Quote

This could really be big; not only would it change the way our devices work and how we power our world, it would rewrite several established laws of physics, and change the way we look at nature.

Vern, you need to take or retake a basic science course that includes the Law of Conservation of Energy. (Don't refer to quantum mechanics unless you have taken several courses in the subject. There are a lot of wackos and pseudoscience geeks epostulating on stuff they know nothing about.) There is a concept called a Perpetual Motion Machine of the First Kind. In simple terms, it produces more energy than it consumes. See this Wikipedia article for more information. Such claims are common.

It's highly unlikely that a physical law like the Conservation of Energy will be drastically altered. (Einstein altered it to include mass and further extended it in the General Theory of Relativity--and, yes, I have taken courses in quantum mechanics and general relativity.)

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

This could really be big; not only would it change the way our devices work and how we power our world, it would rewrite several established laws of physics, and change the way we look at nature.

Vern, you need to take or retake a basic science course that includes the Law of Conservation of Energy. (Don't refer to quantum mechanics unless you have taken several courses in the subject. There are a lot of wackos and pseudoscience geeks epostulating on stuff they know nothing about.) There is a concept called a Perpetual Motion Machine of the First Kind. In simple terms, it produces more energy than it consumes. See this Wikipedia article for more information. Such claims are common.

It's highly unlikely that a physical law like the Conservation of Energy will be drastically altered. (Einstein altered it to include mass and further extended it in the General Theory of Relativity--and, yes, I have taken courses in quantum mechanics and general relativity.)

And this is exactly the attitude Mr. Shaw wrote about.

Perpetual motion and all of the other quasi-science is not what is being discussed here. I will admit that it is fringe science, but everything started from something.

Never read a book and take a course and assume that that's the end of it. I can point to examples after examples of textbooks being rewritten to accommodate new discoveries and views of the world around us.

And never get caught up in the checks and balances of the scientific way, which, purposefully, resists change in order to weed out the crack pots and psuedo-science. The"way it is" was not always so, and will continue to change; in fact, recognizing change as a fundamental force of nature has been in and out of mainstream science for, well... ever, and that it's likely to continue to, um, change.

Finally, I don't know if what these guys are saying is true, but I'll remain open to the possibilities, thank you very much. Casir Effects, Zero Point Energy, Virtual Photon Flux sounds like something out of science fiction to me. Then again, a few years ago so did room temperature superconductors, carbon nanotubes, meta-materials and the real possibility of invisibility, and really tasty home-cooked pizza.

My point is that nothing should ever be taken for granted. When we close our minds to the possibilities then we never prove anything but our own ignorance.

Vern Seward

Sounds to me like Vern understood the concept very clearly. He said himself that "it would rewrite several established laws of physics, and change the way we look at nature". And he never said "I think this is very easy to do!!1!1!11!!"

Everyone realizes that this would be unprecedented and the mere concept flies in the face of conventional science. That doesn't mean it can't possibly be true. The face of conventional science has many scars from all the things that have successfully flown in it.

Skepticism is natural. I'm not going to really believe this until I see legitimate proof. But I'll certainly be watching!

Quote

VSeward wrote:
Finally, I don't know if what these guys are saying is true, but I'll remain open to the possibilities, thank you very much.

You don't have to know ANYTHING about science to know that those guys don't have squat. The very fact that they've "challenged" the scientific community to prove that their device doesn't work is all you need to know.

If they had real idea they'd be working on making it work, not wasting time challenging people in this way. That's the oldest trick in the handbook for making sh*t up.

--
"I have a secret device"

"No you don't."

"Oh, yeah? Prove that I DON'T have it!"
---

There's no response to that. Trust me, you're never going to hear about anything real from them.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:


You don't have to know ANYTHING about science to know that those guys don't have squat. The very fact that they've "challenged" the scientific community to prove that their device doesn't work is all you need to know.

Again I ask, what makes you, and everyone who scoffs at the mere mention of any notion that falls outside a textbook, so sure?

We live in a world of proof that popular 'truths' are not always correct, that the science of the day can become tomorrow's footnote.

Back when Babbage was tinkering with his Difference Engine, computers were mechanical and were sometimes powered by steam. Steam!

The thought of an electronic device with 1/1000 of the computing power available in an average desktop PC would have been grounds for scientific excommunication had such notions been publicly expressed back then.

Yet today we are considering quantum computing and using light instead of electricity as a medium for computing.

I believe we should have healthy skepticism when dealing with new ideas that are contrary to what we think we know, but I also think that we should remain open to the possibilities, whatever they may be.

We don't know it all, and it is only our arrogance that keeps us from learning more.

At least let someone disprove it before dismissing it.

Vern Seward

Vern, I think that anyone who has an average IQ and takes the time to read this:

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/082606.htm

... Will realise that Steorn are the real deal.

Maybe some of the readers objecting to your discussion still think the world is flat !

