 |
There are currently, 801 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker?
Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 23:00:05 UTC by vlad
|
|
From www.gizmag.com : April 27, 2007 Steorn is publicly unveiling its “perpetual motion machine” this July, according to the latest video from CEO Sean McCarthy. The Irish company made international headlines after declaring news of its invention, which would theoretically violate the so called laws of thermodynamics, in a full page ad in The Economist in August 2006. However, because its “over 100% efficient” energy system still remains over 100% unverified, McCarthy is currently viewed by academia as about as scientific as an X-men sequel. An examination of the model by a panel of 22 scientists, (chosen out of a whopping 4500 applicants), is expected to complete its investigation into Steorn’s claims in the following two months. The result could simply be a punch line to what many scientists already regard as a bad joke...or it could revolutionize the world’s energy systems and utterly demolish our understanding of physics.
In science, the term efficiency is used to describe the discrepancy between the energy that goes into a system and the useful energy output of the system. The first law of thermodynamics states that, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, efficiency cannot exceed 100%. The second law states that, since matter and energy are constantly progressing towards a state of equilibrium with the environment, the efficiency of a system will inevitably deteriorate. Steorn, however, asserts that the “meticulous” placement of magnets can allow a magnetic object to progress indefinitely along a path in such a way that when it returns to its starting position, it has gained energy. McCarthy claims that such an arrangement can result in up to 400% efficiency. This system breaks the laws of thermodynamics with such blatant contempt that, in a Newtonian universe, all Steorn members would be thrown in physics prison. Indeed the devil-may-care attitude Steorn’s prototype has towards the universal constants is part of the reason the company had such trouble in their initial attempts to persuade scientists to test it. McCarthy claims that 90% of scientists they approached refused to even acknowledge the possibility. As for the 10% dared to witness it in action, McCarthy states that all were convinced...
More here: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7164/
----------
Another article with lots of interesting comments:
Steorn's free energy seems curiously expensive
by Rupert Goodwins ZDNet UK
In spring, a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. In late summer, though, it's more a case around here of what on earth to write about. It is the journalistic silly season, when everyone's on holiday and nothing's really happening until September.
Canny people know how to fill that space. One lot who got the timing just right is Steorn, a company apparently composed of three people working from a business park in Dublin. Flicking through the seasonally adjusted pages of an anaemic edition of The Economist last week, I saw their full page advert claiming a "blasphemous" breakthrough in energy generation. Thence to their Web site, which is a creditable production saying the company has a small bundle of aluminium, motors, disks and wires that effectively produces power out of nowhere. Interested scientists are invited to apply to become part of a panel of 12, which will then be asked to test the device.
Coo. And Steorn is putting its money where its mouth is. A full-page advert in the Economist costs many tens of thousands of pounds. The Web site is very professional, and the London PR company involved is one that also handles ITV, Halifax, John Lewis and others of that stature. This is a substantial investment — and, since it doesn't seem aimed at selling anything, inviting investment or producing anything measurable, it's a huge chunk of their own money in what even the company will cheerfully admit is a PR stunt...
Full article: http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/
Some comments to this article:
Anonymous writes: Carlos Luna has been a leading researcher at Steorn and the related company Fraudhalt for several years. His name is on several Steorn patents from 2004.
Carlos Luna did PhD research at the Group of Magnetism and Magnetic Nanomaterials Institute for Materials Science of Madrid, CSIC
His PhD work is described as follows:
1) Laboratories for Bulk Magnetic Characterization
High-field temperature-dependent magnetic and magnetotransport characterizations are performed at the Laboratory of Magnetometry and Magnetotransport.Facilities include a Vibrating Sample Magnetometer, VSM, under maximum field of 1.5 T (low-temperature measurements in preparation), a superconducting coil (maximum field of 12T, function of temperature), lock-in, impedance bridge, and other equipments to determine high-frequency Giant Magneto-Impedance, GMI, and Magnetransport (Magnetoresistence, MR) properties. Prof. Francisco Batallán is responsible for this Laboratory, where Dr. Badini and Ph.D students Carlos Luna and David Navas are measurements responsible. General facilities of the Institute include a SQUID magnetometer, AC Susceptometer, and High-field Vibrating sample Magnetometer.
