box as you do without using your inert metal box. Therefore, we deduce your metal box does nothing. Zero. You have bought a piece of sheet metal. It doesn't do anything.
"As far as proof, I've already done that."
Again, a perpetual-motion clown claims he has made a discovery that would completely overturn the scientific consensus. You claim you have turned the world upside-down. But you won't even TRY to submit your research findings to a peer-reviewed journal. Why do you hate the world, Paul? Why do you want people to die when you have the ability to save them with your inventions? Why don't you want your work to be made public and shared? Villagers in Africa are dying because of you, Paul. You have invented unlimited free energy but you won't share it with the world. You're a murderer.
Or, more prosaically, you're just a sad man with a piece of metal that doesn't do anything.
Anonymous ben wrote,
"By your own admission, by your own representation, you get exactly the same result using your inert metal box as you do without using your inert metal box."
Incorrect. I never said or even insinuated that. I keep telling you that placing the diodes or piezo elements inside the chassis makes a huge difference.
As for your other comments, I just feel very bad for you. There's something wrong with you.
"I keep telling you that placing the diodes or piezo elements inside the chassis makes a huge difference."
But you won't say what that difference is. Instead of explaining what the difference between the outcomes -- the RHS of the equations -- is, you scream and cry about "kiddie math". You won't say "my box makes the LED X lumens brighter" or anything like that. Instead of pointing out any error and saying that F + L + B differs from F + L in a quantifiable way X, you just yell and yell and yell.
And, again, you refuse to publish your results. You claim to have rediscovered physics, but you won't even try to publish your research. The transformation that your work would effect, the difference that it would make to the world, is so vast as to be incalculable. But you don't want to help. You don't want to make a difference. You don't want to contribute. That's just evil.
Incorrect. My blog site is stuffed with DC current & voltage measurements produced by various diodes and piezo elements, including the part #'s. I've detailed what occurs when testing such components without shields.
The part numbers of the equipment that you bought are not terrifically interesting, Paul. What would be interesting is you saying how much more energy is provided by your metal box. Listing what you put into your metal box is only worthwhile if you are getting anything OUT of it. You are not. It is an inert metal box that does nothing.
And if you had done the world-changing, science-rewriting work that you claim, why do you refuse to publish it and help the world, Paul? Why do you hate the world? Why won't you do what you can to help? By publishing your world-changing findings you could transform human society. But you won't even try.
Incorrect assumption on your part. I've provided part #'s of the diodes and piezo elements. And I have published the results.
As to your other incorrect insinuations, I've provided all of the information to calculate the energy.
Again, Paul, the part numbers of a non-functioning inert piece of metal simply don't matter. If you had a device that was producing extra energy somehow, then the part numbers would be relevant. Then people would want to recreate your device. But your metal box is just a metal box that sits there and does nothing so no-one cares.
You have not published any results. You have not even submitted any research for publication. You post page after dreary page of nothing in particular to your silly website, yes, but that's not the same thing.
What's your electricity bill, Paul? Greater than zero? That's because none of your silly toys does anything. They're just pieces of metal and stuff.
" I've provided all of the information to calculate the energy."
You shouldn't need to calculate it. You should be measuring the difference that your box makes. What is the outcome in the situation without the box, and what is the outcome in the situation with the box? They are the same. Because your box does nothing. And we don't need the part numbers to know that. You have spent five years of your life making a metal box that does nothing.
You don't seem to get anything correct.
Again, I've provided part #'s of the diodes, of the piezo elements, of the Hammond diecast chassis shields, etc. Everything.
For example, piezo element part number PKM13EPYH4000-A0
So sorry for your goal, but soon the world will have free energy. The energy itself will not be bought. Humanity will slowly become self-reliant. The dawn of a new era where humanity will be thrive to help others, not on how much $ one can obtain for self.
