I found 308% gain at Steorn!
Yes - see me as 1 of 3 to test the solid state orbo board at Steorn HQ on Sept 25th and find over 300 % gain. We took the rig apart and put it together, measuring our resistor ourselves and re-did everything, did our own formulae in Excel etc. and indeed found a gain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HKTYrVjEGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HKTYrVjEGY
When they send out some of these boards to SKDB members, we will find independent verification all over the world. Anyone with an oscilloscope and some voltage and current probes can measure this.
posted by blogtrotter | 1:16 AM
218 Comments:
Great video. This is amazing idependent verification of a major technological and scientific breakthrough in the production of clean and free energy.
Hugh,
I have a lot of respect for what you, the SKDB members and the Steorn gang are doing. I have no reason to doubt the qualifications of anyone of the guys speaking in the last video.
That notwithstanding I, and more importantly a lot of movers and shakers in the industrial world, will probably find that the measurements you have performed are by themselves not a definitive proof of overunity.
Regardless of the enormous implications it will have on theoretical physics if proven true, overunity is basically an engineering matter, requiring a straightforward engineering proof. That will be closing of the energy circuit. If with a self-sustaining basic device, containing the Orbo and a power consumer Steorn can indisputably demonstrate that the energy consumed is greater than the one supplied by the battery driving the Orbo circuit, that will be a really definitive proof of concept. Otherwise people can argue that the scope readings can perhaps be explained away in some other way that doesn't include overunity.
Yes, people know that Steorn is an R&D company and not an industrial one, and they don't expect them to flood the local Wall-Mart with Orbo-powered baby rattles. They do expect however a demonstration device that convincingly proves the concept.
Can it power itself?
There is only one question that matters: Has anyone demonstrated one of these devices operating without an external known power source? I'm quite sure the answer is no.
A device is only more than 100% efficient, if the total output power is greater than the total input power. If an electrical device continuously outputs 308% of the power at its input, then making that device self-sustain is a trivial engineering exercise. If that exercise fails, look not to difficulty with the engineering, but error in the assumptions and measurement method that lead to the 308% efficiency conclusion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steorn say they are working on a self-sustainer, just as they already had for e-orbo. This would be much easier for many people to have and conform than the sensitive and difficult rotating e-orbo.
Hugh, the legacy of free energy is that the inventor is always working on something that will actually work: produce more in total than it consumes. They never get there. This is our existing laws of thermodynamics at work.
Inventors of free energy devices frequently account energy incorrectly. Steorn have done so repeatedly. Accounting energy incorrectly is really easy to do when quantities have large ratios. It's even easier when integration is involved. It's even easy to do using expensive instruments.
Anonymous, you said "Inventors of free energy devices frequently account energy incorrectly. Steorn have done so repeatedly."
This statement is false.
I agree with 007 here. In fact, Steorn are extremely precise in their measurements - reason they take to long before going public. Their equipment is top of the range - many 1000 Euro for even current probes (which they studiously de-gauss before each measurement).
007 / Hugh you are incorrect on this point. Steorn have consistently used expensive precision equipment and still obtained erroneous measurements. Precision and cost do not make measurements accurate. In order to obtain accurate measurements, it is also necessary to design, and execute an experiment so that the quantity one wishes to measure is clearly within the experiment's capability. Steorn have shown again and again that despite using very expensive, high quality gear that they obtain fundamentally flawed measurements. This is because Steorn both design poor experiments and make false assumptions.
Here are some examples:
PM orbo shown in the testimonial video December 2008. Steorn used expensive gear to show an energy gain once each rotation. The energy gain measurement is refuted by the fact that the PM orbo cannot spin on its own. If there were an energy gain, then with good bearings the energy would accelerate wheel each cycle until the friction loss each rotation balances the extra energy.
e-Orbo. Steorn used expensive equipment to show an energy gain once each coil firing. The energy gain is a calculated value. The calculations are limited by the resolution of the digital oscilloscope that they use. The coil goes through a permeability change of thousands to one which exceeds the resolution of that instrument.
e-Orbo inductive energy gain. Steorn use the formula E = 1/2LIsquared for energy in the coil. As anyone with a physics education can tell you that formula is the solution of an integral where L is constant over the integration. That was not the case, completely invalidating Steorn's conclusion of energy gain.
In fact given an inductor where inductance is measured at a higher value at one moment versus another, and where the magnetizing force has not reversed polarity, we may directly infer that the greater inductance simply represents a lower state of magnetization, and therefore less stored energy than where the inductance is lower. This is basic electrical power engineering.
> PM orbo ... Steorn used expensive gear to show an energy gain once each rotation. The energy gain measurement is refuted by the fact that the PM orbo cannot spin on its own.
Wrong: PM orbo did self sustain for many hours - only the bearings of 2008 caused mech failure after a while. With the zeor-F bearings a PM rig could be got to run forever. A simple sim of the process confirms this.
> e-Orbo. Steorn used expensive equipment . The energy gain is a calculated value. The calculations are limited by the resolution of the digital oscilloscope
Again nonsense - e-orbo self sustained by re-charging the batteries. The scope traces were borne out by voltmeter readings on batteries after many days - no depletion.
> e-Orbo inductive energy gain. Steorn use the formula...
Jury out on this to an extent. We'll see when people get their boards - it should not be too hard to rig a battery-recharging or capacitor charge
self sustainer. We saw no obvious problem.
Hugh, tell me if I am wrong, but I believe you are relying on Steorn for your statements concerning the PM Orbo. That was a 2007 device that Steorn failed to demonstrate at the Kinetica gallery. In the three intervening years, despite promises to show video of a working device to the SKDB, I do not know of anyone independent of Steorn who has witnessed a PM Orbo running for hours as you state.
Steorn's jury engaged Steorn from the start of 2007 to June of 2009 and found that Steorn did not have a free energy generator. PM Orbo working as you describe would certainly qualify as a free energy generator.
e-Orbos have never been shown running for more than a few hours from a very large battery. Steorn have never shown power flow to and from the battery that operates an e-Orbo. If you are relying on battery voltage measurements for state of battery charge, you are making a critical mistake. Pulse charging of batteries has long been known capable of creating high terminal voltages even though the battery is at a low state of charge. The only reliable way to determine the state of charge is to run the battery down. A slightly less accurate method is to measure terminal voltage while drawing a significant current.
If the e-Orbo was really generating excess energy each quarter turn, then no battery would have been necessary. When asked about this, Steorn said that they needed those big batteries in order to handle large pulse loads. That is false. Good capacitors have much better pulse current characteristics than the best batteries. Any good electrical engineer could easily design a power filter circuit to deliver the pulse loads Steorn say they need for the e-Orbo.
Hugh, there is no doubt about the energy in a magnet. It is the integral of B and H. When dB/dH better known as inductance is constant, then the solution to the integral is trivial and works out to 1/2LIsquared. When magnetization takes place over a portion of the B/H curve that is nonlinear, the trivial solution breaks down. This is a mathematical and physical fact that you can easily verify.
You can also easily verify that when a magnet operates in a single quadrant, dB/dH decreases with the absolute value of H. Inductance goes down as the energy stored in the magnet goes up. It does not matter whether that energy is derived from: one coil, or multiple coils, with or without permanent magnets.
The laws of thermodynamics did not come about on whims. They came to be laws because countless careful experiments bear them out. Experiments conducted with dodgy or outright false assumptions are in no position to trump that history. Steorn's statements about inductor energy, are like many of their statements: plainly wrong.
Why is it always a faceless, and anonymous "expert" that turns up to comment whenever there is a positive story about Steorn. Hmmm...very strange.
Just accept the fact that you are wrong. It's not just Hugh saying this. We've already had 6 separate engineers publicly CONFIRM the GAINS since 2007.
And the laws of thermodynamics can say whatever they want, but this is new physics that is not understood fully yet. Laws of physics have been proven wrong on a number of occasions and are only correct up until the point something new challenges them.
Hugh and the other lads have already displayed their qualifications and expertise,
But you remain in the shadows. Faceless, disgruntled for some reason and making assertions without any proven knowledge or expertise.
007, since Steorn won't allow us access to the tech, you can hardly blame us for not testing it. In fact, we have no idea how many people have looked at it other than these 5 (not 6, one was in both groups). For all we know, 5,000 have found it did not work, and 5 say it does.
We know the jury Steorn hand picked was looking for proof and Steorn were unable to convince them. If it really produced a 308% gain, it would be simple to show it in a way that anyone could see. What is more likely, that everything we know about how the world works as demonstrated by all experiment and observation of hundreds of years is wrong, or that these 5 people videoed by Steorn are mistaken?
007, I don't make any appeals to authority. If you want authority, Steorn's jury said Steorn don't have what they say they have.
You think Steorn have the goods and so does Hugh. That's all well and good, but without something solidly verifiable that belief is not credible. If we go down the authority route you would have to show how you are qualified.
What we need is resolution. Tell me if I am wrong. If Steorn really have something that gains 308% over its input then they should be able to loop that so that it self runs. If they ever get something like that to work there won't be an argument. If they can't I will tell you that makes a hell of an argument for measurement error.
@Anonymous
Well to be honest there is ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY for a self looped version AT ALL.
If the board gets shipped out and we start hearing back from people results of anything over 100% consistently then we have a winner.
However, having said that I wouldn't be surprised if that's the next version of Orbo to appear. That would be the cherry on the icing on the cake.
On the subject of the history of observed physics. You can preach ALL day and ALL night about all the observations made since the history of the world began, but new effects and challenges to known physics happen all the time.
The problem is one of mindset and ego where certain elements of academia and the establishment have an issue with BEING challenged at all as it threatens a lot of what is percieved true.
My advice to you is to welcome possible change and not be so dead set against it, for when it comes it will be harder to deal with.
Either sit and wait it out or go off and test yourself. Nothing to stop you joining the SKDB and UNDERSTAND the theory behind the practice.
You may just be surprised at what you find.
If the "308%" figure were true, closing the loop on a fully electronic implementation would be a cakewalk.
For a qualified electrical engineer, designing and constructing a rectifier/capacitor/DC-DC (or AC) converter system should only take a few days (tops). SO... there is no valid reason why Steorn shouldn't be shipping a development board with the lights (LED) already on. In other words, it should be powering itself. No battery. No Adaptors.
Anything less, and it's smoke and mirrors (as usual for Steorn).
-DerrickA
FE Truth please tell me how it would be possible to have such a big gain as 308% and still not be able to rig such a device to self-run. Please explain how one rules out measurement error when their free energy machine won't run unless sourced from another energy source.
Please also explain to me why it is that if Steorn really think they have convincing proof that they now have the goods that they have not gotten at least some of their old jury to come and take a look.
I'd love to have free energy. I could tell my power company to go take a hike. My wanting free energy doesn't get it for me.
How come you are all anonymous? LOL
@New Anonymous person - Saying that Steorn have not let you have access to the tech is nonsense. They've only JUST announced it a few days ago and they've indicated October for release, so your statement is false. If you had actually watched the latest video you would have seent he annotation that displays the expected release date.
I believe they WILL be closing the loop in the near future FWIW.
Your argument is one of constantly changing the goal posts. A while ago the debate was that they couldn't have overunity. Now that we've got qualified gusy going on record STATING CLEARLY that they are getting over 300% you have moved the goal posts now to a fixation on closed loop systems.
When we have a closed loop system running will you then change the goal posts AGAIN to the amount of power it can produce?
And to the other anonymous Joe out there - It is entirely possible to isolate an energy source to prove overall overunity. You can do that with simple electronics.
THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO PSEUDOSKEPTICS.
CONSTANTLY MOVING THE GOAL POSTS AND DISMISSING NEW EVIDENCE WITHOUT TESTING IT YOURSELF. DON'T YOU FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
The SKDB is currently open. Now you can join and see how this is done and understand it or you can go on blindly pontificating and shouting about "The Laws Of Physics Say BLAH!"
Mr. FE Truth I don't see why you are so upset. For Steorn to have what they say means that very fundamental things we thought we understood about the way the world works have been wrong. It's a very big claim. The bigger the claim the more likely it is wrong, and the more carefully it has to be checked. Many people before Steorn have made this claim and fallen on their faces. Steorn have fallen on their faces too. Their demonstrations have failed: Kinetica, or been kind of ridiculous: Waterways.
I asked you if you see any reason why 308% gain wasn't enough to self-loop. That's not moving a goal post. I'm trying to find common ground where people can agree that what Steorn say they have is right or not. You got so mad at the question that I think you must not believe they can make a device run by itself. You can believe what you want, but if someone can't make a machine that runs by itself, the chances they have something that makes free energy are damn low.
