Comments on: The Silence of the Media Regarding Steorn. http://www.freeenergytimes.com/?p=412#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed Following all things related to Steorn and Orbo technology Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:27:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: admin http://www.freeenergytimes.com/?p=412&cpage=1#comment-298 admin Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:06:30 +0000 http://www.freeenergytimes.com/?p=412#comment-298 Thanks for the link to your article, Pierre. I think that more media will become interested if and when there is some third party verification of Steorn's claims. We have been told by the company that more information will be released following the independent testing that is going on right now in Dublin, so like everyone else I'm just waiting for now. Thanks for the link to your article, Pierre.

I think that more media will become interested if and when there is some third party verification of Steorn’s claims. We have been told by the company that more information will be released following the independent testing that is going on right now in Dublin, so like everyone else I’m just waiting for now.

]]> By: Pierre Asselin http://www.freeenergytimes.com/?p=412&cpage=1#comment-297 Pierre Asselin Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:15:01 +0000 http://www.freeenergytimes.com/?p=412#comment-297 Hi, I just read your post. I work for a "mainstream"... newspaper in Quebec City (CAN). I wrote something about Steorn just before their final demo, because I have been following the company ever since their ad in The Economist. here is the lilnk: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/science-et-technologie/201001/30/01-944706-une-batterie-jamais-a-plat.php (beware, it's in french....) I share the same surprise with regards to the absence of interest from the media, given Steorn's claims on one hand, but also their openness to scrutiny. I would have expected at least a few curious reporters would have poked in there, but as far as media coverage goes I think I am the only reporter to have written a piece in the press. I still don't understand why the silence. I haven't had the occasion to write something after the final demo. I think that the experience was really targeting a technical audience, engineers and so on, more than the general public. You either know the technology and can draw your own conclusions from the oscilloscopes, or you don't. I might try to see where this is going at the end of the month, but until now I feel that the Steorn team and S. McCarthy's attitude have been open and at this point I see nothing that points to a hoax or to bad science. The real test will be decided by the developpers. If they don't replicate what Steorn claims about Orbo in a reasonable time, 12-24 months, then we'll have a pretty good idea.. Pierre Asselin Hi, I just read your post. I work for a “mainstream”… newspaper in Quebec City (CAN). I wrote something about Steorn just before their final demo, because I have been following the company ever since their ad in The Economist.
here is the lilnk:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/science-et-technologie/201001/30/01-944706-une-batterie-jamais-a-plat.php (beware, it’s in french….)
I share the same surprise with regards to the absence of interest from the media, given Steorn’s claims on one hand, but also their openness to scrutiny. I would have expected at least a few curious reporters would have poked in there, but as far as media coverage goes I think I am the only reporter to have written a piece in the press. I still don’t understand why the silence.
I haven’t had the occasion to write something after the final demo. I think that the experience was really targeting a technical audience, engineers and so on, more than the general public. You either know the technology and can draw your own conclusions from the oscilloscopes, or you don’t.
I might try to see where this is going at the end of the month, but until now I feel that the Steorn team and S. McCarthy’s attitude have been open and at this point I see nothing that points to a hoax or to bad science. The real test will be decided by the developpers. If they don’t replicate what Steorn claims about Orbo in a reasonable time, 12-24 months, then we’ll have a pretty good idea..

Pierre Asselin

]]> By: Victor http://www.freeenergytimes.com/?p=412&cpage=1#comment-258 Victor Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:43:34 +0000 http://www.freeenergytimes.com/?p=412#comment-258 As a professional in the field I think they shown measurements on the oscillioscope screen, which can be mistaken in many different ways. They even not told us what exactly was the processing of currents and voltages data made by scope to show final traces. I think they know very well that the only fully conclusive prove of overunity would be long public running of system with totally isolated close circuit with little energy storage like few joules not whopping 45000 joules contained in the battery they used. Battery can be used just for a start-up. They shown this "scope calculation" experiment probably because they could not achieve any true demonstration beyond doubt. There are very substantial doubts in their results. I know how easy to make a mistake (or cheat) in oscilliscope measurements like those. They will generate revenue as they plan since they fooled up much many peoples (and maybe themselves). As a professional in electromagnetic physics and engineering I can tell that Sean use non-professional language and it seems like they do not understand how it works. For instance they slogan "no back EMF" proof nothing as " EMF" is another term for expressing closed loop integral of electric field described in integral form of Maxwell equations. Absence of change in EMF they called 'no back EMF' do not proof or tell which way energy is transferred. There is simply no such law or rule in EM theory. Extra energy simply may go into heat. Another non-professional statement is a formula they shown for energy E = 1/2 * L* I*I . This is ONLY true if L is constant but we know that toroidal core is saturating in proximity of magnets. Measurements of L were presented to us by Steorn: 1 Henry with no magnets around and 40 microHenry as magnets are close to centre. This is more then 1000 fold decrease! If they use above formula or any formula where L is assumed constant for energy calculation then this is a dramatic mistake. It is easy to proof that in this symmetric set-up there is no change in EMF upon loading simply because of zero coupling coefficient of magnetic flux of magnets to the coil because optical switch applies voltage exactly at central position of magnets independently on load or revolution speed. As a professional in the field I think they shown measurements on the oscillioscope screen, which can be mistaken in many different ways. They even not told us what exactly was the processing of currents and voltages data made by scope to show final traces.

I think they know very well that the only fully conclusive prove of overunity would be long public running of system with totally isolated close circuit with little energy storage like few joules not whopping 45000 joules contained in the battery they used. Battery can be used just for a start-up. They shown this “scope calculation” experiment probably because they could not achieve any true demonstration beyond doubt.

There are very substantial doubts in their results. I know how easy to make a mistake (or cheat) in oscilliscope measurements like those. They will generate revenue as they plan since they fooled up much many peoples (and maybe themselves). As a professional in electromagnetic physics and engineering I can tell that Sean use non-professional language and it seems like they do not understand how it works. For instance they slogan “no back EMF” proof nothing as ” EMF” is another term for expressing closed loop integral of electric field described in integral form of Maxwell equations. Absence of change in EMF they called ‘no back EMF’ do not proof or tell which way energy is transferred. There is simply no such law or rule in EM theory. Extra energy simply may go into heat. Another non-professional statement is a formula they shown for energy E = 1/2 * L* I*I . This is ONLY true if L is constant but we know that toroidal core is saturating in proximity of magnets. Measurements of L were presented to us by Steorn: 1 Henry with no magnets around and 40 microHenry as magnets are close to centre. This is more then 1000 fold decrease! If they use above formula or any formula where L is assumed constant for energy calculation then this is a dramatic mistake.
It is easy to proof that in this symmetric set-up there is no change in EMF upon loading simply because of zero coupling coefficient of magnetic flux of magnets to the coil because optical switch applies voltage exactly at central position of magnets independently on load or revolution speed.

]]>