2) Laboratory of Technical Magnetism
General studies on magnetism, mainly on soft magnetic materials, are performed at the Laboratory of Technical Magnetism including techniques to measure low-field hysteresis loops, fluctuating and temperature dependent switching field studies, magnetostriction by Small Angle Magnetization Rotation, magnetoelastic properties and field-induced rotation of levitating magnetostrictive wires, etc... Prof. Manuel Vázquez is responsible for this laboratory where Dr. Kleber Pirota and Ph.D. students Karin García and Carlos Luna are also involved.
Citations:
"Temperature dependence of remagnetization process in bistable magnetic microwires", M. Vázquez, A. Zhukov, K. Pirota, R. Varga, K. García, C. Luna, M. Provencio, D. Navas, J.L. Martínez, M. Hernández-Vélez, J. Non-Crystalline solids 329 (2003) 123-130 (Invited, V Int. Workshop Non-crystalline Solids, Mexico. Feb. 2003)
" Induced rotation of magnetic wires by magnetic and mechanical excitations", M. Vázquez, V. Raposo and C. Luna, Electromagnetic Fields in Electrical Engineering. ed. A. Krawczyk and S. Wiak. IOS Press 2002. pp.525-530, (Invited, ICEM Conf. Krakow, Sept. 2001)
"Inducing rotation and levitation in magnetostrictive wires and rods: correlated amplitude and frequency of exciting ac axial magnetic field". V. Raposos, C. Luna and M. Vázquez, Sensors and Actuators A 106 (2003) 274-277
"Magnetic nanoparticles: synthesis, ordering and properties", M. Vázquez, C. Luna, P. Morales, R. Sanz, C. Serna and C. Mijangos, (Invited, At the Fontiers of the Condensed Matter Conf., Buenos Aires. Jun. 2004 ), Physica B 354 (2004) 71-79
"A magnetopolymeric nanocomposite: Co80Ni20 nanoparticles in a PVC matrix", R. Sanz, C. Luna, M. Hernandez-Velez, M. Vázquez, D. Lopez and C. Mijangos, Nanotechnology 16 (2005) S278-281
"Exchange anisotropy in Co80Ni20/oxide nanoparticles", C. Luna, P. Morales, C. Serna and M. Vázquez, Nanotechnology 15 (2004) 293-297
Effects of surfactants on the particle morphology and self-oragnization of Co nanocrystals, C. Luna, P. Morales, C. Serna and M. Vázquez, Mater. Sci. Engineer. C23 (2003) 1129-1132
- "Multidomain to single-domain transition for uniform Co80Ni20 nanoparticles", C. Luna, P. Morales, C. Serna and M. Vázquez, Nanotechnology 14 (2003)268-272.
A glass of water and a resistor?
The extra energy claimed by the invention is a miniscule amount, a gain that would be immeasurable with the crude equipment you suggest- likely they are hand-picking scientists from major universities who have sensitive testing devices. They have posted the patent information on their website which is being dissected by physics-background visitors. You have to want it to find it -- in the face of harsh criticism from all corners, I completely understand why they wouldn't hand it out to every hack wanting to test it with a resistor and a cup of water, and pronounce the whole thing as a fraud.
If they have stumbled upon the holy grail of physics their approach is the correct one -- choosing a number of reputable, well-financed physicists to draw accurate conclusions with cutting edge technology. If it is true, and may well not be, but if it is, then the next question would be whether a miniscule gain will traslate to a major energy gain if a large version of the device is built.
How many world-altering innovations have been discovered by accident? Just google "accidental discovery Nobel Prize"
..............
Rich Weber writes: Dark Matter, zero point energy etc, etc. aside, everyone seems to forget that there is a qualifier in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. They both refer to closed systems, and are born out of pure mathematics, unprovable in the real world.