You don't seem to allow that what Steorn say, and you and Hugh believe can be wrong. That is unwise. Lots of people before Steorn have said they had free energy when they didn't. Many thought they did because they made bad measurements. I think you are very foolish if you do not allow that Steorn could have made bad measurements as well. I think that is even more important for someone who calls themselves truth. Steorn have already said things that are very wrong. Their energy accounting in a saturated inductor is a good example. Where they say they have a gain in the inductor energy, they have a loss. We can hope that the 308% they report in the new machine isn't another big mistake like that. What we hope doesn't change anything.
"Hugh, tell me if I am wrong, but I believe you are relying on Steorn for your statements concerning the PM Orbo. That was a 2007 device that Steorn failed to demonstrate at the Kinetica gallery. In the three intervening years, despite promises to show video of a working device to the SKDB, I do not know of anyone independent of Steorn who has witnessed a PM Orbo running for hours as you state."
Oh nameless one, I tell you you ARE wrong! I don't rely on Steorn for my statements concerning the PM Orbo. First, I have written a simulator that reproduces the torque profiles measure by Steorn that give the gain. 2nd, I have little test setup that lets me 'feel' the basic torque, though I can't put it into a rig as don't have zeroF bearings. Third, staff at the Kinetica museum witnessed the PM orbo spinning for many hours.
As four hte claptrap on e-orbo - don't have time to answer such rubbish.
Hugh, if Steorn had a working PM Orbo in 2007 then surely even if it broke, they could have made another to show the jury, before the jury gave up in frustration two and a half years later. The jury did not see anything from Steorn that produced free energy. All the same, what you say about the staff at Kinetica is the first I have heard. If you know how to contact any of them, I'd like to know what it was they say first hand.
What you call claptrap you can readily verify. If you are interested in the truth then I hope that you will.
Frequently in programming and systems development, you'll see odd or unexpected behaviour and have no idea how to account for it - a balance sheet doesn't add up, a bill is 10x larger than it should be.
Where this happens in some complex set of circumstances, one of the first things you do is to progressively simplify those circumstances, so that you can replicate that behaviour with as simple a demonstration as possible.
Sometimes you'll find an error in your own code; more rarely you'll uncover an error in some underlying library; rarer still, a bug in firmware.
What you never find is that, actually, 2+5 *does* equal 5 in some circumstances.
This, I believe, is what Steorn have efffectively done.
They started out with a relatively complex setup that displayed a measurement error of some sort.
Subsequent iterations have not isolated some undiscovered principle; they've merely progressively simplified the circumstances under which expensive equipment can be fooled into giving incorrect answers.
Experiments that would falsify the claim are simply regarded as incorrect and unable to show the "genuine" effect.
So the claim is an unfortunate combination of error and bias.
@Anon
If you want to hire a detective to find those witnesses of the Kinetica demo, feel free. As it was much easier to get the
e-orbo effect than the PM one, Steorn concentrated on the latter, until they found the solid state effect, which is even easier.
Some time soon people will return to the PM model - it makes a wonderful executive toy. The e-orbo principle is so easy - just
watch Sean's talks on Youtube and you can glean it all from there.
@Mr Geniality
Soooo wrong: They did identify the process. It's basically time variant effects in the (electro-)magnetic force. They have the theory
all worked out -as said above, the e-orbo theory is ridiculously easy.
Hugh, you said these people witnessed a quite incredible thing. If you can't produce them or a record of their testimony there is no way to determine if you are mistaken. Please tell me how you learned Kinetica workers witnessed the PM Orbo working.
The fact that Steorn never showed such a convincing thing as a working PM Orbo to their own jury which they had captive for two years after the Kinetica gallery failure strongly suggests that you are mistaken. Steorn did after all assemble the jury to verify their claims. If they had a working PM Orbo once, even if it broke before they could show it to their jury they would have been fools not to recreate it. Saying that they instead decided to work on something else while holding their jury off sounds a lot like the fisherman's story of the big fish that got away.
Please explain to me what you mean by time variant effects. Steorn have made a lot of noise where they have misused the term time variance. I would like to know what you think it means.
@blogtrotter
But the theory has been developed - according to the history on their own website - to explain a measurement anomaly.
And as far as I know - and admittedly public announcements are my only source of information - nobody has independently verified that it holds water.
Are you saying that the theory has been validated by someone independent from Steorn with suitable qualifications, even if you aren't free to say who that is?
@Anon
Heard of the witnesses in the forum from SKDB members who were at kinetica - those threads disappeared years ago though.
As for the jury - they were impatient and put their foot in it. Another jury will pronounce on them :-).
@Geniality
Some did confirm the theory, yes. As to who verified it and what qualifications et.c - my NDA prevents revelation of that.
Hugh thank you for explaining how you found out about the people at Kinetica. That differs from my understanding of those events. I never heard of such accounts on the SKDB. I will check with others to see what they know of this.
I think you are being quite unfair to Steorn's jury. When Steorn advertised they said their technology was already proven. Steorn said they needed to upset science enough to give them a fair evaluation. The jury signed up to do just that, and didn't give up for two and a half years. Steorn failed to show the jury something convincing. That speaks against Steorn. It also speaks against your belief that the PM Orbo worked at Kinetica.
I would really appreciate it if you would explain what you mean by time variant effects.
"Always proven to work"? - LOL
"550 bhp" - LOL
"Packs quite a punch" - LOL
"0.5 w per cc" - LOL
Nodding Donkey Toy Fail? - LOL
Kinetica Fail? - LOL
Waterways Fail? - LOL
African Water Pumps Fail? - LOL
PM Orbo? - LOL
EM Orbo? - LOL
SS Orbo? - LOL
Jury Result Fail? - LOL
419 Euro SKDB Fee? - LOL
14 Million Euro raised by Steorn from their investors? - LOL
Battery / Mains Powered "Free" Energy Devices? - LOL
Some people still believing in Steorn? - LOL
308% Gain but have not closed the loop yet? - ROFLOL
Hugh,
You have to realize that any person with a good technical background is not at all impressed with Steorn's presentations of their claims. Just look at the e-Orbo presentation at Waterworks for example. They claimed that more energy was being returned to the battery from the generator coil setup. Yet they made mo attempt whatsoever to show measurements of the power draw from the D-cell, and the power return to that very same D-cell. A beautiful DSO was sitting right next to one of the e-Orbo setups and they did not use it. They had fancy current probes and voltage probes and they could have measured both power flows with a push of a button. This is an example of inexplicable and unacceptable behaviour from Steorn. It is up to you as an individual to use your wisdom and read between the lines.
Beyond all of that, there is an unscientific method to draw your own preliminary conclusions about that setup. Just by eyeballing that setup, I could estimate with a high degree of confidence that the power return was much less than the power draw for the e-Orbo. That's why they changed the batteries at regular intervals. It was almost obscene to see that beautiful DSO sitting there doing nothing while Steorn made an outrageous claim about an unremarkable Perspex pulse motor.
There are an overwhelming number of cases like this in the narrative for Steorn. Just look at the "final proof" demo. Any person with some technical knowledge and experience would scoff at that presentation.
If you want to convince me about your 300% return claim, then how about some details? What was the power in in watts? What was the power out in watts? How did you measure both? Did you use a load resistor? What was its value and what kind of waveform was across it? What was the peak voltage? What about the input waveform, what did it look like, what was the peak voltage, what about the currents?
I don't believe that information should violate your NDA. I am just asking you about the details for the excitation and response. The SS-Orbo remains a "black box" and I don't have to know about its workings.
Those questions that I asked, they are the types of questions that I would have expected Steorn themselves to be answering for every demo they did, without waiting for someone to pose the questions. They are supposed to be engineers, and as a result they are supposed to know what kind of information that their technical audience was expecting to hear and deliver on that expectation. The simple fact of the matter is that they never did.
I will repeat what some others have already said, if the PM Orbo was fixed, why did they not demonstrate it to someone after Kinetica? I think I read that you said it might be resurrected as an executive toy. If you said that, you have got to be kidding. It wouldn't be an executive toy, it would be an earth-shattering event in the history of man and change the entire world. If find that comment a severe disconnect.
Steorn has to be real if they want to get any credibility. Waterworks was a ghastly affair with people squirming in their seats. You must realize this, it was simply awful.
Everything in the Steorn narrative indicates that they are now a cash-poor company that have very little money left in the gas tank and they are running on gas fumes. Do you know how many employees they have right now? Can you state what tangible accomplishments they have done in the last six months?
I think that Steorn are a sinking ship.
MileHigh
Hugh,
You have to realize that any person with a good technical background is not at all impressed with Steorn's presentations of their claims. Just look at the e-Orbo presentation at Waterworks for example. They claimed that more energy was being returned to the battery from the generator coil setup. Yet they made mo attempt whatsoever to show measurements of the power draw from the D-cell, and the power return to that very same D-cell. A beautiful DSO was sitting right next to one of the e-Orbo setups and they did not use it. They had fancy current probes and voltage probes and they could have measured both power flows with a push of a button. This is an example of inexplicable and unacceptable behaviour from Steorn. It is up to you as an individual to use your wisdom and read between the lines.
Beyond all of that, there is an unscientific method to draw your own preliminary conclusions about that setup. Just by eyeballing that setup, I could estimate with a high degree of confidence that the power return was much less than the power draw for the e-Orbo. That's why they changed the batteries at regular intervals. It was almost obscene to see that beautiful DSO sitting there doing nothing while Steorn made an outrageous claim about an unremarkable Perspex pulse motor.
There are an overwhelming number of cases like this in the narrative for Steorn. Just look at the "final proof" demo. Any person with some technical knowledge and experience would scoff at that presentation.
(2nd part coming up)
If you want to convince me about your 300% return claim, then how about some details? What was the power in in watts? What was the power out in watts? How did you measure both? Did you use a load resistor? What was its value and what kind of waveform was across it? What was the peak voltage? What about the input waveform, what did it look like, what was the peak voltage, what about the currents?
I don't believe that information should violate your NDA. I am just asking you about the details for the excitation and response. The SS-Orbo remains a "black box" and I don't have to know about its workings.
Those questions that I asked, they are the types of questions that I would have expected Steorn themselves to be answering for every demo they did, without waiting for someone to pose the questions. They are supposed to be engineers, and as a result they are supposed to know what kind of information that their technical audience was expecting to hear and deliver on that expectation. The simple fact of the matter is that they never did.
I will repeat what some others have already said, if the PM Orbo was fixed, why did they not demonstrate it to someone after Kinetica? I think I read that you said it might be resurrected as an executive toy. If you said that, you have got to be kidding. It wouldn't be an executive toy, it would be an earth-shattering event in the history of man and change the entire world. If find that comment a severe disconnect.
Steorn has to be real if they want to get any credibility. Waterworks was a ghastly affair with people squirming in their seats. You must realize this, it was simply awful.
Everything in the Steorn narrative indicates that they are now a cash-poor company that have very little money left in the gas tank and they are running on gas fumes. Do you know how many employees they have right now? Can you state what tangible accomplishments they have done in the last six months?
I think that Steorn are a sinking ship.
MileHigh
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig Brown, re the SKDB comments on PM Orbo, thanks. That's more or less how I remembered it.
Hugh, I trust this reconciles your recollection and what Steorn's jury said. I also trust that this places us all in agreement that a working PM Orbo is something that no one independent of Steorn has ever verified.
Steorn's arrangement shown in the 2008 video with Phil Watson, Liam Fennelly, and John Rice was a vertical axis set-up. If energy were gained each cycle as Steorn claimed, then with sufficient quality bearings, the wheel would have spun-up by itself. It didn't.
Unless you have some counter facts I think we can move on to the problems with the eOrbo demonstrations.
Various pseudoskeptics and debunkers who have an interest in seeing failure of free energy have been purposefully trying to sidetrack onto issues of the "jury" and self looped systems.
Not only that but they have impersonated others in a poor attempt to muddle and confuse the issue.
The real issue here that nobody can deny is that we have 6 highly qulaified individuals now on record confirming gains of energy that are way outside the realms of measurement error.
On the other side, you have a bunch of armchair critics and hangers on from the James Randi forums whose ONLY information on Steorn was gleaned from the establishment science obsessed media who have their reputations and money interests to protect. Those people comment on these systems without having tested it themselves and with an AGENDA to preserve the status quo.
