Slashdot Mirror


Perpetual Energy Machine Getting Lots of Attention

Many users have written to tell us about a magnetic machine promising "infinite clean energy". Engadget has the first picture of the device and is reporting that the announcement (along with a short video) of this supposed device will be released later tonight. "CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.' He goes on to say 'It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real.'" In my experience if something seems too good to be true it generally is. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

154 of 965 comments (clear)

  1. As they say... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a sucker born every minute.

    Seriously, why is anyone outside of Art Bell and George Noorey even giving this guy the time of day?

    1. Re:As they say... by TuringBirds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. This is a disgrace for SlashDot. Someone remove this news item!

    2. Re:As they say... by whopub · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know about perpetual energy, but I've been working on perpetual lethargy for years. I wish I could publish a paper on it, but that would ruin years of research.

    3. Re:As they say... by stonecypher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, why is anyone outside of Art Bell and George Noorey even giving this guy the time of day?
      Because several times, legitimate scientists have said this, really believing what they were saying, and the resulting systems were frequently quite difficult to understand in terms of deciphering the flaw.

      It's a lot like when people used to let high school math coaches claim to have solved Fermat's Little Theorem. We all knew they didn't, but there's a lot to be said for the puzzle of locating the coaches' mistakes.

      Now, like you, I think this guy is a snake oil shill, as opposed to someone making a legitimate error. Nonetheless, I find his device bizarrely fascinating specifically because I don't see his particular cheat just yet. And, as such, I'm glad to have exposure to the nonsense. It's fun.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    4. Re:As they say... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here is how you know when a perpetual energy machine is fake (aside from the fact that it is supposedly a perpetual energy machine):

      If you invented something like that, you would be in secret negotiations with governments, militaries and major corporations. You wouldn't be wasting your time with youtube demonstrations and internet articles. You'd be involved in secret demonstrations with signed NDAs all around and massive bidding wars.

    5. Re:As they say... by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ' (aside from the fact that it is supposedly a perpetual energy machine)'

      The outlook that makes you put this comment in, assures that governments, militaries, and major corporations wouldn't give you the time of day. They would never know you succeded because they would never look at what you produced in the first place.

      Youtube demonstrations and internet articles would likely be the only way you would be able to stir up enough of a buzz to get someone to take you half seriously in the first place.

    6. Re:As they say... by MouseR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that...

        I bet the total energy output of this device's expected mtbf isn't big enough to cover the machine's construction in the first place. Thus, moot.

    7. Re:As they say... by DrLov3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Homer : Lisa, in this house we respect the laws of thermo-dynamics, go to your room!

    8. Re:As they say... by Sosetta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fermat's Last Theorem was the hard one to solve. Fermat's Little Theorem isn't hard to prove.

      -Sosetta

    9. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Youtube demonstrations and internet articles would likely be the only way you would be able to stir up enough of a buzz to get someone to take you half seriously in the first place.


      It is the wrong kind of attention (buzz). It is the kind of attention that confirms to the people who matter that you're just another crackpot. If this were for real, he'd be going though a university or trying to get published in respected journal directly. But it isn't for real. So he just shrouds the device in secrecy in order to avoid the direct analysis that would expose the device for the hoax it most likely is.

      Bottom line is, if you've patented your idea, there is absolutely no reason to keep things secret and arrange for elaborate public "demonstrations." You just put the whole idea out there, drawings, equations, theory and all.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    10. Re:As they say... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is exactly what these guys also do: going to allow you to spectate the machine from the pre-defined angles only, and ask for venture capital to continue. The device is on display in a London art museum, and if I'm not mistaken, the museum is open to the public. It doesn't say anything about visitors taking photos, so maybe we'll have some high-res pictures online tomorrow?
    11. Re:As they say... by profplump · · Score: 4, Insightful

      unless acted upon by an outside force

      An outside force you say. Would someone trying to steal its kinetic energy to generate energy possibly be such a force?

      Just wondering.

    12. Re:As they say... by g0dsp33d · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically IIRC, this would not violate the laws. There is an outside force acting on it in the form of the magnetic fields. The real test of the devices is if it can create more power before the magnets degauss than it takes to create the machine and magnets.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
    13. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would you want to remove a story you perceive as untrue? It sounds just as ridiculous as religious folks wanting to remove posts that God doesn't exist. The statement is made and now you either ignore it or deal with it. Don't call for this statement to be denied to others after you received it.

    14. Re:As they say... by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Piece by piece, patent everything that goes in to the machine, and no none else can build one. Kinda like software, you don't patent a website, you patent 1-click technology.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    15. Re:As they say... by megaditto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I accept that other opinions exist, but that's not the point here. The point I am making is that these guys are apparently pushing out a vaporware at best or more likely a large-scale scam:

      1) They fail to exhibit a schematic for the device. And no, this would not hurt their chances of getting a patent at least in US: they can get a provisional patent almost automatically, then spend a year improving their research.

      2) They fail to submit to peer review of any kind. Again, it's in their interests to publish this as soon as they can, since this would also automatically establish their priority and give them a year to continue research and apply for a patent (and will not count as prior art for their patent for that one year).

