Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    I bet it started to smell after a while
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016
     
    How could I have forgotten!
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: Knuckles OToole
    Posted By: VibratorNot a single individual - i exagerate not - nobody, as far as i'm aware, has been able to offer robust critique of Orbo theory with regards to this singular point of fundamental theory upon which it depends.

    \
    I think the fact that it doesn't work says it all. Why would you or anyone continue to chase an illusion?
    Whose avoiding reality here? All i'm doing is laying out what i see as compelling points of actual real physics theory - quite aside from any circumstantial evidence - to be considered under its own merits or lack thereof. You may pick up the baton at any time, or ignore it, your choice.

    If this was a con - a possibility i remain entirely open to accepting - it nonentheless capitalised on this very real area of actual physics theory, which is not Steorn's IP and which is simple facts of nature we are all quite free to discuss and disentangle at our leisure. We'll not call this bluff through circumstantial considerations alone - it has to be tackled head-on, and if found to contain a kernel of genuine curiosity, recognised as such.. because this is how they were able to perpetuate the con, exploiting precisely this kind of woolly hand-wavy dismissiveness. 'We don't have to understand it, if someone smarter has it sussed'. Well bollox to that - this is classical mechanics, not QCD. Force, displacement, work / energy equivalence, distinct input and output workloads, one slow, the other fast. Not. Rocket. Science.

    Why settle for just throwing accusations of impropriety, when we're free to pick through the very specific and simple physics the claim hinges upon?

    My only interest here is classical symmetry breaks. Which would be a lot like being a ghost hunter, but for the fact my quarry is real.. a passive Sv loss, as given above, is a non-dissipative loss mechanism. It's a classical symmetry break. Conservation of energy does not apply.

    Even more challenging; conservation of momentum - as classically understood - does not apply.

    So the stuff Steorn were playing with is the real X-files stuff. This is edge-case, exceptional stuff. Right up my street, but i can't understand why this wouldn't likewise be everyone's cup of tea.. busting unreal asymmetries - whether hoaxes or mistakes - is but the means of searching out the real ones, not the ends in itself.

    While all yuz lot are happy to play the Waldorf and Statler act, i'm on more of a van Helsing tip - the questions that keep me awake at night aren't "how can everyone else be so stupid?" but rather "how can i be so stupid as to not be able to figure out how to do this mechanically?".. which is what i'm most intently focused on.

    The reason i do this is because where some might summarise Noether's theorem as a shiboleth scrawled around the walls of their cell; "energy is conserved because the laws of physics don't change in time", i see between its lines the implicit incantations that might be uttered to summon or condemn energy and momentum at will, and Steorn really opened my eyes to this. I mean, Sean McCarthy literally spelled it out. Credit where it's due? This is the kabala of classical mechanics. If you have any heartfelt interest in science, then the stuff that defeats your usual assumptions, that challenges your most basic predicates, is the Good Stuff. I love it. I love being stumped, and having a puzzle clearly laid out before me. Re-arranging the pieces, working through the permutations, the logical strategies vis reduction, maths, experiment and trying to peel back my blinkers that little bit further. Epistemology - constantly trying to reformulate and re-examine and redefine terms and units and dimensions and delineating objective from subjective and fundamental from incidental... cross-referencing, integrating, finding the darker corners and trying to kindle up a little more light..

    If i had it in any way wrapped up, i wouldn't be here - it wouldn't be a 'thing' for me. The thing is the mystery, and the further depths it may or may not hold.

    Doubtless, all here are content that Bessler's wheel was a proven fraud. Mass and gravity are constants, a closed-loop through a static field yields zero net energy. But applying Noether's theroem we can say, with absolute certainty, that if it was genuine, then it must've been leveraging time-variant interactions.

    Applying time-variant interactions to destroy momentum and energy is trivial, and only 'contentious' insofar as the incredulity such a prospect rightly elicits. It's a compelling subject matter. So i'm open to the possibility of gains, i accept the stigma that is usually justifiably associated with such interests, but my only interest is the appliance of science, so i don't care about 'suppression conspiracies', politics, or any of the other whacky stuff. Just this whacky stuff. It's exciting, badass, maverick, the lure of frontiers beyond the gaps.. and this is an inn, a watering hole on the edge of that outback - yuz lot are the bar props, but i'm a ranger..

    And a rager / deranger etc. (nija'd five of ya there eh). :P
  2.  
    Have fun!
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016
     
    The data implies that the system is rigged.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016
     
    Words.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016 edited
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016
     
    Do be sure to give us a post when you get something working other than words.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: VibratorThe exasperating inertia of the level of commentry on this issue suggests it's probably going to be left hanging, at least to any individuals even aware it exists..


    "Commentary", but an elegantly written post.nonetheless...


    I did notice the mistake when typing it, but forgot to go back and correct it.. But thanks - tho obviously, any transient appearance of coherence comes with no guarantees of consistency.

    ..It suffers only from being nothing but words.


    Any 'discussion' suffers not by being composed of words, so much as challenging dubiously-held convictions..

    All experience so far has led us to understand that removing energy from a system of any kind reduces the energy available in it for future removal, unless there is some replenishment mechanism going on involving the removal of energy from another system. Contrary words that might sound plausible to you mean nothing in the absence of evidence, and evidence itself will be extraordinarily suspect given the body of experience it would contradict.