Since the data around this is still only available within the SKDB and to people who've signed an NDA, then it's NOT POSSIBLE for anyone to deny the results at this stage based on any scientific evidence.
FEtruth, aka 007, We don't have to deny anything. They have made an extravagant claim and have not backed it up. In fact, for 4 years they have behaved in a way that makes no sense unless they DO NOT have what they say they have. We would be as foolish as you if we believed them.
And no one here has vested interest in the laws of nature holding--they just do.
FE Truth conjecture and fantasy don't make truth. Steorn say they have god-like powers to make energy/matter out of nothing. To date they haven't shown anything that amounts to serious evidence. There is no conspiracy against Steorn. There is only Steorn's failure to back-up their claims with anything serious.
Three people, five people, or five hundred people saying they believe that an undisclosed experiment changes the world as we know it is meaningless without knowing what it is they relied on to reach that opinion.
If Steorn ever show credible evidence they can create matter/energy like they say they can it will be fantastic. It would change everything about the world we know. The odds against it being so are about the same odds as an everlasting snowball in hell.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I've had to delete some libellous comments posted in false names. Sad, sad, sad.
Except the CB post wasn't libelous.
You have learned well from Sean young apprentice. Delete without cause is strong in this one.
Is 00-idiot (craig brown) that thin skinned?
I'll venture that no attempt was made to determine if Craig Brown is or is not the name of the person who used that signature.
The post said that reports of a Kinetica gallery employee witnessing a working PM Orbo were never more than a rumor in the SKDB. That was a rumor that Sean himself said was false. The post was consistent with recollections from various SKDB members. It is also consistent with the facts that Steorn failed their promise to show a video of PM Orbo to the SKDB, and that Steorn's jury ruled that Steorn never demonstrated a working energy generator.
Hugh - "I've had to delete some libellous comments posted in false names. Sad, sad, sad."
Right, because all the names here are 'not false'. Orbo, 007, FE Truth, Mr Geniality, evolvealready.
Sad indeed that Free Energy requires suppression of those critical of the inconsistencies contained in your pet delusion. Sure sign of those without solid data and knowledge, silence the critics.
The deletions were NOT due to content, which did not differ markedly from the stuff being repeated ad nauseum here. It was simply htat some jokers decided to sign themselves as Craig or to usurp his name as username. This could also be a sort of crime - impersonation.
As for Kinetica - great, but we've moved on from there. Not only staff, but the Steorn staff (20 witnesses) can confirm it. Time will tell.
Dear Dr. Hugh Deasy,
For months I've seen first hand measurements of eOrbo replications producing excess energy. For me this is a fact seen from repeated meticulous detailed measurements. What you & I probably disagree upon is the instability effect. Please see my blog post on this topic http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/09/25/fe-quote-2/
If blogger blocks URL's, then google these key words to find my FE Quote post --> cold fusion eOrbo rpm meg mce quote
I'm sure you would say the Orbo's can run years without stopping. I disagree, unless they use a battery that's deep enough to overcome the fluctuations. We know for fact the eOrbo live demos showed *significant* fluctuations over time.
Unless Steorn has already found a way to overcome this, this my friend is the biggest obstacle we'll all need to overcome.
Kind regards,
Paul Lowrance
Hugh you should be smarter than to tell stories about the big fish that got away. I'll venture that you can't come up with a single witness independent of Steorn who will testify they ever saw a self-running PM Orbo.
Time has told Hugh. Time told when Steorn failed to produce the video of a self-running PM Orbo they promised to the SKDB. Time told when more than a year later they did not show a self-running PM Orbo to: Liam, John, and Phil. Time told when over the next two years Steorn failed to show a self-running PM Orbo to any of their jury members.
Time has told with respect to the eOrbo, and it is about to tell with the ssOrbo. Measurement errors don't make energy.
blogtrotter said...
I've had to delete some libellous comments posted in false names. Sad, sad, sad.
blogtrotter said...
The deletions were NOT due to content...some jokers decided to sign themselves as Craig or to usurp his name as username. This could also be a sort of crime - impersonation.
LOL
Which is it, "libelous contents" or "NOT due to content".
Jesus, I wouldn't trust your take on anything as there looks to be some logical consistency issues.
Paul Lowrance, please identify what impedance over frequency you require for your eOrbo to reliably produce excess energy.
Hi Paul,
I agree that e-orbo maybe could not run forever as the feedback via battery causes wear and tear. in that sense even ss-orbo will have a bit of a problem until that interface is sorted ( I think capacitors should eventually do this). Ironically, Pm orbo might have a better chance of that, once jazzed up with zeroF bearings etc.
What is a Zero-F bearing? How will that change things?
Anonymous wrote, "Paul Lowrance, please identify what impedance over frequency you require for your eOrbo to reliably produce excess energy."
Anonymous, I wouldn't call my device an eOrbo since I don't know the exact details to build an eOrbo. It used to be called the "Tiny Orbo Replication." Now it's called TOR (Tiny Orbital Rig). TOR v4 ran over 17,000 rpm. The higher the rpm it can operate, the better it is in terms of efficiency. I don't have passive magnetic bearings, which is why the rpm's must be high to get enough excess energy to overcome the losses. The total input was 180 mW. There was 170 mW of joule heating due to current. That leaves 10 mW for the motor itself. The pickup coil *output* was 280 mW, at ~ 2270 Hz. Furthermore I've used numerous methods to estimate the heat produced by TOR v4 due to mechanical drag at 17,100 rpm, which comes to 4 to 10 watts.
If Dr. Huge doesn't mind, here's the URL for further details, and you can see a quick video of TOR v4 -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/04/15/holy-grail-tiny-orbo-replication/
PL
Hugh,
As far as Paul Lowrence and his comments go about producing free energy with his "Tiny Orbo" go, here are my thoughts:
Paul and I got into a debate about this on a Peswiki web page in the comments section. I asked him precisely how he made his measurements on his "Tiny Orbo" multiple times, and his response every single time was something on the order of, "Huh? I just measured them, I have got nothing more to say."
I pressed him over and over to explain exactly how he made his measurements and he flatly refused to offer up any information at all. Paul refused every single time, it was exasperating.
My conclusion is that Paul made erroneous measurements. It's possible that his measuring technique was so poor and amateur that he didn't want to discuss it. I have encountered Paul many times in the past and I would qualify him as someone that knows a moderate amount about electronics and portrays himself as an expert in electronics. In addition, there are times where he has no clue what he is talking about and just tries to blindly leverage his knowledge into areas where he totally wrong.
In a nutshell, Paul's "Tiny Orbo" has never ever demonstrated over unity.
At the end of our debate, Paul said, "Who's paying you?" Paul's fantasies about being "so important" that the "MIB are watching him because of the advanced technology he is developing" are nothing more than fantasies.
MileHigh
Anonymous, I'm not going to argue with you here. You are a known lair. I explained in detail exactly how I took the measurements. The total input power was DC, where two DVM's were used to measure DC current & voltage, and where an appropriate filter was used to filter any possible spikes on the DVM's. The output was measured on a digital oscilloscope.
I told you all of this. You were banned from the OU website for continuous blatant lies. You have a poor understanding of electronics and the physics behind it. You didn't even know what kTC noise was. You could not partake in a discussion on the quantum mechanics aspect of semiconductor physics.
Sorry, but I'm not going to continue this discussion here with a known liar.
Hugh,
As you can see, Paul Lowrence just posted his data. I suggest that you consider asking him to explain precisely how he made his measurements.
Paul Lowrence states, "The higher the rpm it can operate, the better it is in terms of efficiency."
I have seen his Tiny Orbo clips and it does spin quite fast. So fast in fact that I would think that it is actually decreasing in efficiency due to the fact that the air resistance is proportional to the square of the angular velocity. We can't forget that in the real world all forms of heat dissipation from the device would be considered waste heat decreasing the efficiency of the device.
Paul says, "The total input was 180 mW. There was 170 mW of joule heating due to current. That leaves 10 mW for the motor itself. The pickup coil *output* was 280 mW, at ~ 2270 Hz."
If Paul refuses yet again to explain how he made his measurements in precise detail and show all of his data then his quoted power figures for his Tiny Orbo should be ignored.
If Paul does show how he made his measurements and provides all of his data then you can expect to find one or more major mistakes that he was not aware of that resulted in his erroneous conclusions. It happens all the time with free energy enthusiasts that don't know enough about electronics, test, and measurement. They might think they do but in fact they don't.
MileHigh
Paul Lowrance, you said that the problem with the eOrbo is getting a battery "that's deep enough to overcome the fluctuations". If you can't tell me impedance versus frequency, tell me what your current spikes look like:
* How fast do they rise and fall
* What the values are at the top and bottom of the spikes
* How wide the spikes are
* How far apart the spikes are
And tell me how much the voltage can move during the spikes before there are problems.
Do that, and I'll tell you how to build a filter that meets those requirements. Then you should be able to demonstrate that your device runs without limit.
"It is battery-powered" - LOL
Paul,
I was banned from the OU website for expressing my ideas, not for lying.
It sounds like you are running away. Once again, you are not stating precisely how you made your measurements. I am asking Hugh to do the same thing also and he hasn't responded yet.
I challenge you to post three or four YouTube clips where you document every aspect of your measurements and calculations to back up your claims about the Tiny Orbo being an over unity device. In your comments area write it up with full details. I also challenge you to not delete or censor the user comments any way as long as they are about the measurements and methods you employ.
If you make big claims you should have the courage to back them up.
MileHigh
MileHigh: I already went over the details with you before. A digital scope was used to obtain the rms (root mean square), 100 mV rms. I even gave you wikipedia address how you can calculate rms. Remember? The total resistance was measured with an LCR meter, 35 mOhm. The frequency was low, close to 2270 Hz. Basic 101 electronics. And milehigh, trust me, people working on this research have far better things to do than answer your endless questions. I'm far more focused on trying to figure out the instability issues than proving this to highly skeptical people. If it makes you feel better, the next successful operating TOR will be handed over to a notable University. The detail video documentations you ask for a time consuming, and so far the life span of a TOR has been short. I've spent such valuable time trying to get understand the TOR, taking clear cut measurements. Skeptics are the last thing on my mind during these jaw dropping exciting periods.
Anon: I can't describe here the impedance because it's dynamic & complex, and varies with usage (another unknown effect). The core characteristics drastically changes as the magnet approaches. The applied voltage signal on the core is a square pulse. The pulse rise time was typically a few micro seconds. That was accomplished with a dual voltage source. The initial voltage pulse was high voltage and short duration (a few micro seconds), followed by a long and low voltage pulse. The current peak pulse varied a lot since I was experimenting with the device, but typical values are 0.5 amp to 1.2 amps peak pulse. Pulse duty cycle varied a lot depending how far way the hall effect switch was moved, but typically varied from 5% to 30% duty cycle. As far as how much the peak pulse voltage can vary before there are problems, I did not get a chance to play with the device to determine that, but my pulses very exceptionally flat. As stated on the blog, all of the TOR's had a short life span. I'm presently building TOR v5, but it's a disaster (to lopsided, etc.). Hopefully I can get TOR v6 started soon.
Paul,
You said, "I even gave you wikipedia address how you can calculate rms."
We are going to put a stop to this right now. You can try all you want to portray me like this, but people that know me know better. I am almost certain that you have read enough of my postings to know that I know what I am talking about so your reference to "teaching" me what RMS means is laughable.
A while back you jumped into the Rosemary Ainslie thread and started giving myself and Poynt99 "advice." We were very polite with you and did not respond to the roughly half of your technical comments that were dead wrong. You kept on talking about transmission line theory when we were discussing a small PCB where the wavelengths of the frequency components in the signal was much longer than the length of the PCB itself. In other words, you had no clue what you were talking about and we patronized you for the sake of being polite. Like I said, you like to pretend that you know what you are talking about and you do a lot of creative bluffing because you know that most of the time your audience will not know that you are bluffing. You are just a dabbler in electronics and no more than that.
So again, don't tell me that you used a multimeter. Make some clips showing waveforms and measurement methods, your calculations, the whole nine yards.
And the truth Paul is that I already know ahead of time that you are wrong. You are a child playing in an electronics sandbox. There is not a chance in hell that you have produced over unity with your "TOR." If you documented yourself properly the truth would come out.
You can pretend all you want that you know whet you are doing but the simple truth is that you don't know what you are doing. This is based on reading your comments and watching your clips for the past two years.
MileHigh
Paul Lowrance, I would like to help you overcome your problems. I am having difficulty with you changing gears constantly. You say your voltages are very flat at the same time you say that the battery needs to have deeper capability, which is the same as saying the voltage needs to be flatter.