Paul, NO-ONE CARES ABOUT THE PART NUMBERS OF YOUR INERT METAL BOX. If you had a device that did something, anything, then the part numbers would be interesting. But you don't. You have a metal box. It does nothing. You spent five years making it. And you are as close to your dream of magic free energy now as you were five years ago. You have done nothing, your metal box does nothing, and we all still have to pay the electric bill.
You have proven you have no interest in "helping" anyone because you claim you have this technology but you will not share it or publish it. So stop claiming you care about humanity. You hate humanity -- you claim to have a solution to all of the world's problems, but you won't even attempt to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Again, Paul, you are not being asked what the part number of a component of your box is. You are being asked WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THE BOX MAKE to the outcome. What is the difference between F + L and F + L + B. You refuse to answer. You won't even attempt to say what that difference is. You are not being asked for your part numbers. Clear on that? No-one cares about your part numbers. You are being asked what difference your box makes to the output of the piezoelectric device. One more time: the question is not "what are the part numbers of various components". The question is "what difference does your quarter-inch metal box make". I put it to you that it is zero. You have yelled, screamed, complained, and fulminated against me but you have not said what the difference is.
Incorrect. A piezo element is not a metal box.
For anyone that's interested can see the following page, Scientific proof
[continued], which is -->
+++++++
Replicating the Piezo experiment
Here’s perhaps the simplest experiment to replicate. Connect an efficient LED and mechanical tilt switch to a piezo element, all inside a shield with a small hole for the LED. About one time per day tilt the device so as to discharge the piezo across the LED to see if flash.
Parts list:
* One Radio Shack piezo element, part number 273-073, $1.99
* One efficient red LED, part number TLCR5800, $0.27
* One Metal Ball Ice Cube Tilt Switch, purchased at Surplus Electronics Sales for $0.60 each.
* Any size Hammond diecast Aluminum chassis. Small ones are ~ $7.
Total: $9.86 + S&H. I do *not* sell these parts. I am not making any money from this. These parts are purchased at various stores– mouser.com, radioshack.com, and surplus-electronics-sales.com. I have no affiliation with these companies.
First cover the hole in the piezo plastic casing to prevent atmospheric changes from having any appreciable effect. Be very gentle so as not to disturb the piezo! Soldered or twist the wires together. If soldered, then quickly dab the iron with solder on the wires, otherwise you’ll severely disturb the piezo, in which case it could take weeks to fully recover. The piezo black wire will be the positive voltage. The piezo black wire connects to the LEDs *long* pin, and the piezo red wire to one of the tilt switches pins. The other tilt switch pin is connected to the other LED pin. All of this is contained inside the Hammond chassis. Drill a small hole through the chassis, and place the LED up against the hole such that you can see the LED. When the entire setup is tilted, the tilt switch will close the circuit, and the piezo will discharge through the LED, which you will clearly see in a pitch dark room. You might want to give your eyes ~ 5 minutes to adjust to the pitch dark room. Although, in all of my experiments the piezo has lighted the red LED so bright that it’s viewable in a normally lighted room. It is also advisable to seal the inside of the chassis around the LED. You can use epoxy, or possibly silicon sealant.
+++++++
Yes, Paul. You have used a piezoelectric device to illuminate an LED. Like this guy is doing. We know that can be done; it's been known for many decades now. The addition of your metal box does not do anything. It doesn't add any energy to the system. It doesn't make the LED brighter.
F + L = F + L + B
B = 0
Q.E.D.
Anon ben wrote, "You have yelled, screamed, complained, and fulminated against me"
Incorrect, LOL.
And it took you five years to do that. Sad.
"You have used a piezoelectric device to illuminate an LED. Like this guy is doing."
Incorrect. He is dropping the piezo. The experiments I and numerous other academic scientists have conducted consist of a piezo element inside shielding (electrical and thermal), the piezo sitting undisturbed. The undisturbed piezo element produces DC power. :-)
"Numerous other academic scientists", eh? What institution are you associated with, and where is the research by all these fine academic scientists published? And why is it that not one of these academic scientists has a name that isn't Paul or Hugh?
