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

    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Hmmm. . . .
  1.  
    Bastlers don't keep log books
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Posted By: loremanWhat a pity that Joshs (who I always suspected was a major contributor to the pennies_everywhere persona) is not here anymore to enjoy this
    With due respect to Joshs, the Pennies character most likely was one woman. I exchanged some emails with her and IIRC she signed those with a real name which was not Joshs.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    IIRC the name was "Penny Gruber". There was a whole back story about dead brothers and other nonsense. The impression I got (differences in tone etc) was that Pennies was a group entity and that Joshs was a member of that group.
    •  
      CommentAuthorping1400
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Yeah, a troll squat
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Posted By: loremanIIRC the name was "Penny Gruber". There was a whole back story about dead brothers and other nonsense. The impression I got (differences in tone etc) was that Pennies was a group entity and that Joshs was a member of that group.


    That Gruber nonsense was specifically created for energyman8 to prove a point.
    • CommentAuthorthehard
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Sonoboy is right (the Trump era begins?). The jury's main complaint was that they only had access to some records, wasn't it.
    • CommentAuthorbr
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Posted By: sonoboySteorn should release all Orbo test data etc for a thorough go over and thrashing. If it worked they wouldn't be in this mess, so nothing to lose..
    The main result of the stop-start Orbo (K-toy) was that it was a stop-start-stopforever motion. Basically a SMOT. There were two replications (one of which by me) that 'worked', and I showed why it was a SMOT.

    The main result from the rotary asymmetric motion was the Rice report (on the quasi-DC angle-torque kit, which indeed showed a gain). There was only one rotary Orbo I know of which sped up and self-sustained, but it had active bearings. In other words, there was an air compressor attached to the bearings. I never saw a rotary Orbo with passive (magnetic) bearings which self-sustained. In the P-one competition, my team managed to measure all the relevant parameters of a Steornian style rig to show that it obeyed CoE to within experimental error (~100 uW). We never got a wind-down that was longer with the stators attached than without the stators. Old-Blake claimed his 10 hour run, but nobody including himself could do it again. 3D simulations in Comsol were done which showed a gain, but this was proven to be due to meshing limitations.

    The main result of the SS-Orbo was that a transient current through the solid-state switch during turn off was not accounted for. When accounted for there was no gain, as confirmed by whats-his-name (Fennelly? one of those guys) and independently by me (indeed I got there first).

    The main result I know of for the hepha-Orbo were some dodgy calorimetry results. They were dodgy because of the home-made calorimeter leaking heat, the control device had different wire length than the 'real' device (both leading up to and within the calorimeter), and the runs didn't start from the same initial conditions.

    Then I got thrown out.

    I'm pretty sure that in the Spud-club, I was the most hands-on with the tech, but it would be interesting to hear other accounts.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: brThen I got thrown out.

    Actually thrown out as opposed to Steorn's more usual modus operandi - just being left in the dark with no communication?

    I'm pretty sure that in the Spud-club, I was the most hands-on with the tech, but it would be interesting to hear other accounts.

    Indeed. I'd most like to hear from Clanzer; I suspect he must pip you on the most hands-on, just not with your depth when it comes to the math. He seemed to take some offence to this place, I'm not really sure why.
    • CommentAuthorbr
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: brThen I got thrown out.

    Actually thrown out as opposed to Steorn's more usual modus operandi - just being left in the dark with no communication?
    first there was the being left in the dark, then there was the being individually thrown out, so a double bonus.

    I'm pretty sure that in the Spud-club, I was the most hands-on with the tech, but it would be interesting to hear other accounts.

    Indeed. I'd most like to hear from Clanzer; I suspect he must pip you on the most hands-on...
    Clanzer made many skilled replications from a distance, but I reckon I had many more hours than him in Steorn HQ on actual Steorn kit (several full days' worth), plus a day (or two, can't remember) at the Waterways on Steorn's eOrbos, plus working on Steorn kit that they lent me, plus debugging the P-One rigs, plus a rig from Ace, plus my own replications, all using Steorn-approved magnets and ferrites. If any of this had worked, Clanzer would have been more hands-on as a replicator, but I reckon I had my hands more on Steorn tech ;)
    • CommentAuthorcwatters
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    I think Steorn has shown us all the importance of proper independent peer review and testing. As far as I can remember the never published anything that could be peer reviewed and tested.
  2.  
    Posted By: pcstruIndeed. I'd most like to hear from Clanzer;


    Didn't Naudin also do Steorn replications?
  3.  
    Posted By: cwattersI think Steorn has shown us all the importance of proper independent peer review and testing. As far as I can remember the never published anything that could be peer reviewed and tested.


