On 11/12/2011 11:50 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
I think Steorn stumbled upon a real anomally but they erred in
assuming that measurement alone was sufficient to demonstrate the
reality of energy creation.
Since there seems to still be some belief around here that "Steorn
stumbled upon a real anomaly", I feel that I should point out some
recent postings that may have gone unnoticed.
Also since Mary Yugo has just joined us (and very welcome you are Mary,
with your sharp mind and tongue to match), who took a lot of interest in
the Steorn affair in the early days - I am sure she will appreciate this
information, if not already aware of it.
About a month ago Steorn released four apparently significant supporting
documents to Stirling's news service (www.pesn.com) which were reported
on here
<http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/>.
PESN was not allowed to post the actual documents or reveal the authors
names, but it turned out that one of the documents (a pretty important
one it seems describing measurement of the "Steorn Effect" in detail)
was found to be available on Steorn's website here
<http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf>!
Anyway sometime later someone calling themselves "Dr Quack Pot" picked
up on this paper and wrote some comments on the results reported in it
(see comments after the PESN article) which make pretty revealing
reading! To save people having to chase the links and read through the
discussions, here is a summary of the facts as I understand them.
The available document is a Consultant Engineer's (John Rice) report
describing energy balance measurements made on an Orbo mechanism while
it was displaying the "anomaly". In each case the torque is measured as
a function of angular position, in some cases using a step, stop and
measure method, and in other cases the torque is sampled during
continuous rotation.
One of the measurements (chart 5 orange curve) shows the torque
resulting from the interaction between a fixed (stator) permanent magnet
and a soft ferrite core rotated on an armature (rotor) in its vicinity.
Since we know that this interaction is always attractive, this allows
the sign of the torque to be determined. Another measurement (chart
4259 red curve) shows the torque between the same fixed magnet stator
but with a permanent magnet on the rotor. The sign of this curve
indicates that that the force between the permanent magnets was
primarily repelling. A third measurement (chart 4259 blue curve) then
shows the result of having the soft ferrite and the permanent magnet
stuck together and rotated together on the armature.
The energy balance in each case is obtained by subtracting frictional
and gravitational effects (measured during calibration runs), and then
integrating the remaining magnetic interaction torque over a complete
revolution - which of course gives net energy gained or lost per
revolution (see chart 4260). In a linear system one would expect that
(PM<>ferrite effect) + (PM<>PM effect) = (PM<>(PM+ferrite) effect)
But this is not what is measured! Using the first measurement as a null
calibration, the energy balance from the second measurement is very
good, while the energy balance from the third shows a highly significant
(~1 mJ per rev) discrepancy.
So there we have it - the "Steorn Anomaly"!
But the million dollar question is of course, was it an energy gain or
an energy loss! What was the */sign/* of the discrepancy. With some
simple logic and knowing the sign of the torque, it is very easy to
determine that what was measured was an energy /*loss*/!!! "Orbo
technology" is a method of turning mechanical energy into heat using
magnetic interactions! WOW!
So here you have at last the key to understanding the amazing puzzle of
the Steorn $75k "challenge", the SPDC excitement and discussions, the
scientific jury, the "Steorn 300" engineering companies, the SKDB
investors, etc, etc, etc! An amazingly long lived buzz of discussion
and activity and money changing hands, all resulting from a simple sign
error that seems to have only very recently been noticed! (Of course
Steorn must have made the error way back before their challenge of 2006,
and then induced John Rice to repeat and document the same error in 2008).
I am guessing that this Rice report might have been made available to
the SPDC (under NDA, maybe someone could confirm or deny that?), almost
certainly to the Jury, and more recently to the engineering companies
and SKDB, and finally after no more gain was to be had from it, it was
(maybe a month or so ago) released to the public. How is it possible
that out of all the investigators provided with this report, not one
bothered to check the sign of the well documented anomaly. That is now
the biggest puzzle! Someone should update Wikipedia to reflect this
additional information!
