Steorn 5 part video debate - May 9th - comments of watchers -
Some Steorn news. The recent Steorn debate made it on youtube.com video. Sean reminds everyone that threats of physical violence were made by scientists owards Steorn.
Read more at http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com
I hope these links are good. You can go to video.google.com and do a search on teorn and then select "Sort by date."
I invite you to watch the talk yourself; it's been posted to YouTube in 5 parts:
here are some excerpts from free-energy-tracker
Some of the highlights include Sean mentioning 4 PhD's that work for Steorn, the "take Conservation of Energy on Faith" comment by the rebutters, and also Sean reminds everyone that threats of physical violence were made by scientists towards Steorn.
Another attendee from yesterday's debate appeared today in the forums with their opinion on the debate. This would be much easier if we just got the video!
gillo_100: First Sean got up a gave his presentation which have to say wasn't great a did beat around the bush a bit but here is what I picked up from it. (appologies for any mistakes in my theory and by all means correct me, I don't claim to be an expert this is just what I picked up) There is a phenomenon known as magnetic viscosity into which little study has been carried out, the study that has been carried out has mainly been to try an overcome it as it is a problem in electric motors generators and other such devices. Anyway a couple of years ago steorn discovered by accident that by utilising this magnetic viscosity they could achieve net energy output from a process. This can happen due to the fact that the BH curve(don't really understand this but it can be googled) changes shape with time. It is not really breaking the CoE just modifing it slightly to include a "time invariance".We've all seen the terms "magnetic viscosity" and "BH curve" thrown around in the forums. It would be great if Dr. Mike or some other expert could write up in laymen's terms what these mean, and how they may or may not apply to over unity. I'm willing to host the writeup here if necessary.
gillo_100 goes on about the first rebuttal:
He based his whole argument aroud the solidity of CoE and concluded by stating that if the CoE is true that Steorn's proposal must be wrong. And that he for one would not allow even a shred of doubt regarding CoE. This attitude from a supposed academic is disgraceful. How can anyone with 100% confidence state that a particular law always applies completely? Answer: they can't.He also had a few comments about the Question and Answer session at the end of the debate:
As I remember only one question was aimed at the lecturers, asking did either have any previous experience of magnetic viscosity, the point Sean was strongly pushing at this stage, neither had.And finally:
But what I have learned most from all of this is that they are many who claim to be intelligent but are in fact unbelievably ignorant just because something goes against the grain, this is somthing I really did not expect in an academic environment in modern times.
Thanks gillo_100 for the info and your analysis! Hopefully soon someone will track down the video and share it with the rest of us.
Dr.Mike:I think one of the main problems is that the term "magnetic viscosity" has different meanings in different contexts. I think "domain realignment time" is more appropriate for what Steorn is talking about compared to what ferrofluids or AC motors use the term for. Maybe - I have to read some more.