We can take a first cut based on your reports that your current goes from zero to 1.2Amps in a few microseconds. I say we round that down to one microsecond. I suggest that we design the power filter to have no more than 5mV noise p-p. All I need now is the operating voltage so that I can select parts with the proper ratings. If you will tell me that, then I will compose a parts list for you.
MileHigh: this is not the place to argue. We can each go back & forth all day making defensive comments. It's a waste of time, and pointless.
Anonymous: IMO Steorn uses a "deep" battery because the excess energy fluctuates over time, and at times cannot produce excess energy, so the battery would keep the eOrbo going during such lows. Dr. Hugh might disagree with this. The deep battery has nothing to do with how flat the pulse is. As for the filter, we must be talking about different devices. You don't want to put a filter on these machines. You would want to put a filter on the DVM's though when measuring DC in case there are spikes which may effect the meters, but I already did that.
This topic is supposed to be about Dr. Hugh and his successful 308% gain Orbo measurements. Enough already, unless Dr. Hugh says otherwise. Contact me via email please. You can find my email at my website.
Paul Lowrance if it is your position that your device or Steorn's sometimes makes energy and sometimes consumes it, then please specify under what conditions it does one versus the other.
Anon: IMO that's the trillion $ question. I haven't had much time to experiment with the TOR's. Steorn would be better fit to answer your Q. Although I can offer answers in terms of highly shielded passive diodes & piezo elements (both contain an intense internal E-field). Answer is: thus far the components produce more excess energy when they are left undisturbed as much as possible. This topic of highly shielded piezo & diodes producing DC current & voltage across loads is off topic, so please contact me for details. Thanks
i for one would like to point out that Paul LOL has shown himself ignorant several times.Like confusing work and energy,thinking that power is energy flow, or trying to convince people that diodes rectify power , making eroneous measurements with inapropriate instruments etc
regards, genesis.
Paul Lowrance describe what you mean by diturbed. What happens that diturbs your device? What does your device do after it has been disturbed? What do you have to do to get your device back to an undisturbed state?
genesis, my advice for you & the other cynics at moletrap is to take your pointless lies to another website.
@PLOL
the problem is: you cannot denegate facts i wrote.There are plenty of witnesses around to confirm that you're ignorant loon - not to be trusted in anyway.
regards, genesis
Anon, a "disturbed component" is the state when the component has been affected by means of using or measuring it resulting in a significant decrease in output.
Paul, I had a look at a video of your tiny orbo replication - it looks good. That's the sort of sum Sean used to make at the waterways, i.e. counting heat generated you are many 100% efficient. If you have ZeroF bearings it would be even better of course.
Steorn has just put up the sales pitch for the board - so all you with ideas of how to use free energy, from idealists to the bitter and twisted village of the damned, put your sheckels where your mouth is and surf the board! http://www.steorn.com/skdb/oedu/
"It is battery-powered" - LOL
(worth repeating)
Paul Lowrance a free energy generator that stops generating because I look at it, or God forbid attempt to use power from it is called a resistor.
Hugh please let us all know when Steorn have a free energy generator that has been independently shown to generate, rather than consume energy.
Hugh,
Why don't you just give us your test data. How did you make your measurements?
We don't need to know about the "black box" that is the SS-Orbo. All we want to know are details of your measurements.
If you don't provide any details then what's the point? Are we just supposed to take your word for it? You are obviously not unbiased based on looking at older entries in your blog.
Show us the numbers, please. This is my third and last request. If you ignore it then you are following Sean and Paul's lead and your credibility will sink.
MileHigh
Hugh is probably under NDA and can't give out measurement details. Months ago I gave my measurements, but the highly skeptical never seem to be satisfied, so now they want a video documentary showing all of the measurements. And if I spent the time making that, they would cry the video was faked.
The next TOR will be handed over to a notable University. That's probably the best option.
Paul Lowrance milehigh may not be very diplomatic, but he is correct that measurement values are worthless unless the experiment including the measurement procedures are described in detail. For example you state that you used DVMs with external filters. An obvious problem arises that for all but a few special cases:
RMS( f(v) ) * RMS( f(j) ) <> RMS( f(v*j) )
So without knowing anything about your waveforms or filters one may reasonably conclude that your unusual result your set-up being one of the vast majority cases where the LHS and RHS are unequal.
It's up to you whether you supply sufficient information to make a convincing case that your measurements and conclusions are valid. You will have to do that to satisfy any knowledgeable individual or organization.
> Paul Lowrance milehigh may not be very diplomatic, but he is correct
> that measurement values are worthless unless the experiment including
> the measurement procedures are described in detail. For example you
> state that you used DVMs with external filters. An obvious problem
> arises that for all but a few special cases:
>
> RMS( f(v) ) * RMS( f(j) ) <> RMS( f(v*j) )
>
> So without knowing anything about your waveforms or filters one may
> reasonably conclude that your unusual result your set-up being one of
> the vast majority cases where the LHS and RHS are unequal.
>
> It's up to you whether you supply sufficient information to make a
> convincing case that your measurements and conclusions are valid. You
> will have to do that to satisfy any knowledgeable individual or
> organization.
Anonymous, you must be referring to the output because the input is DC, so the rms logic equation you've outlined is irrelevant. As for the output, as stated, it was measured on a digital oscilloscope. I went over the ~ 2300 Hz signal myself by hand calculating the rms figure for the signal in addition to hand calculating V^2 / R across the entire repeating signal at relatively small dt intervals. Furthermore, we're dealing with a nearly purely resistive load at low frequency. The pickup coil inductance was 5.8 uH. Sorry, but the measurements were correct.
If that's not enough for you, the measured joule heating was close to 170 mW, which means there's only 10 mW left for the motor. So you'll be hard pressed to come up with some mistake I made to account for a 280 to 10 error ration.
If that's not enough, I used two methods of estimating the motors mechanical drag at 17,100 rpm. Both estimates put it in the 4 to 10 watt range. That's watts, not milli watts. S0 0.01 watt produced 4 to 10 watts of motor heat plus 0.17 watts of joule heating in addition to 0.28 watts from the load on the pickup coil.
Beyond my measurements, numerous people have verified the Steorn claim. It's real.
Paul,
That was a nice and confusing posting you made.
You said this: "S0 0.01 watt produced 4 to 10 watts of motor heat plus 0.17 watts of joule heating in addition to 0.28 watts from the load on the pickup coil."
What? Was that a typo?
Even your DC measurement of 180 milliwatts power supplied to the motor needs to be documented. What was the RPM here? If it was 17,100 RPM then it relates back to the claim of 4 to 10 watts of motor heat measured, and I just don't know what to think!
You estimate the motor mechanical power drag in watts by bring it up to speed and then cutting the power and measuring the rate of velocity decrease just after the power is cut, am I correct? Then as long as you know the moment of inertia of the rotor you can deduce the power.
However, Paul, I have seen how you estimate the moment of inertia of your rotor and it is rank amateur. You measure the weights of the magnets and measure the distances from the axis and make a very crude estimate. There must be a better way of doing it but you haven't tried to find a better way.
For the deceleration of the rotor after you cut the power, you have never as far as I am aware shown any of that data. How do you make these measurements?
These two measurements are critical in determining the rotor power dissipation, which you claim is 170 milliwatts. I seriously doubt your measurement is accurate. Document what you did please. And again, what's up with the "4 to 10 watts"???
For your output power measurement, what was the load resistance, what was the voltage waveform? Show us your manual calculation of the power dissipation.
Like I said, there is most likely a flaw in what you did that you are not aware of. That is the real answer Paul, there is no chance that you produced excess energy.
MileHigh
Paul Lowrance the physics that govern the relationships between: voltage, current, and power do not change with the measurement port. In your circuit the current pulses. The average current that you see through a stiff filter does not correctly represent the RMS heating current through the resistive portions of the circuit. Your conclusions of the adequacy of your hand calculations and anything else you have done are completely meaningless without a full description of what they were applied to. That goes for anything you say you have measured: current, voltage, power.
With only the sparse information that you have provided there is no way for me or anyone else to evaluate whether your measurements or conclusions as valid. The fact that you are making extraordinary claims makes your measurements immediately suspect.
When an observation seems to defy established laws, the most likely reason is experimental error. You will have to provide the means for others to do that checking, or you will be dismissed. If you don't take care of that you will have only yourself to blame when the university slams its doors shut in your face.
As a wise man once said, "Performing a specified set of operations on data, that leads to a non-conservative energy result, is a very different thing from having a device that produces excess energy." Hugh, where you failed was in questioning the laws before considering the flaws--the flaws in the assumptions about what is proven. In the end, you will recognize this.
It is simple. If there actually is a gain of 308%, then we do not need complicated measurements. We simply need to get rid of the battery and close the loop, while dissipating large amounts of power in an obvious and indisputable manner.
Of course if there actually is a gain of 308% then we are Gods becuase we can create energy (and therefore more Universe) from nothing. There isn't and we can't!
Why not connect the (308% gain) output from the circuit with a fully charged 9V re-chargeable battery to the input a battery charger containing 3 flat re-chargeable 9V batteries?
Almost invariably claims of measurable energy gains fall into one of two categories:
* Incremental gain incorrectly interpreted as extensible to break-even. An example is anything with an incremental negative resistance transfer function characteristic.
* A gain that occurs only after certain losses are subtracted out. The absolute energy or power gain is always smaller than the losses subtracted out. The error always lies in overestimation of the losses. Steorn's PM Orbo, and eOrbo both fall into this category. I'll venture that the ssOrbo falls into this category as well.
The common characteristic is that the machine can never be self looped. For the first category the energy / power gains vanish as the experimenter tries to get the output level up to the input level. For the second category the energy / power gains vanish as real sources of loss are removed.
I don't have a board to 'play with' yet. Soon several people will have them, and I'm sure some will try connecting to re-charge batteries etc, instead of just heating a resistor. The highest gain Steorn saw for this sort of set-up was 750%. I hope someone can use the board to get that, as then closing the loop should not be a problem.
Hugh, please post progress reports of your efforts with as much detail as possible. They should be educational.
"I don't have a board to 'play with' yet. Soon several people will have them, and I'm sure some will try connecting to re-charge batteries etc, instead of just heating a resistor. The highest gain Steorn saw for this sort of set-up was 750%. I hope someone can use the board to get that, as then closing the loop should not be a problem."
There is no good reason why Steorn wouldn't have done this if it was possible. After all, that would eliminate all doubt and argument.
They fact that have not yet done this yet means that they cannot do this.
Anonymous wrote, "In your circuit the current pulses. The average current that you see through a stiff filter does not correctly represent the RMS heating current through the resistive portions of the circuit."
No, you're not understanding the measurements. You wrote "RMS( f(v) ) * RMS( f(j) ) <> RMS( f(v*j) )", which tells me you don't understand this. Again, it is voltage (100 mV rms) across resistive load with no appreciable reactance. You don't need to know the current rms because it's a resistive load-- electronics 101, P = V^2 / R. Also, again, I used two methods to calculate the pickup coil output, and they are in agreement.
As for the input, again, the input current & voltage was DC. There were no measuring errors caused by spikes. Remember, I have an oscilloscope, which has the ability to display the trace in digital or analog mode. I've taken similar measurements for decades and know how to use my equipment and their limitations. To continually state I made an error when you have no clue what you're talking about makes me want to end this discussion.
MileHigh, no it was not a typo. Again, the 0.17 watts was joule heating from the toroids. Joule heating is also known as ohmic heating or resistive heating, which is the heat produced by electrical current through a resistive load. That has nothing to do with the heat produced by motor drag, which I have estimated to be 4 to 10 watts. The 0.28 watts was joule heating produced by the pickup coil. All of those figures are output power. The input power was 0.18 watts.
IMO the issue between Steorn and bystanders is that Steorn is a company that needs to make $, and being a business with leading edge technology they can't afford to give out too much information otherwise other companies will figure it out and before Steorn knows it they have a dozen competing companies with similar technology with some modifications and improvements.
On the other hand, if you're an owner of a company that's interested in implementing Orbo to power your product, then it should go without saying that Steorn will provide your company with sufficient details to prove Orbo works.
That of course has changed as of recent since anyone can now buy an Orbo kit. And as Dr. Hugh Deasy said, soon we'll begin to see people publishing the results of their Orbo.
Soon it's going to get very interesting. :-)
"SOON" - LOL
"Soon" is now up to the public. I'm following the posts of one group that has already purchased an SS Orbo kit.