    Which is what they wanted people to believe they were doing with their lauded jury. Nothing even close occurred. One of my most memorable 007 factoids was when he said that the because the jury was taking so long on deliberation proved that the Steorn claim was real. In reality it took so long because of foot dragging by Shaun and company who never produced anything that could support the claim.

    This whole idea that Steorn really believed what they had was bonafide never held sway with me. Since they eschewed robust peer review it was apparent from day one they were being nefarious. Most of their actions were to acquire more and more investors. Remember their talk initiatives? WTF? Too bad Shaun never got to do a TED talk.

    If anyone believed in Steorn it was because they wanted to believe not because of any meaningful demonstration on their part. It was theater all the way. Think of the way some past technologies were proved and compare that to the Steorn 'model.'
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Posted By: Knuckles OTooleRemember their talk initiatives? WTF? Too bad Shaun never got to do a TED talk.

    He did one at at a Dublin uni. I think that was where he theorised that the energy might be coming from galactic rotation....
  4.  
    Good Grief
  5.  
    Posted By: brWe never got a wind-down that was longer with the stators attached than without the stators.


    Such a simple -- and definitive -- test but so rarely performed by the PMM aficionados.
  6.  
  7.  
    The Steorn 'jury' met twice in Dublin. The first meeting was primarily to meet and establish a mode of work. The members had quite a spectrum of backgrounds and quite a spectrum of openness to the possibility of the thing being real.

    Steorn's goal seemed primarily to be to get the jury members to build and replicate the device. The jury worked out a rudimentary plan of how this might be done, but made it a condition of starting, that they be shown Steorn's working device first. In the first meeting Steorn made an effort to demonstrate a spinning wheel that would spontaneously accelerate, but couldn't get it working. Later the "turkey baster" measurement machine was offered as a demonstration of "working" in the sense of demonstrating the principle but the jury was not collectively convinced that it did demonstrate anything.

    By 2008 a majority of the jury was losing interest in waiting. It took much longer to get to the public announcement because I insisted on unanimous agreement to its wording. The jury thought that they held the fate of Steorn in their hands and some members wanted to give them every possible chance to demonstrate. In the end their exasperation prevailed, but the final statement stuck very closely to the facts - no judgement was made on whether the thing might or might not be made to work, but simply a report that no working device had ever been produced. The implication was pretty clear.

    I disagree with br that any device, including a rotating device, ever showed any gain. Certainly Steorn never had one or knew about it. Other than that, his chronicle pretty well agrees with my experience. As far as I can recollect, all the "reports" ever shown to the jury were made public in the end. The jury found it very strange that the Kinetica demonstration was held just as they were to begin work, even though Steorn had committed to shut up until their "verdict".
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016
     
    Posted By: Ian MacDonaldBy 2008

    Oh god, where is my life going?
    • CommentAuthorbr
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2016 edited
     
    Posted By: Ian MacDonaldLater the "turkey baster" measurement machine was offered as a demonstration of "working" in the sense of demonstrating the principle but the jury was not collectively convinced that it did demonstrate anything... I disagree with br that any device, including a rotating device, ever showed any gain
    Well, I was only referring to the 'turkey baster' result in the 'Rice report' (John Rice, engineer, the report became publicly available). I also do not think that this should be taken as 'proof', but I never managed to fully explain it. One possibility is that due to magnetic hysteresis in the ferrite, there is actually a loss, but when you do the maths on the data this can look like a gain. 'Maths on the data' does not equate to a real-life gain, and the practical self-running device didn't self run. Another possibility that I think the Jury pointed out, was that wobble and mechanical hysteresis in the bearings meant the path was not quite true, and that made the torque-angle calculation inaccurate. Steorn added various monitors to account for that and still claimed a gain. Magnetic hysteresis during basting would be a good hypothesis within the laws of physics, which is easy to show how maths can make it look like a gain, I just didn't manage to prove experimentally that it was the case. I spent about a week's work in total on a first-generation turkey baster, and what I found there was that due to some, probably, dirt in the bearings, I kept on getting sticky glitches that corrupted my results to the same level as the alleged gain (~1 mJ per rev). So I couldn't replicate the report (I cleaned the bearings and realigned the kit umpteen times with no successful outcome). The Rice report didn't have those glitches (I looked for them), but there may have been 'smoother' glitches that were not so obvious, or it may have been that there were no glitches but there was hysteresis that was turned by the analysis into a gain. Like yourselves, I was not convinced.

    The only one I saw (a video of) accelerating had compressed air bearings, after the Jury had disbanded, and of course not convincing due to the attached power supply and air flows.