www.steorn.com

[infinitydxn]

www.steorn.com

-discuss-

:)

I thought it was very interesting.

[M4LFUNCT10N]

When the site first opened, there was a lot of valid criticism of the creators. I don't feel like searching for it, but it's out there.

The issue I see... you can't create energy from nothing. If the energy is already there, then it should be causing problems. Just like a large enough magnetic field to power anything electrical is also harmful to humans.

[Excessive]

There are some wakos that come to my work occasionally. They say they have a way of generating power in Skagit County. They claim they have been using it for 50+ years, it costs nothing, and will never run out. They like to brag, but when asked they won't actually say what it is. Kind of like that website.

[Opiate]

I have this feeling they're going to hand you a stationary bike, generator, and say 'Just gotta ride this seven hours a day... I hope you have an electric car!'.

[PirateIvan]

"Early into this project the company developed certain generator configurations that appeared to be over 100% efficient."

"Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA *pauses to catch breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a load of crap. If a technology that amazing (that broke the laws of physics) existed and actually functioned, there's no way that they wouldn't be able to find anyone that would go on record saying they confirmed it. No way, that is, unless their entire company is completely & ineffably stupid. So stupid, in fact, that I serriously dbout they would be able to create such a device in the first place. LOL! :rofl:

[Ender]

Not that I think this site is correct or that they're telling the truth, but I DO think that just blindly saying they're wrong because they break the laws of physics is kinda dumb.

People research and study those laws endlessly - why? Because we don't know everything about them yet. They do it so they can break them. That's what they'd love to do - discover something they didn't know about that completely unseats our current perspective. Science has been striving for this since it was first called Science - to one up itself. The current "laws of physics" would be labeled, "Our current understanding of what we call the laws of physics, which undoubtedly is very limited from a universal point of view." But they probably don't call it that cause it would be too lengthy. ;)

The point is, the pursuit of Science is knowledge and understanding, with the idea that everything we now accept could be false, and we may find something that proves it wrong or understand it in a new way.

Therefore, just writing this off as "impossible", even though you may very well be right, isn't advisable if you truly value the scientific process and advancement of knowledge. If you don't, then by all means continue scoffing. :)

[PirateIvan]

Not that I think this site is correct or that they're telling the truth, but I DO think that just blindly saying they're wrong because they break the laws of physics is kinda dumb.

People research and study those laws endlessly - why? Because we don't know everything about them yet. They do it so they can break them. That's what they'd love to do - discover something they didn't know about that completely unseats our current perspective. Science has been striving for this since it was first called Science - to one up itself. The current "laws of physics" would be labeled, "Our current understanding of what we call the laws of physics, which undoubtedly is very limited from a universal point of view." But they probably don't call it that cause it would be too lengthy. ;)

The point is, the pursuit of Science is knowledge and understanding, with the idea that everything we now accept could be false, and we may find something that proves it wrong or understand it in a new way.

Therefore, just writing this off as "impossible", even though you may very well be right, isn't advisable if you truly value the scientific process and advancement of knowledge. If you don't, then by all means continue scoffing. :)

I think I was misunderstood. I agree with you completely, that is the point of science and yes, we understand very little about the universe. I was meerly scoffing because they claim to have not found anyone willing to go on record stating that their technology is real/valid. If they've built the darned thing, and it works, then they should be able to find someone to confirm it. The fact that they haven't found anyone willing to go on record just seems way to fishy. :)

[DiscoDave]

Normally, I'd agree with you, Endumbfaggay, but the over 100% efficiency claim is...dumb. It doesn't make sense. You can't create energy out nothing, nor can you harness more energy than the potential energy of the fuel (to use the term loosely).

Best case scenerio: They're retarded and don't understand what the maximum energy potential is for whatever fuel they're using. Worst case scenerio: They're lying bastards.

The answer could be somewhere in the middle or some combination.

[smor]

www.steorn.com

-discuss-

:)

I thought it was very interesting.


where's my money bitch!

oh, and here's the crank to run your laptop with.

[PirateIvan]

Normally, I'd agree with you, Endumbfaggay, but the over 100% efficiency claim is...dumb. It doesn't make sense. You can't create energy out nothing, nor can you harness more energy than the potential energy of the fuel (to use the term loosely).