For me it's a fact that Orbo produces excess energy. We already know for fact the eOrbo fluctuates by significant amounts over time, and IMO such fluctuations are not due to any known effect because the eOrbo has solid-state relays and passive magnetic levitation bearings. So what would be most interesting is to see long term SS Orbo efficiency. I'm betting it too will fluctuate over time. If true, then it will also need "deep" batteries to keep it going during the lows.
Good grief!
If Steorn really could produce 308% or 750% gain, then they would simply close the loop, and not be wasting everybodies time and money with this battery-powered joke! They can't, and anyone who spends money on this rubbish might as well be throwing that money away.
To believe otherwise is simply irrational.
Paul Lowrance you can try and object to examples where your measurements may have gone wrong. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong on any of those individual points. If you do not completely describe your test set-up and measurement procedures no one who knows their craft will take you or your grandiose claims seriously. Intelligent people do not abandon hundreds of years of knowledge because some guy on the internet says he has measurements from an experiment he fails to specify. It is as simple as that.
Steorn's issues are even worse. Like you Steorn make claims without any adequate description of an experiment and measurement methods to make those claims credible. But far worse Steorn have established a history of: false statements and promises that they never lived up to compounded by complete voodoo science and demonstrated inappropriate measurement methods. An earlier satiric post lists a bunch of Steorn's gaffes. Steorn could not have worked harder to destroy their own credibility.
I can safely predict that no qualified institution: be it a lab or a university will support Steorn's claims that their ssOrbo creates energy. In two months we can compare notes.
Anonymous, I've described everything. If you can't trust my equipment, then there's no point here. I use a Hitachi DSO VC-6041, AM240 DMM, DM4070 LCR meter. So now what? Is that going to suddenly change your mind, LOL? Of course not. In my firm opinion you're grasping at straws. I use my equipment for a very long time, and have verified it countless times on experiments. One example is in testing the efficiency of various capacitors, which for certain capacitors my equipment shows almost exactly 100% efficiency. My equipment and my understanding of science has never failed me yet.
As for my testing procedures, I already described everything and the parts.
As far as Steorn is concerned, I already told you they're a business that must make $ to stay afloat who give a rats a** about bystanders such as yourself.
It all makes perfect sense to me. Steorn has told the truth.
As far as you not believing the claims that numerous people are making that clearly shows excess energy because of your 150+ year science theories, well just visit history. Before Quantum Mechanics there was Classical physics.
Paul,
Your power numbers don't make any sense, especially the 4 to 10 watts stuff.
Let's look at a hypothetical example with respect to your setup.
Supposing you measure two watts power consumption for your motor and you measure one watt going to the load resistor connected to the pick-up coil.
With those two measurements you can say the following: Two watts in is converted into one watt electrical out and one watt of thermal dissipation.
In addition you can say that the one watt of thermal dissipation is split into some ratio between mechanical losses due to the spinning rotor and electrical losses due to the resistance in the wires.
So if you do a proper spin-down test on the rotor to measure the mechanical losses due to air and bearing friction that should measure under one watt.
Based on the limited amount of information you have given us so far it's apparent that you have made a mistake or mistakes somewhere.
Therefore the logical next step is for you to share all of your measurements data and measurement methods so others can have a look at it.
You are way out of whack with your power dissipation claims of between four and 10 watts for the rotor when you claim your average power consumption is about 180 milliwatts. It simply makes no sense at all.
The challenge for you is to try to do a proper energy audit trail for your device and share all of your data. You have now heard the same refrain from others.
MileHigh
Paul Lowrance you have some strange ideas of what describing something completely means. I don't see any detailed description of:
1. The experiment set-up.
2. The measurement ports.
3.a. The equipment connected to each measurement port.
3.b. The settings for each test instrument used.
4. Description all derived values and the specific methods used in the derivations.
5. The control experiments and data used to validate the measurement set-up is valid.
6. The live experiment data.
Only when such information then and only then will you get anyone who knows what they are doing interested in your grandiose claims. No one in their right mind would give credence to what I have seen from you so far.
The most detail I have seen is the schematic of your control and bi-voltage drive circuit. Perhaps I missed it, but I did not even see voltages for the two power supplies used.
Paul,
I know that I have been tough with you and have stated that you feign knowing all about electronics, and that you can get away with this most of the time.
However, the use of language is very revealing.
Look at this quote from you: "One example is in testing the efficiency of various capacitors, which for certain capacitors my equipment shows almost exactly 100% efficiency."
You don't realize it Paul but that quote is very revealing about you. It tells knowledgeable people in your audience that you are a pretender. No electrical engineer or real electronics technician would ever utter that sentence. It would be a huge faut pas and clearly indicate that you don't have a formal education in electronics and everything that you state after uttering that sentence is going to be suspect.
Again, you need to show all with respect to your claims about your "Tiny Orbo" a.k.a. your "TOR."
MileHigh
MileHigh, my reference to the capacitor efficiency is taking the total discharge energy and divided by the total energy to charge to capacitor. That's an easy task for EE's. I was surprised that you did not even know what kTC noise was. Regarding your comment on motor drag and spin down times, wow, you have no clue what you're talking about. This is a waste of everyone's spare time here.
Anonymous, so far you and the moletrap cynics have been unable to find one error in the equations I used, and my numbers. So now you're getting desperate by asking me for scope settings & ports, as if I don't know how to use my scope. You are the only one here that's made a mistake. I told you the 100 mV rms was measured across resistance with no appreciable reactance. Yet you come back saying voltage rms times current rms usually gives the incorrect power. The voltage rms from a signal measured across resistance with no appreciable reactance provides correct power. You made a basic electronics 101 error. Also, you keep talking about spikes. It's magnets spinning by an air coil producing a signal close to a sine wave at 2.3 KHz, LOL. As for basic things such as scope settings, you'll have to wait for a detailed video documentary.
If you want a serious conversation about my measurements, then send me an email, and stop hiding behind your anonymous name.
Paul Lowrance, your can choose to supply meaningful information that supports your grandiose claims, or not. It's entirely your choice. Heed my advice or don't and see what happens.
If I have read you correctly, you've tried unsuccessfully to convince people you can make free energy with some arrangement of diodes and/or piezoelectric devices. If that is right you might ask yourself why you failed to convince anyone of something that if true would have been a huge discovery.
Various EE's and physicists (by profession) have replicated my diode & piezo experiments. *All* have seen the voltage & current produced by these highly shielded & undisturbed components. It would take less than $20 in parts to see this.
Take a look at history to find your answers. Academic science community is vast, and being as such it takes a lot of time and effort to get it rolling, to get its attention. Go take a look at how long many *decades* it took Albert Einstein to have scientists do his solar eclipse experiment to verify his claim that gravity would modify the path of light.
That being said, convincing other scientists has not been on my "to do" list, yet, but trust me one day it will. One day I will drive to Universities and plop a device on their desk for analysis. For now it's important for open-minded people to focus on the research, which is what I'm doing. Most academic scientists are far to closed minded, and too time consuming. What I type here and at my blog site is only in my spare Internet time between break periods. Nothing more. I have my undeniable proof. I'm involved in discovery the secrets what makes it tick, how to overcome the instability issue, etc. When it's time, then I'll create a website that's dedicated to showing the data, the documented videos. That's what notable scientists will see, when it's time. But, ... lets hope Steorn beats me to the punch, for the sake of humanity and all life on this planet.
Paul Lowrance I'm sorry but you don't make any sense at all. On the one hand you say you have strong enough evidence of science breakthroughs to convince qualified engineers and scientists, and on the other you say you don't want to convince anyone of what you think you have discovered. And of these scientists and engineers you say you've convinced, they haven't published anything either. So we are left to suppose they don't want huge breakthroughs to become known and widely researched either. Finally, you attempt to compare your efforts with desktop experiments to Einstein's work. That combination of positions is incredibly ridiculous.
If you wish to kid yourself with delusions of grandeur, that's your right. I'll point out that those scientists you call closed minded and you denigrate do the leg work you refuse to do. They develop knowledge that gets validated and accepted. They are responsible for the discoveries that have changed our lives in so many ways. They produce results.
Based on what you have written, I can safely predict that: five, ten, or even twenty years from now you will not have successfully advanced any of the grandiose claims you make today.
Anonymous wrote, "Paul Lowrance I'm sorry but you don't make any sense at all."
It's not my fault you have problems understanding. You write silly comments like,
"and on the other you say you don't want to convince anyone of what you think you have discovered."
That's your problem, you make up things in your head to support your beliefs. I never said I did not want to convince anyone of anything. In fact I said that one day I will add to my to do list the task of proving the technology to notable scientists.
Paul Lowrance, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
Anonymous wrote,"Paul Lowrance, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously."
As stated, numerous scientists have already replicated my diode & piezo claims. So again you make up things.
Paul,
You said, "I was surprised that you did not even know what kTC noise was."
My response to that was "It probably has something to do with thermal noise," so what's your problem?
I think that you have had three or four "Orbo fetishes" since this whole thing started. One of them had to do with the core material. You were convinced that if you had the "right" core it would make all the difference. Since you apparently have little or no educational background in electronics, and you are always chasing after some kind of over unity fantasy, it's not surprising that you would say this. You are seemingly unable to rationalize that a ferromagnetic core of any type is just a passive component. It's as dead as a doornail and is just "along for the ride" as it is subjected to external influences. In other words it's a rag-doll, and cannot possibly be the "key" to producing energy. Another one of your fetishes was magnetic viscosity, which is an energy LOSS mechanism, yet you were convinced that this was the "key" to alleged Orbo over unity.
The above two examples are why people call you "PLOL" because most of your over unity fetishes and fantasies are laughable. Steorn would be completely crazy to associate themselves with you.
I don't know why you are so obstinate but I can suspect why. Certainly your moment of inertia calculation is crap. Then there is the fact that you have never shown how you measure the rotor deceleration. I have to assume that there are major weaknesses in your overall measurement process and if you reveal them people are going to jump all over them.
MileHigh
MileHigh wrote, "My response to that was "It probably has something to do with thermal noise," so what's your problem?" Well, that's a stretch quote, but anyone who knows about kTC noise would at *least* state outline it's thermal noise across *capacitance*.
MileHigh wrote, "You are seemingly unable to rationalize that a ferromagnetic core of any type is just a passive component." Opps, your understanding of magnetic materials is obviously poor at best. Go study MCE (magnetocaloric effect). An ideal core is heated when magnetized, and *cooled* when demagnetized-- MCE. Magnetic cores are used for deep chillers. Another concept: Perhaps one day you'll understand that it requires less energy to magnetize magnetic material when the dipoles are guided through the rotation process. IBM recently discovered that. And ask yourself why magnetic material cools when the applied magnetic field is removed? Answer: Ambient Thermal Energy, which is why BH-loops widens and become squarer at lower temperatures. It's a sea of energy within that magnetic core. In fact, there's ~ 1 billion joules per cubic meter of thermal energy in all solids at RT. Need more? Still think I'm just a delusion guy with a little bit of knowledge, LOL? Hmm, that's odd, maybe that's why you declined my offer to have a mathematical discussion on the quantum mechanics of semiconductor physics.
So give it a rest, man. Why don't we give Dr. Hugh and his friends here a rest?
Paul,
It's like you are a never-ending farce. So what about the magneto-caloric effect. It's just a demonstration of the CONSERVATION OF ENERGY and how you can use ferromagnetic materials as a heat pump. That's a zillion miles away from anything to do with "free energy."
"Still think I'm just a delusion guy with a little bit of knowledge, LOL? Hmm, that's odd, maybe that's why you declined my offer to have a mathematical discussion on the quantum mechanics of semiconductor physics."
You better believe it that I think you are a delusional guy with a little bit of knowledge. You hit that one right on the head. No, I can't really discuss the quantum mechanics of semiconductor physics, but I have got some news for you, neither can you. Sure you can drop some quantum mechanics buzzwords and rattle off a few concepts, but there is no way in hell you could sit down with some real researchers in this field and have an intelligent conversation with them.
You are just a wannabe poser with a fetish for free energy. If you documented your Tiny Orbo research properly that would become plain as day for anyone with a real background in electronics.
MileHigh
LOL! ... btw, that's why the cynics at the old Steorn called me PLOL, because I couldn't help but laughing in every post at you cynics. If I spent too much time talking to you my new nickname might become PLMAO.
Anyhow, read my last post a few hundred times and you might get it. Pay special attention to the reference of IBM's recent discovery of magnetic dipole guided rotation and just maybe one day you'll understand how the Steorn Orbo's produce excess energy.
