At 09:26 PM 12/15/2009, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:
As a Steorn Non Disclosure Agreement signatory and knowledgeable insider, I
have a few comments:
The energy in the battery does not go to the kinetic energy of the rotor, it
is used as an easy way to modify some
parameters of the device. Steorn does have all permanent magnet motors ( so
they claim ), but it's much easier to adjust
parameters with some electric currents than mechanically moving parts around
or changing magnetic alloys.
Look, this is an impossible situation. Because of your nondisclosure
agreement, any reasonable answers you could give to the essential
questions will violate the agreement. Basically, your comments here
are a red herring, all they can do is to place your personal
reputation, whatever that is, on the line. It's a variation on "Trust
me!" How are we to know that you have not, yourself, been duped?
Can the contents of the NDA be disclosed? Before people sign the NDA,
have they signed an agreement not to disclose the contents of the
NDA? Can you even answer these questions?
"Adjusting parameters" apparently takes energy. Adjustment of
parameters can dump some of that energy into a device.
Now, if the thing really charges batteries, why don't they start with
an empty battery? Give the thing a swing with the hand, and off it
would go! Use capacitors. You know the drill, I'm sure.
The "demonstration" is designed to fail to demonstrate, that's clear.
You know perfectly well that they could have arranged a better
demonstration, if they wanted to succeed in that. Hence, even if they
have a real technology, they are imitating the behavior of a long
line of fools and con men. So, my interesting question: why?
You do speculate on this to some degree. But the sum of all of it for
me: I assume it is bogus, because of this kind of behavior, until
some real evidence appears otherwise.
I understand the principle of the demo units, and it makes sense to me, and
I've done several experiments to demonstrate the effect.
Cool. But the NDA and associate agreements make it completely
impractical for you to do the deeper work necessary to fully
characterize the effect, and you can't tell us the content of your
experiments. So, once again, your comment boils down to "trust me."
That's fine, but doesn't get us very far.
The engineers at Steorn are not stupid, in fact they show extraordinary
skills and understanding of physics and electrical engineering.
I don't have a problem with this. But very smart people can get
caught in a net of collusion and deception. Happens all the time, actually.
I think they have other much more effective embodyments that haven't been
revealed yet.
Apparently you trust them.
Their strategy is rather bizarre, but in a way I think it is ingenious for
many reasons (speculative):
They must prove that their techniques are not "obvious to anyone skilled in
the art" for patentability, even though they are extremely simple.
Look, if this works, it is satisfies that condition of patentability,
intrinsically. There is no obvious technique for over-unity devices,
and, indeed, they are often considered unpatentable. However, ways of
operating such a device, minus the over-unity claim, can be and have
been patented, that's the Bedini motor.
They have released many clues over the years, and still no one has
conclusively made a self runner ( except one person who was unable to repeat
his experiment after trying to optimize it ).
That's not exactly encouraging.
They must avoid serious attention of the "Men In Black". This is a delicate
balancing act.
If they are trying to avoid attention, they are not doing a very good
job of it. It seems that they are attempting to attract attention. My
tentative conclusion is that attention is exactly what they want.
They are charging for getting a look at the technology, and, I'm
sure, this comes with heavy NDAs, so .... they may be able to make
money simply by generating enough buzz and raising enough curiosity.
How could I distinguish between this hypothesis and what appears to
be yours: the technology works and they are merely running a
"delicate balancing act."
They would like parties to sign contracts before they understand that the
principles are simple and they could've used them anyway.
Contracts cannot be enforced if they are contrary to public policy.
Sean McCarthy wants the skeptics to "shoot their load" and get that stuff
over with at the beginning. He's having fun thumbing
his nose at them (as am I).
Sure, he's having fun, and so are you. But don't blame the rest of us
if we make the obvious conclusions. Have your fun. Enjoy your
isolation, and the fallout, if it's what pulls your chain.
There is no "load" to my skepticism. There is, in fact, simply a
"show me." That "show me" cannot be exhausted until I'm shown! So
he's playing with knee-jerk skepticism, and, indeed, using it to
amplify the publicity. Showmanship, really. Quite recognizable, Hoyt.
Half baked thoughts:
There's a mass-consciousness tendency to avoid new things and it's hard to
override it.
Yes. It's hard to override because it is an essential protection.
There are overrides that work, by respecting the need for such
protection and then satisfying the conditions. It can take time and patience.
In a way it's not "playing the game" to suddenly
change the rules of the game in the middle, and in a way I agree that it's
not fair to do that to folks who are happy playing the game the way it is,
but on the other hand, I love disturbing the status quo :-) .
And sometimes the status quo will love disturbing you, if you love
disturbing it. What goes around comes around.
History shows
other examples of "changing the game" as I think Jed has shown he is an
expert on that phenomenon.
Here are some hints about the technology:
http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10014630o-2000331777b,00.htm
Nothing there that I could see, and no reason for looking further.
The obvious objections.