Best case scenerio: They're retarded and don't understand what the maximum energy potential is for whatever fuel they're using. Worst case scenerio: They're lying bastards.

The answer could be somewhere in the middle or some combination.

Or, if we want to go into the sci-fi realm, they're teleporting the energy in from another dimention!

Dun dun Danaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

[infinitydxn]

Hmm, so what is the purpose of the site?

Is it just to show, in the eyes of the entire world, that they are a fraud? Cause that is what they are setting this up for, to prove, through a third party of scientists, that the invention they have is real and can be duplicated.

I guess I would approach this idea skeptically but not with a complete pessimistic view.

[Ender]

@Ivan - while I certainly agree it's kind suspect nobody is willing to identify themselves, this site gives the impressiong they're not 100% sure they're claims are true either. Things like, "Sign up to get the final results!" sort of thing. Kinda like a beta test, so that would make sense that they wouldn't want to put their name on it until it was 100% proven, cause if they did put their name on it and then it proved a crock, they'd likely ruin their careers. But again, it IS suspect nonetheless, as the site while not claiming infallability, still seems pretty confident.

@Dave - when it comes to science, I just can't rule out any possibilities. As far as we understand it now, you're right, you can't make something out of nothing - but there's a whole lot of nothing out there we don't know shit about, which may prove that nothing is something after all. For example I once had a discussion with an MIT graduate about Space. I think the discussion started around me being upset that TIE Fighters don't actually make that roar noise in space, and that a Star Destroyer wouldn't explode like they do in the movies (this was a couple years ago btw...don't let the star wars talk make you think I was a teenager!). Anyways, he referred to Space as nothing, not matter, but I posed the question - well that doesn't make sense, because if it truly was nothing, then how would the propulsion from our space shuttles work? Isn't propulsion the reaction of force from one object onto another? He said, well yes it is, and obviously something in space is tangible enough for our engines to push against to make our shuttles move - we just don't understand what it is.

This leads me to believe that while it makes perfect logical sense that you can't make something out of nothing, there's plenty of nothing out there beyond our world (and probably lots still in it) that we have no clue about anything about it, which really means the possibilities are seemingly endless. And of course, the best example of all time is that it was perfectly illogical to the people of middle ages that the world was flat, there was more than enough evidence to support that right? And that the sun revolved around the earth? We're a product of our times and our understanding. Science seeks to further that in any way - it's really quite foolish and limiting to assume that something is "impossible". If that was how Science approached it's quest it would never discover anything.

[DiscoDave]

@Dave - when it comes to science
You don't even have to look at it from science. You can ignore the Law of Conservation and just look at it from a perspective of logic. It simply does not make logical sense that any engine could achieve an efficiency over 100%. It's completely illogical.

Anyways, he referred to Space as nothing, not matter, but I posed the question - well that doesn't make sense, because if it truly was nothing, then how would the propulsion from our space shuttles work? Isn't propulsion the reaction of force from one object onto another? He said, well yes it is, and obviously something in space is tangible enough for our engines to push against to make our shuttles move - we just don't understand what it is.
Your friend is a nimrod. Space IS nothing. (Well, there are always teeny tiny quantities of gas and matter floating around, but nothing significant).

The ship doesn't push against anything in space to make the ship go, the fuel pushes against the ship to make the ship go.

Science seeks to further that in any way - it's really quite foolish and limiting to assume that something is "impossible".
But there are limits. 2+2 will always equal 4. Having a generator with an efficiency greater than 100% makes as much sense as saying they've created circumstances where 2+2=5.

[Expunge]

Isn't propulsion the reaction of force from one object onto another? He said, well yes it is, and obviously something in space is tangible enough for our engines to push against to make our shuttles move - we just don't understand what it is.

This is when the fuel pushes against the shuttle, or vise versa.

[Ender]

Your friend is a nimrod. Space IS nothing. (Well, there are always teeny tiny quantities of gas and matter floating around, but nothing significant).