"btw, that's why the cynics at the old Steorn"
should be,
"btw, that's why the cynics at the old Steorn forum"
Paul,
"one day you'll understand how the Steorn Orbo's produce excess energy."
The disconnect: Orbos don't produce excess energy and Steorn has failed miserably in their attempts to prove that they produce excess energy.
Remember how you had a tag line that said something like, "2009 is the year for free energy."
Well, Paul, it's now the end of 2010, what happened?
In 2012 Stern will still not have convincingly demonstrated free energy, if they are still around. I wonder what you are going to post on your blog the day they declare bankruptcy.
MileHigh
Sorry if I missed something but where are the magnets? Steorn's tech is magnetic interaction and I don't see anything that looks magnetic on the board.
Last is my last post for today, MH. Lets give it a break. You wrote,
"'2009 is the year for free energy.' Well, Paul, it's now the end of 2010, what happened?"
What happened, MH, is the *2009* Live Steorn Orbo demonstrations streamed on webcams around the world for over a month. :-)
[i]LOL! ... btw, that's why the cynics at the old Steorn called me PLOL, because I couldn't help but laughing in every post at you cynics. If I spent too much time talking to you my new nickname might become PLMAO......"[/i]
now THAT is a LIE, you got your "name" PLOL for quiet a different reasons...:DD
Should i name them Paul?:DDD
regards genesis.
I'm done too Paul.
Note that you have come up with a new fetish to explain how the Orbo allegedly works:
"Pay special attention to the reference of IBM's recent discovery of magnetic dipole guided rotation and just maybe one day you'll understand how the Steorn Orbo's produce excess energy."
One more time you are dead wrong. It's the PLOL version of a million monkeys on a million typewriters.
MileHigh
Paul, you are obviously a brilliant researcher, but be careful not to say too much. I read your post about magnetizing magnetic material when the dipoles are guided through the rotation process, and that is so true. But don't be goaded into saying too much here. Many of these posters are working for Peter Gabriel and the MIB. DO you think they are really that dumb? They act this way to get us to talk, then they send the black Maria cars and take you away to Mt. Pleasant Island or somewhere and no one sees you for a long time and when they do you are drugged and they tell them you have mental illness. No one will sell you magnets or gasses anymore for your research. They also use gangs of people to follow you and electronic weapons to harass you in your home and make you incontinent and worse.
Just be careful what you say in places like this.
for Gods sake...what has Peter Gabriel to do with whackadoos like pLOL?
I don't know if you are joking, or just very naive. Gabriel and his cronies have persecuted me for one ever since Pittsburgh when they took my motor. What they did to me after that, and the story of a girl who was innocence herself--is not a story for here.
what motor was that? why would Peter Gabriel need your motor?
regards, Phill Collins.
LOL, tactic #7, "Pretend to be an idiot to repel all scientists away from excess energy research." ;-)
For any serious scientist or inventor interested in excess energy research, please see the YouTube clip on the investigation TV show on Cold Fusion (click on my name, Paul Lowrance, for link) -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/09/24/seeking-ees-physicists-p2/
In some of the above comments, Paul Lowrance is describing his TOV device. He says that the input is something like 180 mW, pure DC. "The input power was 0.18 watts." And then in another post he totes up the various outputs. We can disregard the heat and the mechanical energy stored in the rotor, and focus only on the electrical output from the "magnets spinning by an air coil producing a signal close to a sine wave at 2.3 KHz, LOL" and giving "The pickup coil *output* was 280 mW, at ~ 2270 Hz."
Paul, disregarding for the moment that power is not energy, can you please explain, using your own figures and data re values and waveforms above, just why you cannot simply loop the output through a bridge rectifier, back to the input, and have the motor run itself....and even putting out some "excess power" to boot?
I can certainly take one, separate, generator making a sine wave output of the value you give, and use it to power another motor which dissipates the power value you give....
What's the magic feature of the TOV (and all other overunity devices) that prevents you from doing this?
--Talk-o-Aliens
To "Talk-o-Aliens",
First lets clarify one thing. These devices can self-run, but not indefinitely. Understood? Sorry, but people researching excess energy need to get it through their heads that this technology is NOT like some Alkaline battery that keeps on going as stead as can be. Ambient thermal noise is purely random and fluctuates. The Quantum foam is purely random and fluctuates. This technology fluctuates over time. The amount of fluctuations depends on the design.
The PM Orbo has no batteries, just magnets, and ran by itself for several hours while on display. The problem, again, is that the output gain fluctuates by significant amounts, sometimes reaching low points of no gain, and hence the need for a "deep" battery to keep the device running during the low periods.
As for my TOR v4, I was about 1 day away from designing the circuit to make it self-run. I know it sounds like an excuse, but it's true that I did one final improvement on the TOR v4 by filing down the magnets so the toroids and pickup coil could move closer to the spinning magnets. The 280 mW was the limit for my pickup coil because I could not move it closer to the magnets. I'm not so good at mechanical stuff, don't have good equipment. My magnets were not perfectly positioned. Some stuck out farther than others. Unfortunately filing down the magnets destroyed the TOR v4 hall effect switch timing because the thickness of the magnets varied too much. Thin magnets produced a weaker field.
"First lets clarify one thing. These devices can self-run, but not indefinitely. Understood?"
No, sorry, it's not understood, not by me anyway. For how long can these devices self-run, and where can I see a demonstration of ANY of "these devices" self-running?
For how long did your "unfortunately" destroyed TOV produce its output of 280 mW?
And for how long did it run on an input of 180 mW?
And the statement about the pmOrbo running for several hours is... unconfirmed at the very best, and flat out wrong at worst. It's ridiculously easy to PROVE ME WRONG on this point.... with a video, with data, with something other than a Minato effect motor. If, that is, what you've said is a true statement.
-Talk0Aliens
To all:
Thousands of people watched on live web cams the Steorn eOrbo's run. Sean said these eOrbo's were producing excess energy. So either Sean and Steorn are lying, or they're telling the truth. A lot of us who are involved already have our proof. Bystanders who have no interest in replicating these devices or buying a unit from Steorn will just have to wait and see.
For researchers: please see my post on the nature of noise / fluctuations (click on my name in this post, Paul Lowrance, for the link) -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/10/10/the-nature-of-noise-fluctuations/
Anonymous, you said "Inventors of free energy devices frequently account energy incorrectly. Steorn have done so repeatedly."
This statement is false.
Blogger blogtrotter said...
I agree with 007 here. In fact, Steorn are extremely precise in their measurements - reason they take to long before going public. Their equipment is top of the range - many 1000 Euro for even current probes (which they studiously de-gauss before each measurement).
Hugh Deasy,
Would you mind posting the step by step of measurements using some dummy data in Excel ?
How did you exactly arrive on 308%?
Paul:
Yes I took the plunge and read your small bit on noise. You seem to somehow be equating thermal noise with the fluctuating voltage on a D-cell alkaline battery when it is nearly depleted. At least I think that's what you are trying to say.
One more time, it demonstrates your hodge-podge uneducated approach to electronics. It's also quite apparent that you have poor communication skills in general and how you use technical terms is often awkward and inappropriate.
For example, this phrase, "anything above the red line is excess energy, and below the red line is no gain (less than 100% efficiency)" doesn't really and truly make sense. But I know how you write so I more or less understand what you mean. Your use of the term "efficiency" makes no sense here.
You clearly have "pretender/poseur" written all over you, but I know that's not going to stop you from doing your "research."
Reading you makes me squirm half the time.
MileHigh
Sorry about bad quote , posting again ...
Blogger blogtrotter said...
I agree with 007 here. In fact, Steorn are extremely precise in their measurements - reason they take to long before going public. Their equipment is top of the range - many 1000 Euro for even current probes (which they studiously de-gauss before each measurement).
Hugh Deasy,
Would you mind posting the step by step of measurements using some dummy data in Excel ?
How did you exactly arrive on 308%?
Paul Lowrance Steorn, and Sean in particular have lied many times and been caught many times. That should settle that part for you.
MH, you're a joke not even worth commenting on. I know you somehow think you're really hurting my feelings, LMAO. You're just filled with claims how everyone you disagree with is ignorant. psss, do you know what kTC noise is yet, LOL.
I agree with anon. It would be great to get some more details on Hugh's 308% measurement. Does that include total output, or only usable output?
"Paul Lowrance Steorn, and Sean in particular have lied many times and been caught many times. That should settle that part for you."
Sean has not lied, but what you just said is a lie. You confuse lies with predictions. When someone says they will build a pump in Africa, and something comes up where they're not able to do so, does not make the person a liar. Nor does it mean Sean broke a promise because he never promised anything. If one says something that they know is incorrect, then that is a lie.
Paul,
Yes my comments were gratuitous, what can I say? I think that you have come up with three or four "explanations" for how "Orbo technology" works over the past two years. That laughable, and that's a reason why they call you PLOL.
You are asking Hugh Deasy for more details on how he got his 308% measurement. I asked Hugh the same question and multiple people have also asked you for the details on how you made your measurements.
Both of you are claiming that you have measured over unity and both of you should provide the details. Especially since Steorn have not provided any details!!! Please don't make me laugh by referring to their public demos.
MileHigh
"I think that you have come up with three or four "explanations" for how "Orbo technology" works over the past two years."
You thought wrong. One theory, based on numerical mathematical analysis using conventional physics.
Anyhow, man you're either completely delusional or a liar of all liars. Hey, here's a thought, the owner of the OU website posted that he banned you from the forum because you lie to much, LOL.
It seems I'm the only non moletrap guy who talks to you, LOL. Why? People can't believe anything you say, so on that note I'm just going to try my best to ignore you, but by all means continue trying with all your might to get everyone to not support Steorn. :-)
Paul,
I was booted simply because I expressed my opinion. I did not lie. That was ruining Stefan's website's mojo. Sometimes rabid free energy believers don't want to hear rational explanations for what they are seeing in their experiments, or have their strange theories debated. They get depressed.
You are the Number One Steorn FanBoi on the West Coast!! Shave your head!! lol
Anyway the floor is yours. Show the money baby, let's see your measurements and your data!
MileHigh
We should all find a notable scientist who's willing to freely test the SS Orbo. Any leads? Any Universities? That's the problem. Notable scientists run away from such attention. If it were me, I'd plop an SS Orbo on the desk of a University professor and have my guys block all exit doors. :-)
This video explains the reason for 90% of the comments here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_YYtF_2Hno
Blogger FE Truth said...
" This video explains the reason for 90% of the comments here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66LIj2Vdc0M
"
There, fixed that for you.
--Stella Nokia
PL said:
"We should all find a notable scientist who's willing to freely test the SS Orbo. Any leads? Any Universities? That's the problem. Notable scientists run away from such attention."
Steorn acquired several hundred requests by scientists to test their tech and they settled on 22 whom they strung along for two and half years. They would have tested it and anything else dynamic Steorn had. They received nothing like that and eventually gave up out of frustration and the fact they had real work to do. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about either because I do.
PL said:
"If it were me, I'd plop an SS Orbo on the desk of a University professor and have my guys block all exit doors. :-)"
I believe you would and be promptly arrested for holding people against their will. And "your guys??" You work with a bunch of strong armed henchmen?
Anon, you're hilarious. So then Steorn would go to jail for trying to force a University professor to discover the truth about the greatest invention in human history, LMAO! Sorry, but it's difficult taking you pseudoscientists seriously.
Pl said:
"Anon, you're hilarious. So then Steorn would go to jail for trying to force a University professor to discover the truth about the greatest invention in human history,"
You on drugs? First of all the statement about holding University professors hostage until they tested this thing was what YOU would do, not Steorn (e.g. "If it were me, I'd plop an SS Orbo on the desk of a University professor and have my guys block all exit doors. :-)").
Secondly, Steorn had the opportunity to show and tell to 22 avid volunteers (no captivation required) and they blew it. They stuck around for two and half years voluntarily and were not coerced by any means.
With a track record like that what chance does Steorn have of any other scientists taking them seriously? Especially when Sean lied about discovering the problem that precluded them from providing the jury with a working device after the jury disbanded.
In fact due to a typographical error originally stated by Dr. McDonald the jury had continued for five-six months longer (June versus January). That was corrected AFTER Sean's statement that made it appear the problem had been solved in January.
So Steorn had plenty of time to provide the jury with the new and improved Orbo but IT IS A LIE!