The fact remains that you are using a piezo device to illuminate an LED. You tinker around with a metal box, but you are using a piezo device to illuminate an LED. That's not hard to do. You have not achieved anything or contributed anything.
One of the academic EE's I've worked with sent me graphs compiled from days of data logging, which I published on my blog site. All of the passive components were highly shielded, undisturbed, and according to conventional physics should produce DC power, yet they do. Again, the key is to allow the piezo element or diode to remain undisturbed inside sufficient shielding for a long time. Eventually the passive component will begin to produce DC power.
It's now "one" of the academic "EE"s, and not "numerous academic scientists", a group which you included yourself in even though you're not an academic scientist. But, let's be clear, no academic scientist of any sort has endorsed your claim to have generated free energy from a metal box. The publishing history tells that story. There is no desire among the academic community to publish the paper "how I spent five years making a box that doesn't do anything, by Paul".
A piezoelectric device can be used to illuminate an LED. We knew that. You've done it. That is the limit of what you've achieved.
Your insinuation is incorrect. I have published the results of only *one* academic EE's work on my replications. Numerous academic scientists have replicated my claims, and are still working on such research.
"Numerous academic scientists" who don't have names have used piezoelectric devices to illuminate an LED.
Why do you need the piezo, Paul? If you've invented some new way of magically generating free energy from nothing, then what does the piezo do?
That's big of you to make fun of academic scientists who have not come forward yet when you yourself hide behind an anonymous name.
BTW, on my blog site I did post the first name and the country of an academic EE who's replicated my experiments. That's insufficient info for anyone to know who that EE is, yet that EE was furious with me. It's not my place to reveal their identity. Only when they're good and ready.
I'm not making fun of any academic scientists, Paul, I'm making fun of you. Your claim that you have developed some new free-energy technology that has been verified by "numerous academic scientists" is untrue. So is your earlier claim to be an academic scientist.
"an academic EE who's replicated my experiments. That's insufficient info for anyone to know who that EE is, yet that EE was furious with me."
Is it possible that he was furious with you for misrepresenting him? What "experiment" did he replicate? He lit up an LED using a piezo? Been done. Hardly experimental.
I'm almost done gluing a new core that needed a lot of extra work, so not much time left for other posts today. Huh? And you thought you were using up my research time, LOL? No.
Incorrect, a highly shielded and undisturbed piezo element is not supposed to produce DC power according to conventional physics. The same goes for diodes, yet hundreds of diode experiments have shown that highly shielded and undisturbed diodes produce DC power.
Anyhow, no, I merely posted his data. That particular academic EE replicated my diode experiment, except he used his own equipment to measure the voltage and current. He has also replicated the piezo experiments. I recall he measured over 5 volts from the shielded piezo element.
No, Paul, I don't think I'm taking anything away from your "research time" because you don't do any research. You tinker around with cheap electronic components and make LEDs blink on and off.
Your shaggy-dog story about a mysterious engineer who did your "experiments" but is furious with you for having said doesn't even begin to make sense, but that's par for the course.
Here is a piezo device rated to 5 Volts, so your statement that piezos "aren't supposed to generate 5 volts" is incorrect. Getting 5 volts out of a piezo is expected. And that's what you've done.
This will have to be my last post for today. Listen anonymous guy, everyone here can clearly see how desperate you opposers have become, where you're now telling out right lies. Anyhow, I clearly said countless times, and I'll quote "a highly shielded and undisturbed piezo element is not supposed to produce DC power according to conventional physics."
What you opposers offer is something of great value to hard working researchers in this field of excess energy. It's called motivational energy. In battle the enemy offers great motivational energy to continue on. So for that I thank you! ;-)
ps, one scientist was able to get an shielded and undisturbed piezo element to produce nearly 10 volts DC.
