Steorn and the three-body problem

As part of the 300 program, Steorn recently released specific details about their technology, which was pretty much the whole point of the 300. The general reaction has been vaguely positive and appreciative (like this posting), though there is a huge self-selection bias in play.

Their key operating principle is clever and unlike anything I’ve seen in my armchair studies of supposed magnetic motion machines. But it’s complicated, in a way that is like the EM equivalent of the three-body problem. In other words, their description is neither obviously wrong nor right. Any time you have moving magnetic fields and pulsating electromagnet currents, hard-to-predict interactions tend to happen. There’s also a host of measurement difficulties, including properly accounting for power factors and complex number phasors for power input/output in inductive circuits.

There’s still a vast disconnect between the jury announcement and failed public demonstration and everything else still going on. It’s fascinating to watch. :-)

-m

6 Responses to “Steorn and the three-body problem”

  1. Propagnada

    So it still could very easily be a measurement error then? Just not a an easily perceived one. But, is at least something new? That seemed to be what you were implying, but always best to ask.

  2. mdubinko

    You could take it either way. Optimistically, it’s real and tricky enough that nobody has noticed it before now. Pessimistically, that these guys are chasing shadows. -m

  3. Rezza

    The whole garbled module was extensive enough to conceal measurement errors, but now that it is over and the result (for the majority of less than 300)is that there is no OU what will Steorn do next? They are under pressure to release a new statement before the end of 2009 to counter the fact that they dont have an ORBO to release.

    The next claim Steorn will most likely be that they have the original working model from the ATM machine that showed OU in the first place so many years ago. Maybe a promised demo of that in 2010/2011 should keep the pressure off them until then. I mean what other plausible reason will be good enough for the few believers left when nothing happens by the end of 2009?

  4. Nobody

    Instead of speculating with your intellect as to the validity of the technology, which is arrogant by the way, why don’t you build and test the design and see for yourself, since you said they released specific details? Those details therefore are not in any way related to the jury’s failure and the failed demonstration.

    With that said, I would be inclined to say that given your negative bias, I would not trust anything you would build because those who would build it with the goal to making it work will likely discover the reason Orbo works and witness the effect. The opposite is true, if you build it with the goal of ensuring it doesn’t work, you will simply be deluding yourself and others into presenting your speculation as fact.

    My point here is that the wise thing to do is to wait and see, but instead you have mouthed off with a hint of disrespect. For that, your statements are discreditable.

  5. mdubinko

    Nobody,

    You seem to have assumed (in the absence of any data) that I am only armchairing the situation and have not performed any experiments or research myself. I’ve been careful to avoid any mention of specifics of my involvement (or not), extending even to this comment! You’ve made a flawed leap of logic.

    The fundamental claim of Steorn is that there exists an Orbo interaction that “creates energy from magnetic interactions” and “can be engineered to power anything from a phone, to a fridge to a car”. Hence, it is an engineering problem, one that will either work or not-work the same no matter the bias of the experimenter.

    If I thought that the wise thing to do was to wait and see, I would not have applied to be in the 300.
    -m

  6. David Rockeffellar http://www.infowars.com

    @Rezza

    Debunker – Who are you and what is your agenda?