Please stop the lies. Here's my exact quote with * emphasis, "***If it were me***, I'd plop an SS Orbo on the desk of a University professor and have my guys block all exit doors. :-)"
Furthermore, you're taking my words out of context. The discussion was about the suppression of such technology. *If* (got it?) the entire science community would ignore such technology, then it would be a crime against humanity and all life on this planet. You betcha I would take such a stance. A lot of people go to jail to make a statement. For example, Liu Xiaobo is in jail even though he won the Nobel prize.
"Secondly, Steorn had the opportunity to show and tell to 22 avid volunteers (no captivation required) and they blew it."
You say that as if it was a recent occurrence. You're ignoring obvious facts that Sean has stated there were serious issues with the Orbo, that have been recently solved. So maybe Steorn did not want to demonstrate something that was highly unstable.
Again I would encourage more notable scientists to measure the SS Orbo.
PL said:
"If it were me, I'd plop an SS Orbo on the desk of a University professor and have my guys block all exit doors. :-)"
That's exactly what I quoted and referred to, so how is it a lie? And my comment followed up on "if it was you", you would be arrested for taking hostages and/or holding people against their will. I stated that no such thing was necessary as hundreds of people requested to be on the jury and 22 served for almost three years.
PL said:
"Furthermore, you're taking my words out of context. The discussion was about the suppression of such technology."
I took nothing out of context but quoted what you would do.
PL Said:
"*If* (got it?) the entire science community would ignore such technology, then it would be a crime against humanity and all life on this planet. "
So, "if" you did that" you would be arrested for being a lunatic. And it is unnecessary as proved by the defacto jury.
PL said:
"You betcha I would take such a stance. A lot of people go to jail to make a statement. For example, Liu Xiaobo is in jail even though he won the Nobel prize."
So you are agreeing with me while protesting.
PL said:
"You say that as if it was a recent occurrence. You're ignoring obvious facts that Sean has stated there were serious issues with the Orbo, that have been recently solved."
I am relating what happened the day or two after Dr. McDonald issued the jury statement in June 2009. Sean said after MCDonald incorrectly stated the jury stopped deliberating in January that there had been issues with Orbo that were solved after the jury stopped deliberating. Dr. McDonald then corrected the date to June which made Sean's statement a lie because if they had discovered the problem in January (the date Sean was responding to) they had months to inform the jury and provide them with whatever information they needed to continue their deliberations.
If Sean in said June of 2009 that there were problems with Orbo that were recently solved at that time are you now indicating that there have been MORE recent discoveries of problems with MORE solutions? Define recent. How many solutions are there? Either they fixed it in 2009 or they didn't. If they didn't fix it in January 2009 then Sean has lied twice.
PL said:
"So maybe Steorn did not want to demonstrate something that was highly unstable."
So why spend almost $100,000 on The Economist ad to acquire world class scientists to inspect an unstable technology and then jerk them around for almost three years? Sean had averred all along that it was technology that "was always proven to work." Well, it didn't work.
PL you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and I can refute everything you say with facts regarding the chronology of this drama.
What I don't understand is why anyone is arguing with a known nut like PL for hours and hours. He is the laughingstock of multiple forums.
Anon wrote, "I took nothing out of context but quoted what you would do."
Another twisted lie. You wrote, "You on drugs? First of all the statement about holding University professors hostage until they tested this thing was what YOU would do, not Steorn (e.g. 'If it were me, I'd plop an SS Orbo on the desk of a University professor and have my guys block all exit doors. :-)'). "
If you were sincere, your sentence would be something like, "First of all the statement about holding University professors hostage until they tested this thing was what you would do *IF YOU WERE STEORN*." So again, you're caught red handed twisting things. You're the same guy caught red handed telling lies about Cold Fusion.
Anon wrote, "So why spend almost $100,000 on The Economist ad to acquire world class scientists to inspect an unstable technology and then jerk them around for almost three years?"
That was explained. It was a gamble that did not pay off. IMO Steorn now has a much better understanding of the instability issues, and may have solved most of them.
Anon wrote, "Sean had averred all along that it was technology that 'was always proven to work.' Well, it didn't work."
People saw the PM Orbo running for several hours-- no batteries. :-) It's the same issue Cold Fusion is having. Proving it can often require weeks of measurements because you never known when it's not going to produce a gain. So once again you twist things because you don't acknowledge that it requires varying amounts of time to "prove" something depending on what you're trying to prove. It took Einstein over a decade to have his theory proven that the Sun would change the path of light. The problem we're having here is that you appear to be a bit dense, and that's being politely. ;-) Anyhow, the PM Orbo was a nightmare to get running, and I'd imagine even more difficult to keep it running.
Shall we continue this nearly pointless conversation? Lets end it because it's childish.
Anonymous Paul Lowrance said...
"Paul Lowrance Steorn, and Sean in particular have lied many times and been caught many times. That should settle that part for you."
Sean has not lied, but what you just said is a lie. You confuse lies with predictions. When someone says they will build a pump in Africa, and something comes up where they're not able to do so, does not make the person a liar. Nor does it mean Sean broke a promise because he never promised anything. If one says something that they know is incorrect, then that is a lie.
12:13 PM
Wake up Paul: "Always proven to work", "packs quite a punch", "our technology has been validated by various independent scientists and engineers", "the only requirement is that the jury publish their results", "Implementing Orbo in a reliable and consistent manner had remained a challenge for the organization, one that we had made no secret of. ... work concluded at the end of 2008.", "during 2009 the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year, at which time academic and engineering validation would be released concurrent with public demonstrations" ...
You can go back to sleep now.
No one saw the PM Orbo running for several hours. Sean himself said the story of Kinetica staff seeing it run was false.
No need to comment on your last claims since you make no logical points. :-)
BTW, my name, Paul Lowrance, is not anonymous. Unlike you, a pseudoskeptic who hides his identity, but don't they always. I'll do an identity exchange with you anytime where you'll see my name is Paul Lowrance.
Now you can go back to your bar filled with drunk moletrap pseudoskeptics who are always asleep. ;-)
Dr. Hugh Deasy wrote, "PM orbo did self sustain for many hours - only the bearings of 2008 caused mech failure after a while."
Paul Lowrance said...
Dr. Hugh Deasy wrote, "PM orbo did self sustain for many hours - only the bearings of 2008 caused mech failure after a while."
And Doctor Deasy is incorrect. There is absolutely NO evidence for his claim. Even the statements of Sean McCarthy himself contradict Doctor Hugh Deasy's claim with respect to the "PM Orbo."
--Talk0Aliens
What statement by Sean would that be? I've heard Sean say the PM Orbo runs by itself.
Lol! What a joke! For e-orbo or ss-orbo there may be some question. But for PM orbo once it's spinning it is by definition a self-runner. In 2007 Sean gave many interviews before the Kinetica demo saying they had a PM self-runner to show. And it will ride again - sooner or later.
ROFL! This must be a new era in science. It is no longer necessary for claimants to prove their claims. It is good enough that they simply make them. And if after years they fail to substantiate their grandiose claims? Don't worry: they will ... someday. For now, just take their claims on faith. LOL!
Luckily Steorn is a company and not a 'claimant' dependent on the likes of you. The products are what count. You're right to be sceptical now - but in a short time that won't be tenable.
"Blogger blogtrotter said...
Luckily Steorn is a company and not a 'claimant' dependent on the likes of you. The products are what count. You're right to be sceptical now - but in a short time that won't be tenable.
3:59 AM"
Hugh, that sounds like you resent me. I am so very disappointed.
Outside their claims promotion, Steorn have virtually no business activity.
Thanks for repeating the refrain of con artist, schadenfreude, and gullible alike: "You'll see."
We have seen. Over the past four years Steorn have offered nothing of substance that backs their claims to the god-like ability to create energy/matter.
Sorry, but I just need to say this. Skepticism, what did it used to be? After witnessing the responses from countless modern academic scientist, I know for fact that modern skeptics place an immediate judgment on a claim before hearing out the person and collecting the data. That my friends is a flawed methodology. Modern so-called scientific skepticism as even detailed at WikiPedia is to focus on *debunking* a claim. Sorry, but that immediately puts the individual in a biased state of mind, which is why so many scientists quickly end the pursuit; e.g., "Oh, the DC voltage produced by the diode is caused by a local radio station." So-called scientific skepticism will fade away to be replaced with objective truth seeking.
Here here Paul!
And though some friends have told me over the last 4 years that I was wasting my time on this stuff, in fact it has been an enormous enrichment. I refreshed my knowledge on magnetics and learned some new things (e,g. mag. viscosity) as well as the orbo secrets. I had many ideas of my own, simulated and tested over the years and now it appears as if I may have hit the jackpot. A few more simulations and I can start patenting - not a free energy thing but another magnetic gizmo. Boy has this been worth it!
LOL! Orbo secrets!!! ROFL!
That's great to hear about Hugh! Long long ago while writing some personal magnetic numerical analysis simulations in C++ I put together some FEMM files with Lua scripts for the public that showed excess energy by means of guided magnetic dipole rotation and magnetic viscosity. In order to model magnetic viscosity in FEMM one needs to use Lua scripting. It's a pain to write, but well worth the results. :-) One of these days I'll have to scrounge up those files and present them once again to "skeptics."
Anyhow, when Sean began talking about magnetic viscosity, and then domain rotation, that's when I told myself, "This Steorn, they're legit, and they know the secret!" Sure enough, looks like Steorn is legit.
Quantum Mechanics is soon in for one hell of a ride. How old is QM, ~~ a few hundred years old? Hmm, about time for the next mechanics. First there was classical mechanics. Then quantum mechanics. What will the next be called? :-)
[continued]
btw, the only thing about Sean's usage of the term "domain rotation" is that domains rotate under ordinary conditions. That is, they flip, which is rotation, but there's a lot of heat losses in the lattice under an ordinary flip regardless of how linear the magnetic cores BH-loop is. A more specific term would be *guided* domain rotation.
Hi Paul,
Quantum Mechanics is only about 120 years old, as Max Planck stated it up in the 1990s, I think. No need for new physics for the orbo effects, though, as domain rotation, the BH curve etc. are all either classical or quantum. It's just that COE never did really hold for certain magnetic systems.
Lol! I meant 1890s!
Well, the exact birth date of QM is a bit fuzzy since there's no exact agreement in academic community, but QM is often stated to begin in 1838, which makes it 172 years old.
Anyway, IMO there are various serious issues at the core of QM. Huge debates going on right now about a new type of double slit experiments that may violate the very foundations of QM. Also, there are some proposed experiments that will see if the photon is indeed quantum by using radiowaves in the microwave region where the radio signal will decrease to the point of producing a sub photon.
Interesting times headed our way. I give QM another 1.5 decades, at most. :-)
What experiment? I love QM and doubt it's in any trouble. not only double slit, but EPR, polaroid glasses, light switch tunnelling, FTL tunnelling, atoms in quatum traps bi-located, quantum computing, solving the 1890s UV catastrophe, and speaking of cats Schoedinger's etc.
Oh and is this it - the triple slit hing?
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100722/full/news.2010.371.html?s=news_rss
Blogdspotter said:
Blogger blogtrotter said...
Lol! What a joke! For e-orbo or ss-orbo there may be some question. But for PM orbo once it's spinning it is by definition a self-runner. In 2007 Sean gave many interviews before the Kinetica demo saying they had a PM self-runner to show. And it will ride again - sooner or later.
1:56 AM
I see, you are a disciple of "Sean says" Well, if you believe that silly wheel they showed at Kinetica self ran, you know far less than I gave you credit for.
It scares me that the European Space Administration has someone working on flight dynamics who believes such ridiculous things. Pray no one tells them.
The reference to double slit experiment was the Shahriar Afshar experiment.
Since it's an ongoing debate, most academic scientists refute the Afshar claim, but those who refute the claim cannot even come into agreement as to why the Afshar experiment is wrong. Furthermore there are physicists who agree with Afshar, such Dr. John Cramer who wrote A Farewell to Copenhagen
"Blogger blogtrotter said...
Hi Paul,
Quantum Mechanics is only about 120 years old, as Max Planck stated it up in the 1990s, I think. No need for new physics for the orbo effects, though, as domain rotation, the BH curve etc. are all either classical or quantum. It's just that COE never did really hold for certain magnetic systems.
7:35 AM"
ROFL!!! That's a fail with a capital F. LOL!
Asshar's conclusions in the Shahriar Afshar experiment seems to be rejected by most physicists. Anyway even if true it would not violate QM, only the Copenhagen interpretation and Many Worlds interpretations. Apparently it would favour the transactional one. I prefer the Copenhagen version myself.