It takes a funny form, this "battling". Instead of publishing research that would completely reinvent modern science, you whine on the Internet. If what you were saying about "numerous academic scientists" having replicated some results that are contrary to known physics, they're keeping it top secret and leaving it to you to keep on plugging and soldering away, without publishing anything in a peer-reviewed journal or doing anything to get this magical free energy in production and helping to solve the world's problems. None of your story about "numerous academic scientists" makes any sense.
Getting a piezo to produce 10V is unremarkable. That part I linked to has a 1-20 V range. So, your technology consists of getting an off-the-shelf commercial piezo to perform within its advertised range. Five years, you've taken to do this.
"As far as proof, I've already done that. It's extremely simple to prove that highly shielded diodes & piezo elements produce DC current through a load."
How much DC current through what resistance load was measured for how long and was verified by whom under what test conditions?
From the "proof" web page:
"Piezos & diodes: When *undisturbed* and highly shielded electrically and thermally, they have consistently produce anywhere from 1 to 7.5 volts and typically 5 to 30 pA DC. This has been verified by numerous scientists. Initially the diode research was plagued with the Instability effect, but was solved. The last remaining issue with this research is figuring out why diodes or piezos connected in-parallel produce the same DC current. It is believed the components help disturb each other. So far, one single component produces more DC power than multiple in-parallel components."
That last statement that I highlighted falsifies your claim.
If removing element X does not change outcome Q, then X is not responsible for Q. You have shown that by adding components, you do not increase observed energy. Therefore the components are not responsible for the energy you observe.
Q.E.D.
Anonymous ben wrote, "That last statement that I highlighted falsifies your claim."
Incorrect. A piezo element array has shown that a percentage of the piezo elements are disturbed at any given moment. Due to the randomly fluctuation effect, one element might be producing 8 volts, while another 2 volts. If you known anything about fundamental electronics you'll known that the 2 volt piezo is shorting the 8 volt piezo.
Ben, AKA Hairykrishna - STFU.
"How much DC current through what resistance load was measured for how long and was verified by whom under what test conditions?"
The components are not like a battery, as it fluctuates over time. A typical shielded undisturbed piezo element produces 5 volts at 10 pA DC. Smaller components typically produce more DC power. I don't recall the exact duration, but the longest experiment so far lasted several weeks where the piezo element produced DC power without showing any signs of decaying. The experiment ended in order to conduct another experiment. I conducted that experiment.
Email me or read my blog site if you other technical questions. This thread is about Steorn.
Some great news -->
Steorn Solid State Orbo Demonstration, Sat Nov 13th, Time: 11:00
Yes, Paul, it's amazing how you and your special friends have found not just one but many forms of impossible free energy. That you can almost show us. Wait. Hang on. Need to fix the bearings.
Steorn has been "working" on this charade for as long as you have on yours, and they have exactly the same to show for it. You have powered an LED with a piezo. They have made a wheel spin using a battery. Brave new world, eh?
"Anonymous ben wrote, "That last statement that I highlighted falsifies your claim."
Incorrect. A piezo element array has shown that a percentage of the piezo elements are disturbed at any given moment. Due to the randomly fluctuation effect, one element might be producing 8 volts, while another 2 volts. If you known anything about fundamental electronics you'll known that the 2 volt piezo is shorting the 8 volt piezo."
No, you apparently do not understand the scientific method.
Your hypothesis is that device X, a piezo electric disc magically generates DC electrical power on its own. Your experiment observation is that N*X produces less electrical power as you observe it than 1*X. Ergo, according to your observations (N-1)*X dissipates energy. Ergo, setting N = 2 dissipates energy, ergo X dissipates energy. Ergo X is an energy sink and not an energy source. Q.E.D.
You proceed to hypothesize that maybe X really generates power, but that somehow N*X reduces the electrical output. The hypothesis ignores your own data as shown above. It also ignores the fact that in systems with random energies, the noise power increases with the number of elements.
Post a Comment
<< Home