    Everybody knows weasel words are the definitive authority on everything. Specifics, man; if we remove energy from the output half of an interaction, the net system energy is reduced. Conversely, if we remove energy from the input half of an interaction, the net system energy is increased.

    The suspect evidence is before you - exhibit (A) here, in the example i've given, is a dictionary definition of a non-dissipative loss mechanism; Sv is well documented, right back to Rutherford and beyond. We know, categorically, that it fulfills the function of a non-dissipative loss mechanism when applied in passive magnetic systems (as opposed to electronic ones).

    This directly challenges our usual presumptions on the immutability of classical thermodynamics - not because CoE is no longer sacrosanct, but precisely because it's resulting in an apparent paradox, leading us out of our safe zones into darkness. An Sv interaction has precisely the right amount of energy at all times - the output energy is diminished because the force was late, lagging behind the physical motion of the magnets coming together. If you find long Sv times too contentious, substitute faster mechanical speeds, to the same effect..

    The bottom line is that a fully conservative interaction depends upon forces varying instantaneously as a function of distance - remove Sv from the equation and our magnetic interaction would be as symmetrical as a gravitational interaction. It's effectively a static field soution, input and output integrals may have differing F*d distributions but their net areas are equal and opposite in sign.

    But as soon as the force becomes a time-dependent variable, CoE applies in the here-and-now - it only cares about the present - and so we can cause an asymmetric interaction that apparently destroys energy, via the very laws by which it is conserved. IOW, the above example of energy destruction depends upon CoE apportioning precisely the right amount of energy at all times. It's a CoE violation, dependent upon CoE.

    So yes, it's just a discussion. but a fascinating one, that demands our engagement, resolution and understanding. A gauntlet has been cast down. The stakes may be everything, or nothing, but a loose end is no conclusion..

    But it gives me a warmish feeling of nostalgia to see that even now there are Steorn apologists. And I'm even willing to be trolled a bit just for the memories.
    Apologisng for the stale reception this tantalising, mesmerizing, confounding and exhilerating point of fundmanental theory has recieved, yes. Behind all the narratives, personalities and interests, stands this forgotten elephant.

    If we must input 2 Joules of energy to separate two magnets which only gave out 1 J as they attracted together, and the 'other' Joule isn't actually missing as it simply never came to be in the first place, then we have a non-dissipative loss mechanism, an asymmetric interaction, and something quite exceptional. It is, in every meaningful sense, the 'evil twin' of a gain. We're no longer debating whether such asymmetries are possible, but merely haggling over which signs are allowed, and what it all means...
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2016
     
    • CommentAuthorsoon
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2016
     
    This is actually pretty undeniable evidence of perpetual words.
  3.  
    Posted By: VibratorIf we must input 2 Joules of energy to separate two magnets which only gave out 1 J as they attracted together, and the 'other' Joule isn't actually missing as it simply never came to be in the first place, then we have a non-dissipative loss mechanism, an asymmetric interaction, and something quite exceptional. It is, in every meaningful sense, the 'evil twin' of a gain. We're no longer debating whether such asymmetries are possible, but merely haggling over which signs are allowed, and what it all means...


    Wrong. If your magnets "gave out" only 1 Joule as they attracted together, but it took 2 J to separate them in the first place, or to separate them again so that the cycle can repeat -- you have a net, and very real, dissipative LOSS because you cannot get any useful work over and above that 1 J out of the total system. The energy isn't "lost" in the sense of being "non-dissipative", you just haven't done your sums properly to account for all the waste that eventually goes to low-grade, unusable heat.

    You can make all kinds of verbose claims about what you _think_ might happen, but the facts of experimentation say that your claims are, at best, unproven, and at worst... just logorrhea.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2016
     
    Vibrator, have you ever exchanged ideas with Frank Grimer? He used to visit here occasionally and had some interesting ideas also. Something about the second derivative of "jerk" or some such.
  4.  
    Posted By: alsetalokinWrong. If your magnets "gave out" only 1 Joule as they attracted together, but it took 2 J to separate them in the first place, or to separate them again so that the cycle can repeat -- you have a net, and very real, dissipative LOSS because you cannot get any useful work over and above that 1 J out of the total system. The energy isn't "lost" in the sense of being "non-dissipative", you just haven't done your sums properly to account for all the waste that eventually goes to low-grade, unusable heat.
    Yes, unless the "missing" Joule is going into stored energy somewhere else in the system. It need not be dissipated thermal energy but may be stored potential energy. Of course, if stored, eventually Thing Go Bang, which is a dead giveaway.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2016
     
    Until new instructions come down from the Universe, I will continue to view missing energy as prima facie evidence of getting it wrong.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2016
     
    Vibrator 8====D

    I can see how your system could be a strange form of an energy sink, so to speak, in a way in which others who post here don't get. The problem is I can only see a loss system, a system that loses energy. In theory I can understand how the process should be reversible, but I cannot envision such a mechanical system.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2016
     
    If you do it right no energy is missing. I actually went through all that in the Steorn days. And I'm not doing it again.

    (Hint - it takes calculation. You can't talk your way through.)
  5.  
    Even if you wave your hands about at the same time?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2016
     
    I don't know. My Italian is rusty.
  6.  
    Just add olive oil