While I would never endeavor to say someone who has vast amounts more education than I do is a nimrod, perhaps I should let you know that I paraphrased a conversation I had 3 years ago with a man who spoke in words I didn't understand, but conveyed the general message I conveyed in that post. If there's any incorrectness in his answer the fault is mine and the way I recalled it.

Secondly, in the year 1100, are you the guy who was saying, "The world IS flat (well, nobody's ever sailed to the end, but that isn't significant). The world IS flat, it's completely illogical that the world would be round."

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, that you CAN make something out of nothing. I am merely saying that logic of the day has been proven wrong time and again, and to succumb to it 100% of the time just because it's logical will impede advancement in our knowledge.

[PirateIvan]

2+2 will always equal 4.

In a base 3 numerical system...

2+2 = 11!

OWNED!


LOL

[Ender]

My above post was edited for clarity. If you are in the middle of a response might want to double check mine.

[DiscoDave]

While I would never endeavor to say someone who has vast amounts more education than I do is a nimrod
Education != Wisdom, or even Intelligence. At best, Education = Knowledge.
Secondly, in the year 1100, are you the guy who was saying, "The world IS flat (well, nobody's ever sailed to it, but that isn't significant). The world IS flat, it's completely illogical that the world would be round.
Don't forget who you're talking to. I'm Mr. Skeptic. I doubt everything and anything, especially my own opinions.

There were never any logical reasons why the earth had to be flat. And, indeed, the intellectuals of the year 1100 had a pretty good idea that the earth would be round as opposed to flat. Now, sure, the unwashed masses had other ideas, no doubt suspecting that these "scientists" were crazy and just coming up with still more bizarre ideas that would later be shown to be incorrect...and why should they. It's not like scientists hadn't been wrong before.

Regardless....something always has to come from something else. We may not understand where it comes from, and maybe it doesn't even come from what we could identify as our own Universe. Ivan, tongue in cheek appreciated, has a completely valid argument. Maybe the energy is coming from some other Universe.

Crazy and nonsensical? Sure. But at least THAT is possible (or rather, we currently know of no logical or scientific law that would make it impossible).

[PirateIvan]

You are ignoring my profound post regarding the number 4. Read it, I demand it! To support my claim, I offer you a table:
B represents the base number of digits in each numerical system. On the right is binary, which I am sure all of you are aquainted with. :nod:
So, 2 + 2 can = 10 or 11 as well as 4. Muahahahahaaa!!!

B10 B4 B3 B2

0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 10
3 3 10 11
4 10 11 100
5 11 12 101
6 12 100 110
7 13 101 111
8 100 102 1000
9 101 110 1001
10 102 120 1010

[DiscoDave]

I ignored it because I've seen that argument all too many times, and I never know how seriously to take it. I'm assuming you understand how the argument is not logically sound.

[PirateIvan]

I ignored it because I've seen that argument all too many times, and I never know how seriously to take it. I'm assuming you understand how the argument is not logically sound.

Of coarse :tup: lol!

It's a silly argument, because the value always = 4. It's just the numerical representation that's different.

I was just being silly in the middle of a serrious debate :p lol

On a random side note: The Myans utilized a base 20 numerical system, allowing them to represent huge numbers with very few digits. Zaney!

[smor]

hehe

you're all so cute when you fight.

*pet*

[jinx666]

Not that I think this site is correct or that they're telling the truth, but I DO think that just blindly saying they're wrong because they break the laws of physics is kinda dumb.

People research and study those laws endlessly - why? Because we don't know everything about them yet. They do it so they can break them. That's what they'd love to do - discover something they didn't know about that completely unseats our current perspective. Science has been striving for this since it was first called Science - to one up itself. The current "laws of physics" would be labeled, "Our current understanding of what we call the laws of physics, which undoubtedly is very limited from a universal point of view." But they probably don't call it that cause it would be too lengthy. ;)

The point is, the pursuit of Science is knowledge and understanding, with the idea that everything we now accept could be false, and we may find something that proves it wrong or understand it in a new way.

Therefore, just writing this off as "impossible", even though you may very well be right, isn't advisable if you truly value the scientific process and advancement of knowledge. If you don't, then by all means continue scoffing. :)


Kinda like god?