This reminds me of the cold fusion debacle of the late 80s. The "inventors" announced to the world that they had made this breakthrough to much front-page-news fanfare...only, within a couple of weeks they were debunked, discredited, and generally dismissed. IF these guys are on to something that basically flies in the face of Newtonian physics, then it is smart of them to say, "here's what we have for everyone to look at. We think it works, but we invite others to examine it and see if it doesn't."

And vern is absolutely right. What we thought we KNEW changes all the time...heck, until last week our solar system had 9 planets (alas, poor Pluto). Nicola Tesla was laughed at as a kook for his ideas on "ether" and Einstein dismissed his own theory of a cosmological constant. here we are, almost 100 years later, going back to these discarded theories. don't write it off just yet. give the scientific community a chance to put this thing through the wringer...THEN say "I told you so.".

Quote

OpenMind wrote:
Vern, I think that anyone who has an average IQ and takes the time to read this:

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/082606.htm

... Will realise that Steorn are the real deal.

Maybe some of the readers objecting to your discussion still think the world is flat !

Actually, I think a lot of folks who find fault in the notions laid out by Steorn and others are merely exercising healthy skepticism. I happen to think that ANY discussion is a good one when it comes to new ideas, even if you vehemedly disagree with the subject of discussion.

The vast majority of the folks reading commenting here are smart enough to understand what's being discussed and the ramifications it, which is why those who disagree do so vigorously.

It is really big.

(Vern climbs on soapbox)

This is akin to someone claiming that they have proof of the existence of extraterrestrials and have taken out an ad in the New York Times challenging the scientific community to examine what he has locked in his freezer and prove, or disprove his claim.

Such a challenge would ignite the general public, as Steorn's challenge has, and be scoffed at by a lot of people, as Steorn's claims have been. Learned folks will quote theories and formulas proving why the man can't possibly have an alien in his icebox. Yet, until someone with guts and a decent scientific reputation takes a peek under the lid, all of the theories and formulas mean nothing.

This is the only problem I have with 'established authories' on any subject: they let their own arrogance blind them to the very thing that makes them the authority.

The scientific establishment was founded on the tenet that a fact must be proven to be so. Either the claim is true or false. Prove it one way or the other THEN talk about why it is or isn't so.

(Vern climb off soapbox)

Anyway, those who disagree keep the wildly optimistics in check, otherwise we'd be knee deep in fairies, dragons, and pixie dust.

Finally, just as it is unwise for skeptics to state emphatically that something isn't so before proof that it isn't, it is also unwise to state that something is so before proving that it is.

The folks at Steorn are the only ones who can say, with any conviction, whether their claim is true. The rest of us must wait for proof, otherwise it is heresay. No website, letter or other item indirectly related to proving the claim cannot be used as proof. (Geez, I sound like a lawyer! Somebody slap me!) The scientific method must be applied and validated for the claim to be vaildated. Everything else is just noise.

Isn't this fun?

Vern Seward

Quote

OpenMind wrote:
Vern, I think that anyone who has an average IQ and takes the time to read this:

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/082606.htm

... Will realise that Steorn are the real deal.

Maybe some of the readers objecting to your discussion still think the world is flat !

Except that I can observe the effects of a spherical Earth by going down to the beach...where can I observe a free-energy machine? I just find it hard to believe that this technology is being 'suppressed from the world market.' The pictures I've seen make the machines look pretty easy and cheap to produce...so no company in the world has decided to sink a little cash into a prospect that would make them the biggest entity on the planet if they made it work?

That said, fringe science like this is pretty interesting, and at least sometimes leads to world-altering concepts, so have at it! Tesla had some pretty whacked out ideas, too... as I think someone else pointed out.

I found this paragraph from the very end of the article pretty interesting; this is regarding the MEG:

Quote

However, the inane symmetrical circuit uses half its freely collected external potential energy to forcibly pump the spent current electrons back through the back emf inside the generator, thereby scattering the dipole charges and destroying the generator’s dipolarity – and shutting down the flow of energy from the vacuum. It shuts down the flow of energy (destroys the dipolarity) faster than it powers its loads, so it guarantees COP<1.0. Thus we continually have to keep cranking the shaft of the generator, to keep remaking the dipole, that the inane symmetrical circuit keeps destroying faster than it powers its loads.

I am with Vern all the way. It is getting a bit boring hearing the same old catch cry of "Conservation of energy" wherever I look. Famous last words of a Japanese General as an American bomber flew overhead...Don't worry! the conservation of energy will save us.
We regularly seem to get more out than we put in. A small amount is expended to cause the release of vast amounts of energy. Nuclear energy generation being the most notable example along with hydro,combustion engines etc. In fact if we could not achieve more out than "we" put in,what would be the point. Someone will now mention that magnets are concerned with force and that there is a big difference between force and energy. However when a conductor is moved through a magnetic field of force there is an emf produced which of course is used on a daily basis.This whole thing is starting to sound like an inquisition, if you blaspheme by not attributing God "Conservation of energy" for anything you have discovered then off to the gallows with you.
Whatever Steorn have discovered or not, there is one thing you can be sure of....it will NOT be free. Your Government will find a way to tax it!! If you make Bio Diesel here in Australia from waste cooking oil, you can very quickly find yourself in court if you do not declare it and pay excise duty. The government is currently offering motorists a refund of a substantial amount of the cost of converting their cars to LPG. Stunning!! Liquid PETROLEUM Gas is the answer to the shortage of oil and the rising cost???? This when Australia is virtually awash with NATURAL GAS which with very minor tweaking to the engine works very well.
The only problem with the Steorn solution would be if there is more out than in, how do they stop a runaway situation. Having said that, the Nuclear energy chappies seem to manage it without blowing us all to smitherines.

Go the Paddies
Keith

Maybe I shouldn't have included the M.I.T. guys in this article because what they have done is just as exciting.

Dr. Chinag's super Ni-mH battery is here today, you can buy one at the A123 website.The company is also working to but the battery in hybrid cars. If they do this it is concievable that today's Prius, with it's 500+ mile range, double its range. Extrapolate that to other hybrids, like the Ford Escape Hybrid, and now you have an SUV that has a 1000 mile range. This is merely speculation on my part, I don't know that the range will double, but even if we get 10% better range using the A123 technology, that's a huge savings all the way round. And it is technology that is here today.

And there's no reason to think small: Imagine a battery pack in everyone's home that trickle charges durning low demand and gives power during high demand. Your electric bill would plummet.

Riding lawnmowers that use A123 batteries instead of gas, hybrid small aircraft, diesel/hybrid cargo ships, the list goes on.

It is cool technology that is right here, right now.

Vern Seward

Quote

VSeward wrote:

Quote

Small White Car wrote:


You don't have to know ANYTHING about science to know that those guys don't have squat. The very fact that they've "challenged" the scientific community to prove that their device doesn't work is all you need to know.

Again I ask, what makes you, and everyone who scoffs at the mere mention of any notion that falls outside a textbook, so sure?

When the Wright Brothers invented the airplane it was a long, slow processes. Along the way they showed what they had and kept working to make it better.

Imagine if they had come out on December 18th, 1903 and said:
"We flew an airplane yesterday! We challenge anyone to prove we did not although we are not inclined to tell you any more than that."

If I had been around then I would have said the same thing: "You've got nothing."

Does that mean I would have thought airplanes were impossible? Far from it. I would simply suggest that you should start looking somehwere ELSE for your first heavier-than-air flying machine.

It doesn't mean I think these things are impossible...I'm just saying that this particular person isn't going to be surprising us all next year with an amazing discovery.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

When the Wright Brothers invented the airplane it was a long, slow processes. Along the way they showed what they had and kept working to make it better.

Imagine if they had come out on December 18th, 1903 and said:
"We flew an airplane yesterday! We challenge anyone to prove we did not although we are not inclined to tell you any more than that."

If I had been around then I would have said the same thing: "You've got nothing."

Does that mean I would have thought airplanes were impossible? Far from it. I would simply suggest that you should start looking somehwere ELSE for your first heavier-than-air flying machine.

It doesn't mean I think these things are impossible...I'm just saying that this particular person isn't going to be surprising us all next year with an amazing discovery.

Two things wrong with your analogy SWC.

First, you assume that what Steorn has announced was not done by means of a slow, planned process. According to them, it is very much the contrary. They supposedly made their discovery several years ago, but instead of announcing it then they decided to improve it and have it validated by others.

If I may borrow you analogy; this would akin to the Wright Brothers building a kite patterned on what they think the real craft would look like, flying the model, then tweaking it to improve its performance, all the while having independent people watching each test.

Second; To be in step with Steorn's announcement, The Wright Brothers would have said, "We've got a machine that can fly. We would like others to test it out to prove or disprove that it flies, then give everyone else the results of their tests."

According to Steorn, they are looking for public validation of their system, they want to make sure that the world knows that their device does, indeed, fly.

If they had said what you said, then of course they would have nothing, but that's not what is being said and I would agree with you.

Personally, I think it's a gutsy move, and one that the scientific community should jump on for no other reason than to quiet those who would make false scientific claims.

If what Steorn has is crap I say blast them out of the water. Publicly humiliate them. Make them wish they had never heard of magnetisim. Of course, if they have something, anything, then make it known as well. If the effect is too small to be useful, say so. If you have to have exotic materials, like 5 ounces of enriched antimatter, to make it work, say that as well. But also tell us if all that is required to get unlimited energy is 4 dime store magnets, a ball of twine, chewing gum (well chewed), 3 paper clips, and duct tape.

Vern Seward

So you learned some "facts" and think that's the end of it. Seems that scientific "facts" are being challenged and debunked all the time. I don't know of any physics or chemistry textbook written 50 years ago that is still considered valid today. Much of what we accept today was considered pure fantasy only a generation ago.

It seems that one of the primary requirements for a scientist is to keep a mind open to possibilities and not get too attached to what you were taught.Apple