I'm a huge fan of MWI even though I think it's far off base, but the best interpretation QM has.
Dr. Hugh, don't get that attached to QM. Physicists used to think the same of classical mechanics until it started becoming unglued and was replaced by QM.
Afshar experiment is claimed to violate complementarity and the Englert–Greenberger duality relation. That goes beyond an interpretation, correct?
If we take this a bit further, the standard model is bursting at the seems, Dr. Hugh. Fundamental equations incorrectly predicted galactic rotations, so they created a completely unknown matter called Dark Matter. Now you may say that dark matter is real, and that it clearly makes galactic equations work. Truth is, there are various interpretations. They have no clue if dark matter is merely a duck tape fix to solve our incorrect understanding of gravity on a galactic scale. You might know of some academic scientists who are offering different theories to explain this galactic phenomenon.
And then they discovered the Universe is accelerating, not slowing down, so they had to introduce a complete unknown that they call Dark Energy.
And of recent they discovered something is forcing Galaxies to move in unknown directions, ... and you guessed it, they invented a new thing called Dark Flow.
QM's days are numbered.
Sorry, I didn't mean that QM completely replaced CM (classical mechanics). And I'm sure some will still use QM a few decades from now, but just a few.
Hi Paul
I am a fan of Heim theory. That's a form of quantum gravity. Like Loop QG, it unites Gen. Relativity and QM. So it's consistent with both QM & GR. And it predicts 3 forms of gravity, one being quintessence or dark energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory . HT also explains dark matter possibly as the neutral electron that occurs in the theory.
Hugh & Paul - maybe you find this theory interesting too:
http://www.vimeo.com/12698008
And forget all the naysayers, they will quickly disappear as soon as the first units will ship.
Thanks both of you, Hugh and Paul, for your great commitment and work!
"And forget all the naysayers, they will quickly disappear as soon as the first units will ship."
This is a familiar refrain from the Steorn fanboys and fangirls every time Steorn "launches" something.
So far the naysayers are batting 1000.
You also can't forget the disconnect between what Steorn has demoed. Anybody with a scientific or engineering background would find it laughable. The rabid believers lap it all up and believe that Steorn have shown solid data and made their case. Assuming Steorn really are engineers then they know themselves that they are not making their case at all. Rather, they are "playing" their target audience.
MileHigh
Dr. Hugh,
Nice work. The success in measuring "gravito-photons" seems promising. The wiki article mentioned something about a few unexpected results in the experiments.
Global Change 2012,
Myron Evans theory seems interesting. Academic science community is hard on it, but some of the things academic scientists say are ridiculous. Maybe a revised version will please them.
Hi Paul,
Yes, the Tajmar experiments are very promising and Droscher is trying his extended version soon.
@Global Change 2012
This Evena-Einstein-Cartan theory was discussed in the SKDB for a while. It's another possible candidate TOE. But like Heim theory it lacks peer reviewed articles or a good prediction. HT makes several very testable predictions - the anti-gravity one that TAjmar appears to confirm and maybe the particle masses.
Hugh Deasy, someone or the server keeps deleting my post in the other thread. It would be odd if it's the server because a good programmer would not allow the post to publish in the first place. Therefore I have to conclude that either you're deleting it or someone has your password. I've noticed several of my posts have been deleted. Any thoughts? If you're not deleting them, then you should consider changing your password.
Thanks
i think next time the server will ban you ,Paul.
servers usually doesnt like liars and nutters.
regards , genesis.
If someone saw my posts being deleted then could you please notify Dr. Hugh Deasy here or in the other thread. And keep an eye on your post in case its deleted.
Imagine imaginary agents deleting imaginary posts. Just imagine.
Paul Lowrance rantings say a lot about him. Anyone interesting in discrediting him should be happy to let him post away about his not so perpetual perpetual motion.
The agents of nondeletion have been very active again not deleting posts including the imaginary posts by Paul Lowrance.
Paul,
I've changed my password etc. so if there is a hacker at work she's clever enough to get round that. I suggest if it's a real problem posting here, you could duplicate on your own blog, which you can control better. I'll look into settings, servers and admin. But as I have these sims to see to plus the day job, haven't much time.
Hi Hugh. Regarding your blog, you might find this a bit interesting -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/10/20/cynic-cant-post-at-hughs-blog/
The agents of nondeletion just want you to believe that. They've been busy not deleting your imaginary posts for a week now.
Paul:
You said this:
"Every once in a while I’ll check out the cynics at the moletrap forum. Today I found this very humorous. Roughly a week ago I told Dr. Hugh Deasy that a lot of my posts were being deleted. This went on for ~~ a half an hour or more, where I would make a post, and in ~ 10 to 30 seconds it would get deleted. So I would make the same post. This went on dozens of times. The cynics claimed I was hallucinating and such, LOL. Well, just recently a well known cynic who posts under the anonymous name of Duracell is claiming that when he makes a post at Hugh’s blog, that the total post count increases, but his posts does not make it. The above image is a snippet of three posts made at the moletrap forum by a cynic who goes by the user name of Duracell. :lol: Awww, you mean I was not hallucinating after all, LOL."
Note that Duracell was simply speculating that there was something amiss with the server. In your case, you suspected that somebody was actively deleting your postings. Could it have been a Kaos agent?
That's an example of the glazed-eyed pLOL factor in action. You WERE hallucinating, you are always hallucinating when you do an experiment and are convinced yet again you have demonstrated free energy. You are the Benny Hill of free energy minus the hot babes.
MileHigh
LOL, poor Cynics.
Paul,
Show all of your measurements on your Tiny Orbo/TOR. You have been told repeatedly by multiple people that just saying you have measured over unity is not enough. What is it with you that you can't understand this? Take the glaze out of your eyes and get real.
MileHigh
Okay, my posts are being deleted again. I'll try to post it in smaller segments.
[part 1]
MileHigh,
I've provided details on the testing procedure, the measurements, the equations. So far you cynics have been unable to find any errors.
[part 2]
The problem is that it's never enough for you. On the other website we went through this. The next step that would satisfy your requests is to produce a video documentary, in which case you'll simply say I faked the video. I have far more proof then I could ever want of the excess energy. My focus is spent on solving the instability issue.
[part 3]
If you want to think I hallucinate or whatever you get a kick out of, then that's your problem, LOL. You have no clue just how many academic scientists have replicated my diode and piezo element claims, who *all* have measured the DC voltage and DC current. It's real, and it's a violation against conventional science. If you somehow think conventional science shows it comes from ambient thermal energy, LOL, then go knock yourself out by posting at the physics forum where academic scientists hang out.
[part 4]
I did that, and my post was deleted that same day. I have a witness who saw the entire thread deletion, and the emails and messages from the forum admin that say the thread was deleted because it goes against conventional science. We're not talking about some solar energy. You go get your solar cell and see how well it does in complete darkness.
I have far better things to do with my spare Internet time than with you.
Milehigh, Duracell correctly speculated his problem was pilot error.
Take pity on the poor paranoid schizophrenics. They lack the logic and composure to deal with new information rationally. When confused, their first inclination isn't to check for what they might be doing wrong. Their first inclination is to start accusing others: Hugh, super hackers, the Men in Black, etc of carrying out some plot against their insignificant selves.
What most paranoid schizophrenics never figure out is that there is no need to plot against them. They self-destruct all on their own.
Incorrect. You're delusional. Duracell clearly stated that the total post number on Hugh's blog site here increased during each post, and that each post was being deleted. The problem is you cynics feed off each others twisted lies.
It's sad how you cynics can't prove anything you say. For years you cynics claim I'm a liar, yet you can't show one lie, LOL. Your posts are riddled with ambiguous claims. I, on the other hand have offered to prove all of my scientific claims from the TOR's to the piezo elements. I've offered legal bets. And actually a EE's and physicists have replicated my claims to see the results are as I've claimed.
I've tried my best to get cynics such as MileHigh to replicate even the simplest experiment, but he makes excuses. Thus, you live in ignorance. Not my fault.
PL
Paul:
Your bets are a joke. You say, "Give me a 100 Grand, and I will show you free energy." What about you offering to pay out 100 Grand if you fail to demonstrate free energy?
As far as your diodes go, I am guessing that it's all based on tapping into ambient Gaussian thermal noise. Certainly your experiments have no practical application, unless you have billions and billions of diode arrays to power your transistor radio.
You haven't shown your measurements for your Tiny Orbo/TOR. The one that you are probably very uncomfortable with is your piss-poor amateur calculation of the moment of inertia of your rotor. I suspect that there will be some glaring errors with your electrical measurements and/or calculations.
As far as I am concerned with respect to the measurement issue you are a chicken shit and are afraid to have any problems pointed out to you. Your ego couldn't handle it.
Your "I don't have time for you" argument has worn completely flat, wolf boy.
Anyway, the whole point of this exercise is to make it abundantly clear that you don't have what you claim you have. You are simply a nano-Steorn, someone on the lowest wrung in the free energy cottage industry. Steorn are much higher up the ladder, but it's still worth it to point out that both you and Steorn have squat. When push comes to shove and you are challenged to show your measurements and data, you both crumble.
MileHigh
More ambiguous claims, eh MH? What, you're not interested in the legal bet? What, you didn't read my posts where you would get the 100 grand if my diode or piezo element claims are incorrect? What, you can't find any lies I've made? What, you can't find a single mathematical error in any of my work? What, you're not interested in testing my claim, which btw numerous academic scientists have confirmed? ... Yawn. Knock yourself out with your twisted lies and gibberish. Let me know when you're interested in testing my claims.
ps, you're trying to hard. Someone might notice. ;-)
Paul:
Just show your data or remain forever marginalized and not taken seriously.
MileHigh
I've already posted the data.
This is a waste of time. Here's the data. gain -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/04/15/holy-grail-tiny-orbo-replication/
I've provided this data on three different websites for you, MH. We went through this several times. When I provided you with the data last time, you then asked for the instruments used. So then I provided that, and you want some detailed video documentary. It's endless with you. You have no interest in the truth. You've shown all interest in disproving this as you assume it's all wrong, or at least that's what you want people to think.
As for my diode and piezo claims, I've provided years of measurements, the exact part #'s, all of the instruments, the various types of shields.
Come on man, who are you kidding. There will be global energy, poor guy.
As for the other anon cynic, you made a claim that duracel said it was a pilot error. See my blog post that has screenshots of his posts that clearly states he saw the total post count increment, that he cleared browser cache and all that. So you just made up lies to try & achieve your sad goals.
Not so anonymous 007 Duracell said:
Unless I am missing an obvious "next page" type option somewhere or something equally embarrassing?
Paul Lowrance I offered you a bet. You declined. The bet is straight across the table: Your $100,000. against mine. You supply a rig that a third party lab of our mutual agreement tests. If the lab finds your machine produces free energy, you get the pot and I pay the lab expenses. If it doesn't, I get the pot, and you pay the lab expenses.
Are you ready to play some football?
Paul Lowrance, the screen shot on your blog contradicts you.
[part 1]
Anonymous wrote,
---
Not so anonymous 007 Duracell said:
Unless I am missing an obvious "next page" type option somewhere or something equally embarrassing?
---
LOL, that proves nothing except how desperate you are, and that you are blatant liar. Duracell did indeed write -->
Quote from Duracell, "Each time I post the comment count increases by one, but the post doesn't appear."
Read and reap you desperate liar! Do you know what it means when the blog site says the post count incremented each time duracell tried to post, yet the post did not appear? Hmmm?
As far as offering me a bet that I declined, LOL, that is *proof* you are either totally delusional or a blatant liar!! First of all it was my bet. Second of all, I was the last poster to ask you once again if you wanted to do the bet, in which case you failed to reply *again*. Here's my quote -->
"You did not even reply to my recent posts about our legal bet."
"What, you're not interested in the legal bet?"
[part 2]
So come on anonymous! Once again I'll ask you to accept the bet! To be clear in case you already forgot, during out last discussion ~ a week or so ago I asked you to reply to me about our bet, and you would not discuss it. I offered two bets far before you even wrote anything about the bets -->
Bet #1: A legal bet that highly shielded piezo elements produce DC current and/or voltage. If I win, you buy the device. If you win, I buy whatever you selling.
Bet #2: I was very clear that the bet regarding Steorn technology must be a reward on your part because it is *ILLEGAL* for me to participate in any type of sales regarding technology that is owned by Steorn. If you think otherwise then I challenge you to get in writing from Steorn that I am allowed to legally sell you an Orbo replication.
Post a Comment
<< Home