[jinx666]

Your friend is a nimrod. Space IS nothing. (Well, there are always teeny tiny quantities of gas and matter floating around, but nothing significant).

The ship doesn't push against anything in space to make the ship go, the fuel pushes against the ship to make the ship go.

Isn't space a vacuum? And a vacuum is a "force" right? so if you apply that logic then the ships fuel is greating velocity by pushing against that force...so it dosen't really matter "what" space is per se the only thing that matters is that it does indeed exist. Negative space is just as important to an object as the matter of the object itself.


But there are limits. 2+2 will always equal 4. Having a generator with an efficiency greater than 100% makes as much sense as saying they've created circumstances where 2+2=5.

Actually it takes more calories to burn off a carrot or a celery stock than either of them has contained within it...that goes into the negative of course, but the same principals are still there...IMHO.

[Kashll]

the first impression I got when their site loaded was "shitty pyramid scheme" but then I investigated more closesly and realized they were just DOWNS

[Buma]

check this perpetual motion mobile

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456&hl=en

[smor]

hehe

you're all so cute when you fight.

*pet*

:qfe:

[PirateIvan]

:qfe:

*pats smor's head*

Yes, it was funny :)

[smor]

*pats smor's head*

Yes, it was funny :)

i neg repped myself for being a dick... guess i should add that to the list.

[Ender]

Kinda like god?


What? wtf does that have to do with any of this?

[Excessive]

What does it have to do with god? the answer is faith.


People believe that this magical machine is is real and works. and they do so with no real proof. just faith. Even when everything we have been taught about physics and science tells us it can not work. And after all that, people will defend it to others and even donate money to the cause. And that is ultimately what the creators of this machine want. They want people to invest money. Eventually they will say the made a mistake and all the money invested will be gone.

http://www.bellinghamlan.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4777&stc=1

[DiscoDave]

And a vacuum is a "force" right?
No. Pressure is a force, and that's what people refer to when they say "vacuum force". It's a term, and the term exists, but a vacuum itself has no force. It, by definition, has no pressure. They're talking about the force of something else (rocket fuel) has in a vaccuum, which will be more reactive than the force it might have under higher pressure environments. Or, to be more accurate, pressure would be less resisted in a vacuum than in higher pressure environments.

Open a carbonated pop can in space and you'll see something significantly different than if you open it at the bottom of the ocean.
Actually it takes more calories to burn off a carrot or a celery stock than either of them has contained within it...that goes into the negative of course, but the same principals are still there...IMHO.
:confuina:

What the hell? This statement is fundamentally flawed on sooooo many levels, I honestly don't even know where to begin.

[jinx666]

No. Pressure is a force, and that's what people refer to when they say "vacuum force". It's a term, and the term exists, but a vacuum itself has no force. It, by definition, has no pressure. They're talking about the force of something else (rocket fuel) has in a vaccuum, which will be more reactive than the force it might have under higher pressure environments. Or, to be more accurate, pressure would be less resisted in a vacuum than in higher pressure environments.

Open a carbonated pop can in space and you'll see something significantly different than if you open it at the bottom of the ocean.

:confuina:

What the hell? This statement is fundamentally flawed on sooooo many levels, I honestly don't even know where to begin.


Not really, you stated earlier that no fuel could be more than 100% efficent which to an extent is true the fuel contained in either food is 100% of what it is, but in order to utilize that fuel it takes more than 100% of the energy contained to digest it...therefore it takes a human body more than what is contained within to burn it.

Claming something is fundamentally flawed does not make it true. While I am being "snarky" here I am also thinking creatively, and am not bound soley by logic.

Admittedly you are not a creative person by nature Dave, so I believe you are being hindered by your sense of logic (think spock from star trek) as such,you are failing to see the creative aspects of my arguement.

Of course they (my arguments) are flawed, all aspects of science consist of mostly flaws and unprovable phenomenon, but it's the small glimmers of absolute truths contained within that we hold onto and regard as the science we know.


And yes pressure is a force as well, and the "vacuum" of space is just that...pressure. Sure it's evenly distributed, (and a negative force) but still a vacuum...personally I think shuttles just operate using the gravity of earth and the moon, but deep space would be another thing altogether.
Just because the "force" created by a vacuum is negative to what direction we are used to (push instead of pull) dosen't negate it's power as a "forceful" entity.

This argument is fun. :) :) :) :) :)

[Chuwawah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

[QuietStorm]

Dark matter FTW, Dave?

(BLE is nothing but dark matter -- freaking WIMPs.)

[Ender]

Truth: God owns you all at Physics.

[Excessive]

Not really, you stated earlier that no fuel could be more than 100% efficent which to an extent is true the fuel contained in either food is 100% of what it is, but in order to utilize that fuel it takes more than 100% of the energy contained to digest it...therefore it takes a human body more than what is contained within to burn it.



And yes pressure is a force as well, and the "vacuum" of space is just that...pressure. Sure it's evenly distributed, (and a negative force) but still a vacuum...personally I think shuttles just operate using the gravity of earth and the moon, but deep space would be another thing altogether.
Just because the "force" created by a vacuum is negative to what direction we are used to (push instead of pull) dosen't negate it's power as a "forceful" entity.

This argument is fun. :) :) :) :) :)

So you have just proven daves Point. The human engine is not 100% efficient. And cannot convert the total amount of energy contained in any food into energy it can use.

Vacuum is not a pressure. Negative or otherwise. Its the absence of pressure. Its not a force. It does not pull gases from a pressurized environment. pressurized environments simply seek to expand to areas of less pressure and equalize themselves.

And are you trying and say that you don't think that rockets could work without the gravitational pull of a planet?

[DiscoDave]

Not really, you stated earlier that no fuel could be more than 100% efficent which to an extent is true the fuel contained in either food is 100% of what it is, but in order to utilize that fuel it takes more than 100% of the energy contained to digest it...therefore it takes a human body more than what is contained within to burn it.
I still...I don't really know how to respond, so I'll address all possible points you're trying to make.

Okay, so I'm eating lettuce and burning more calories than the lettuce provides me with. You think that's flawed? It would be, if I've only eaten lettuce over my entire life. However, while I'm eating the lettuce, my body is actually burning energy from previous meals.

This sort of situation could be called up in a much simpler example. Say I'm driving down the freeway in my car getting 30 miles per gallon. I'm not currently filling up my gas tank, but I can still push the gas pedal and go. Obviously, however, that won't last as eventually I'll need to put some more gasoline in the tank. Same thing for the body. You could live off eating only lettuce for a while, but eventually, you're going to run out of energy reserves and die.

This has nothing at all to do with efficiency of an engine (biological or other).

But you're right, I have the creativity of a cardboard box.

And yes pressure is a force as well, and the "vacuum" of space is just that...pressure.
No. A vacuum has no pressure. If you REAAAAALLY wanted to reach, you could say that space has pressure because there are trace amounts of gasses and shit (it's not a "true" vacuum), but that has absolutely nothing to do with how rockets work in space.

[infinitydxn]

"gasses and shit"

LOL

The aliens must eat lots of Taco Bell. :)

[QuietStorm]

YOUR MOM HAS PRESSURE!

[DiscoDave]

Your mom has dark matter. I know, I put it there.


SHAZAM!

[PirateIvan]

Uranus has lots of gass! :woot:

[QuietStorm]

...Dave's semen is dark?

[infinitydxn]

Dark and very sticky.

[DiscoDave]

...Dave's semen is dark?
It's a representation of my dark soul.

[QuietStorm]

You might wanna get that checked out, bud.

[ghrogels]

I BET THEY DISCOVERED DARK ENERGY. FUCK YEAH.

[jinx666]

It's a representation of my dark soul.

The anti sperm!

[Kashll]

lol

[smor]

lol

this is no laghing matter!!

oh

it is?

my bad.

[Dr. Deezee]

Defcon is a video game in which you get to

BLOW THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF THE WORLD WITH NUCLEAR MISSILES.

Please buy it and play with DZ.

[Silvercorona]

Defcon is a video game in which you get to

BLOW THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF THE WORLD WITH NUCLEAR MISSILES.

Please buy it and play with DZ.
That game is the shit +rep for DZ the visionary!