Why? Because nobody can seem to find a closed system.
In fact, quantum theory, due to such principles as uncertainty, and entanglement to a lesser degree, would seem to indicate that it is impossible for a truly closed system to exist.
One may argue that the universe as a whole is a closed system. To them I say, if you can prove that, you deserve a nobel prize.
You would then have to prove that no other universes exist, or that if they do, entanglement cannot take place between particles in two separate universes, and that they cannot interact with each-other in any way (worm holes, black holes, etc). You would further have to prove that there is no causality taking place. That the very existence of one, does not cause anything in the other. Of course, then there would be no way to prove it..... would there? Because it would be completely and utterly undetectable.
Simply saying "It must be the case, because these rules seem to hold true" is not good enough. Any scientist familiar with experimentation knows that one time in a billion you may get a different result, and that one time can point out something very important.
Men like Hawking and Kaku do not rule things like this out, so why should we.
The more we learn, the less we know.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
| |
|
| "Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker?" | Login/Create an Account | 21 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Friday, April 27, 2007 @ 02:05:49 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | This is technically wrong --
Place your experiment in a sealed chamber inside a vacuum and you have a closed system...
Okay, if you assume other universes exist, then these universes as a collection are a closed system.
This is what thermodynam-icists?! mean by the universe being a closed system, the entire collection of everything that exists (not only in our universe) when analyzed together is a closed system. |
|
|
Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Veryskeptical on Friday, April 27, 2007 @ 15:37:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I am continually surprised by the depth of ignorance and the self congratulatory skepticism I find in so many comments on alternative energy. However there is one point the author makes I think very worthwhile. Someone should make book on Steorn and the other over unity efforts. At least the truly knowledgable would have a chance to make some money either way. Why anyone would want to scam the "public" with an over unity device in the current climate beats me. A con artist needs the willing complicity of his victims. But with all the committed naysayers around offering a phony device would seem to be a very dicey proposition.
As the first comment above claims there are some very knowledgable people involved in this effort and as Steorn is hardly the only one offering or displaying devices of this type (see youtube for example) and as many people for a number of years have been trying to break through the insane negativism of the established scientific community I am inclined to believe Steorn really has the goods.
As a last thought I will say it one more time though so many others have said it before. An experimental fact trumps a scientific theory. The theorists have said it will not work. That ends their contribution. The matter must be settled by experimentalists. After which they can either continue with business as usual or take the ruins of their theories and go mull over them in some corner. For now they should shut up and get out of the way. It is too bad they cannot be fined or jailed for their continuous harping.
|
|
|
Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Mar1 on Saturday, April 28, 2007 @ 05:04:03 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | First of all to say that the Steron’s claim is “blasphemous’ just because it apparently violates the first and second law of energy conservation without even giving them the proper time to set up and show credible experimental data using the rigors of the scientific method by extremely qualified individuals is just as narrow minded, arrogant and ignorant as what the catholic church did with Galileo and his claims of the earth being round. If their claim is correct, which I do view with a fair amount of skepticism, then time should help rectify our misunderstanding of nature and if not then the sacrosanct laws may remain unchanged for the time being, but consider the following argument; the first law of energy conservation states that energy cannot be destroyed or created only transformed. Now, one could argue that because of the way in which it is stated one could interpret it as follows, “Energy is infinitely cyclical, recyclable and therefore energy is infinite, the universe being an obvious example of this manifestation. Now regarding the second law of energy conservation, it states that you can never get more energy out of a system than what you put into it, but if this is true then why do electrons orbit around the nucleolus of an atom in a fixed, “perpetual path”, why do planets orbit around a sun in a “perpetual” path until the solar system is destroyed? If you separate two magnets of different polarity with a stick is there not a continues force of attraction, isn’t this not a form of constant energy being exerted against the stick? I am not saying that these observations disprove the second law of energy conservation, but can you argue against them, can you disprove these arguments experimentally?
|
|
|
|
|
