Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

Sean McCarthy CEO stated that “technical problems arose during the installation of the demonstration unit in the display case on Wednesday evening. These problems were primarily due to excessive heat from the lighting in the main display area. Attempts to replace those parts affected by the heat led to further failures and as a result we have to postpone the public demonstration until a future date.”
Click to expand...

Let's see... They are about to demonstrate a divice that will change the world and shake our understanding of physics to its very foundations, buut they had a slight problem with the lighting, so rather than make the demonstration in poor lighting, they postpone it till further notice.

Well, that is the obvious thing to do, of course.

Hans
 
g4macdad said:
If there is no working demonstration in the next few days then I will gladly choke down my crow.:D
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
We'll believe that when we see it. Just like the Orbo!
Click to expand...



"Steorn has decided to postpone the demonstration until further notice."


So, g4, any time now would be good.



You wouldn't want to go proving us nasty skeptics right, would you?
 
How much excess heat do the spotlights produce? I've spent a lot of time in the theatre, and although strong lighting does indeed raise the temperature I doubt it causes more than about a 5o rise (Celsius), which, when you consider this demonstration was to take place in a fairly roomy, well ventilated area, is a pretty pathetic performance for the machine. The temperature of the room would most likely have been set to 20o or thereabouts, making the temperature at which the device fails no more than (let's be generous) 30o. Even if it could be made to work at these temperatures many countries that would actually need cheap or free energy (i.e. poor countries with large energy requirements) experience temperatures in excess of 30o on a regular basis, as do many parts of the more affluent countries!

The alternative would be to use the device to power a refrigeration unit to keep the temperature down, which would use up the excess energy, thus rendering the device under unity!

In other words, even if it works, it's still pretty much useless!!
 
The Belfast Telegraph:

Eric Berger, who writes a science web-log (blog) on the Houston Chronicle website, offers his own insight.
He said: "Recall that Steorn is a former e-business company that saw its market vanish during the dot.com bust.
"It stands to reason that Steorn has re-tooled as a web marketing company, and is using the free energy promotion as a platform to show future clients how it can leverage print advertising and a slick website to promote their products and ideas. If so, it's a pretty brilliant strategy."
Click to expand...
 
OK, I was wrong, I'm pretty sure now their theory only works for spherical machines in a vacuum and in the dark (and lack of visible light might be insufficient, you probably want to avoid the entire spectrum).
 
MRC_Hans said:
Let's see... They are about to demonstrate a divice that will change the world and shake our understanding of physics to its very foundations, buut they had a slight problem with the lighting, so rather than make the demonstration in poor lighting, they postpone it till further notice.

Well, that is the obvious thing to do, of course.
Click to expand...


Well, basically... the thing broke because of the heat from the lights, but here's the thing that gets me: they can't seem to fix it!

Even if the thing works as advertised, it apparently breaks easily and is a bitch to maintain. Their own engineers are having trouble. That's not exactly something I would invest in...
 
Last edited:
Well, basically... the thing broke because of the heat from the lights,
Click to expand...

well i guess if they turned the lights off, the machine ought to run eh!
that would make it more efficient than they claim, saving more power, albeit from some power station, so you'd expect that to be their first option, really..............
also there are some very low light level cameras about, surely that could capture the thing working?

wonder what the wattage of their workshop/lab lights are , say, compared with the studio lights.......
they could turn off/on/remove bulbs etc., to get the same wattage (or less maybe?)

ok enough frivolity, ...it'll never happen i reckon.....they built it, but they cant fix it though????

Get that outa here!!!!
 
Now, now skeptics...don't you feel guilty about picking on g4macdad? You knew that the perpetual motion machine would fail...and yet you goaded him into this embarrassing situation. Shame!
 
Ziggurat said:
No, actually, they DON'T. If they did, then electrons would decay into the nucleus and atoms would collapse, but they quite obviously don't. That was quite a puzzle for turn-of-the-century physicists, and the solution to that problem helped lead to quantum mechanics. Electrons in ground states around atoms DO NOT emit electromagnetic radiation. "Zero-point enegy" is nothing other than a delusion that the ground state of an atom is for some unexplained reason not really the true ground state. Well, it is. If it weren't, atoms would decay spontaneously (as radioactive isotopes, which are NOT in nucleic ground states, do all the time). And yet, that never happens. Why, pray tell? You've got no idea, and neither do any of the other zero-point energy proponents.
Click to expand...

Let's be just a little bit careful here. While I agree 100% with your conclusions, radioactive isotopes have nothing to do with electron shells. As far as I know, the shells act the same in isotopes as they do in base elements, otherwise isotopes would spontaneously radiate light rather than alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Near-light radiation quanta are emitted or captured by electrons moving to different shells, which have different sizes in isotopes than in base elements (hence different characteristic wavelengths), but otherwise act the same. The cause of radioactive decay is strong-force interactions within the nucleus, not electromagnetic interaction in the electron shells.
 
Beady said:
Excuse me, but isn't a working model an actual working machine? Seems to me that in order to demonstrate the concept, you have to employ exactly the same principles. The only difference between the "toy" and the machine is the scale.

ETA: Define "the next few days."
Click to expand...

I am thinking this is precisely the problem. They wanted a demonstration of the machine without giving the complete design away for the whole world to easily copy, but the engineers didn't succeed. Or the whole thing is bogus.

I am willing to go another couple days to find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom