Steorn

[Pommie]

Isn't a heat pump over 100% efficient? For every KW of electricity you put in, you get 2.5KW of heat energy out. 250% efficient.

Mike.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Isn't a heat pump over 100% efficient? For every KW of electricity you put in, you get 2.5KW of heat energy out. 250% efficient.

No, the clue is in the name! - 'pump' - you're simply pumping heat from one place to another.

 

[Pommie]

No, the clue is in the name! - 'pump' - you're simply pumping heat from one place to another.

I know how they work, maybe I should have added the words "appear to be" in the above statement.

BTW, how have they managed to get a patent, I thought the patent office would not accept any patents for perpetual motion machines.

Mike.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I know how they work, maybe I should have added the words "appear to be" in the above statement.

Except it doesn't "appear to be" in any way whatsoever? - it's really no different to using an electric pump to pump fuel into a boiler.

BTW, how have they managed to get a patent, I thought the patent office would not accept any patents for perpetual motion machines.

It depends what the patent is actually for?, I doubt it's a patent for a "perpetual motion machine"?.

 

[Roff]

BTW, how have they managed to get a patent, I thought the patent office would not accept any patents for perpetual motion machines.

Mike.

They have discussed that issue on their web site.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

They have discussed that issue on their web site.

Would that be in the 'fiction' section at the library?

 

[mramos1]

I guess we have to wait and see.. What we are gonna see?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I guess we have to wait and see.. What we are gonna see?

Well they have had years, managed to con millions of pounds, and aren't able to even give a demonstration! - I don't think it's going to end well?.

 

[Hero999]

It looks like there's money to be made. I think I'll start doing some research into perpetual motion machines *cough* erm scams.

 

[mramos1]

This one is like the perendev magnetic motor, finally disappeared. If nothing else, they know how to get people to look at them. Marketing is there expertise I take it.

 

[philba]

Would that be in the 'fiction' section at the library?

I'd put it in science fiction though I think it will shortly move to the crime section...

 

[Oznog]

Isn't a heat pump over 100% efficient? For every KW of electricity you put in, you get 2.5KW of heat energy out. 250% efficient.

Mike.

Indeed you can put in 100W of electricity and get 250W of heat out. But that's not "efficiency" because you took in 150W of thermal energy. You are taking in apples and applesauce and measuring the output in applesauce.

In these cases engineers typically prefer to use "Coefficient Of Performance" (COP) to describe the effectiveness. COP can be defined and redefined depending on what's most useful. For your heat pump, it's extremely likely that would be a COP of "2.5". No professional would call this "250% efficiency", that would misrepresent the situation and fail to convey any useful information on the process.

 

[Optikon]

I watched the video and I could not really see what they were selling. After the video, I still have no idea. I was looking for some product or something.

All the quotes and drama too. But they are all over the internet.

The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

This is what I call a "marketing dept. breakthrough."
Do they happen to define what "performance coefficient is?" I wonder if it has nothing to do with conservation of energy. I didnt bother to look deeper - as it's rubbish. I believe centuries of physics provides the best foundation for why there are no free energy lunches. Any claim to the contrary is simply working a loop-hole with terminology.

 

[powerhugh]

A few comments on the above:

First, on the idea that the way to do things is to get peer reviewed papers published in respectable scientific journal: McCarthy made it plain that there are 2 or 3 paths to follow – the first is that of peer review, which is a slow and painful process over 20 years or so – look at e.g. Blacklight power and hydrinos – they are now getting peer reviewed physics, chemistry and engineering papers published and attracting comments from scientists that are being publicised. But that has taken about 10 years (or more – mills started almost 20 years ago) and there is still lack of agreement on the meaning of their results.

Next path is make a heater or a car powered on the process – this again is a long affair, and you first need the patents! That takes ages, and then to actually get a commercially viable product takes years – again taking Blacklight as an example, they have been promising a heater for 5 years or so and it seems no nearer completion. Maybe their plasma cells are hard to control. But so will the magnetic motors of Steorn: these are all complex systems. As McCarthy said on the interview – they know in principle what is the optimum configuration to get power out: the only problem is in getting the alignment accurate enough etc. Remember these are still lab bench versions – the first crude prototypes. Later, when finely machined, they would presumably be deterministically reproducible.

So the way Steorn is going may be the fastest after all – get verification by jury of cynical experts: this in a sense is a turbo peer review. Well, wait and see – he asks us not to believe him at this point – so until the jury comes out, the jury is out!

One other thing – at least Steorn don’t wheel out a weird and controversial physical theory, as Blacklight did. The latter only succeeded in getting people’s backs up and delivering ammunition to their critics. If they had just kept their iconoclastic theory to themselves and allowed the experiments to speak for themselves, then they would be a lot further than they are now.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

McCarthy made it plain that there are 2 or 3 paths to follow

I would have thought it's a LOT simpler than that, either the process works or it doesn't - if it works then demonstrate it!.

As none of these people can do such a simple thing, then it's pretty obvious that it doesn't work and it's just a con. No excuse, no delays, put up or shut up!.

I don't recall George Stephenson spending years and years conning people out of money?, he built the Rocket and displayed it - presumably after he had demonstrated a small scale model?, but I can't say I've ever actually heard that?.

 

[powerhugh]

I would have thought it's a LOT simpler than that, either the process works or it doesn't - if it works then demonstrate it!.

As none of these people can do such a simple thing, then it's pretty obvious that it doesn't work and it's just a con. No excuse, no delays, put up or shut up!.

I don't recall George Stephenson spending years and years conning people out of money?, he built the Rocket and displayed it - presumably after he had demonstrated a small scale model?, but I can't say I've ever actually heard that?.

God be with the days of steam! It was all so simple then. The great thing about it was billowing clouds of the stuff were a great indicator that energy was in use. Steorn have actually shown their setup working to the Guardian reporter who visited their site. But all there was to see were displays saying that more energy was coming out than going in. In a complex magneto-mechanical setup you may need to slap on measurement devices to show what’s going on. That’s why they say they need experts to give it a clean bill of health. But apparently you’re fine poo-poo-ing it now, as Steorn wants people only to believe it if or when the cynical jurors have given it the thumbs up.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Steorn have actually shown their setup working to the Guardian reporter who visited their site. But all there was to see were displays saying that more energy was coming out than going in.

We can all fix displays to show a result like that!, particularly to a newspaper reporter - it's now 2006, and so far no one has ever been able to demonstrate a practical working example of any of these imaginary devices.

As with all the others, it appears nothing more than a con trick to get money from gullible people, and so far he seems to be doing quite well at it?.

 

[mramos1]

I agree. If they had something they would show it. Get some experts, have them sign an NDA and let them tell the world.

Next it will be something they can not patent because the big oil company is blocking them. If it is something to help the world, I would have it out there ASAP.

If it is over money, I am sure bring in someone with a lot of money, again I NDA, show it and sell it or manufacture it.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Next it will be something they can not patent because the big oil company is blocking them.

Big oil companies are not stupid, they wouldn't block it - they would buy the rights and manufacture it. Most (if not all?) of the oil companies are spending lots of money trying to find alternative sources of revenue for when the oil runs out.

 

[mramos1]

Big oil companies are not stupid, they wouldn't block it - they would buy the rights and manufacture it. Most (if not all?)

Sort of my point.

If they have something, someone will buy it. Even the evil men in black suits that visits these guys in the middle of the night and tell them to destroy it or else (and they always destroy it can can not make another one).

Why not show it. Put it in a box with wires in and wires out and monitoring equipment on the box.. Let it run a couple days (a week). If box does not explode, have exhaust fumes, glow, fly away, have a small person cry out for water, etc.

It sounds like hype as you stated.. They were good enough a lot of people (including us) to look at it.. But I will pass on it for now.