      3) They fail to do any kind of transparent demonstration of their claims. Now they won't even release a video that they filmed themselves! FTFA: "Well, 6pm London time has come and gone. However, Steorn's site now says that the video will go live at 6pm "Eastern Time.""

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    16. Re:As they say... by samkass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This brings up a funny question in my mind. Basically, there are very few fundamental sources of energy for us to use: solar (photovoltaics, oil, gas, ethanol, etc) and nuclear (fission, fusion). But the rotational energy of the solar system and our planet in particular seem more difficult to tap. Some of it might be partially represented by geothermal power, but you can't exactly tie gears to the planets and attach them to a generator. But your comment makes me wonder if the magnetic field of the natural magnets in Earth's crust may or may not form a kind of energy storage device for past rotational kinetic energy that formed the Earth's dynamo and created the magnets in the first place.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    17. Re:As they say... by asuffield · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nonetheless, I find his device bizarrely fascinating specifically because I don't see his particular cheat just yet.


      We don't see anything of his just yet. This guy's made a lot of noise about how many people have been testing it but nobody seems to know anything about it. We don't even know if it really exists.

      On the off-chance that it does exist: from the pseudo-scientific babble that he's been putting out, I'm betting that he's reinvented the magnet engine. People have been mistaking that for perpetual motion for years (it actually turns out to be running on fixed magnets, which become gradually demagnetised by the process, but so slowly that you don't notice in a small lab demonstration that only runs for a few minutes). Magnets are like batteries, just not particularly efficient ones. Magnet-powered engines are sneaky things - all the math looks like you're getting energy for free, because nobody ever remembers to incorporate the energy of the magnet itself into the equation (it's not in any high-school textbooks).
    18. Re:As they say... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      > This team is NOT following any of the "Fraud" or "Fake" technology pattern.

      Hmmm. I can think of two big perpetual energy machine scams and a couple of more down-to-Earth tech scams over the last couple of decades, and let me tell ya, this is is *absolutely* following the same pattern.

      First up, Joseph Newman. Newman was around back in the 80's and claimed to have a device that -get this- uses magnets to generate unlimited power. The company was completely privately funded by angel investors. Quite a bit of money IIRC. Enough to travel around the US giving down-home-revival style shows about the device. He even made it all the way to the Tonight Show. So little difference here it's hard to tell the stories apart.

      Next up, Madison Priest. Priest claims to have created a "magic box" (his words) that tapped into zero-point energy. He used this to create -get this- a video compression system! He planned on selling it to the cell phone companies, allowing them to send broadcast quality video over existing low speed channels. He worked up *serious* funding from a wide variety of investors, including Blockbuster, and gave numerous demos that were all apparently faked with hidden cables. Disappeared soon after.

      Then there was the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax. An Italian guy named Bonassoli approaches Elf with a device he claims is a gravity wave oil detector. Ends up fleecing them for about $150 MILLION before they finally catch on. Disappears with most of the money soon after.

      So:

      1) lots of funding
      2) public demonstrations
      3) often with patents

      Please demonstrate how this is any different, as you claim.

      > Is this not by definition perpetual motion?

      That's the clueless noob definition, yes. The real definition can be found on the wikipedia. Educate yourself.

      > haven't done anything here but skewer about a thousand sacred cows.

      Yes, I'm sure all the physicists out there are shaking in their shoes. "Oh no, someone on Slash called us dumb! Run for the hills, they're onto us!"

      > accept that another opinion might exist.

      I'm sure we're all perfectly aware that other opinions exist. After all, Shrub got re-elected.

      Maury

    19. Re:As they say... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perpetual motion, per se, isn't a problem. You're right -- any object will stay in motion perpetually unless some force acts on it. The problem is, perpetual motion as an energy source requires that something move perpetually even when you apply a force countering that motion, which is how you'd draw energy from the device.

      Sure, there might be a loophole in the universe that lets something like that work, but it's very, very, very unlikely.

      Space probes do not make use of conservation-of-energy-breaking perpetual motion, they draw energy stored in the angular momentum of the planet they're looping around. Yes, you could do the same thing with a magnetic field but it would not be perpetual motion. The guy's statement about this device BEING perpetual motion implies that

      a) he doesn't know what he's talking about or how the device actually works
      b) he does know how the device actually works and he's lying, probably to scam someone
      c) he's overthrown one of the very basic tenants of physics and we're going to have to go back to, oh, 1700 and start over.
      d) the device doesn't work

      Of those, d is by far the most likely, closely followed by a and b. C is, uh, unlikely.

    20. Re:As they say... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, most people associate "perpetual motion machine" with a machine that breaks the laws of conservation of energy. So your e is covered by, uh, whichever the scam options were.

      Note that he says this specifically:

      CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to "consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed." He goes on to say "It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."

      (boldface mine)

    21. Re:As they say... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because, posting articles like this is no different than posting an article every time some hick claims they saw a UFO or were abducted by aliens. It's really not news and it's just promoting a total nut-job (or alternately, sham-meister).

      Or maybe I'm just overly tired of that Alex Chiu douchebag and his special life ring or whatever that Slashdot blathered on about for a solid four years.

    22. Re:As they say... by immel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We do harness the kinetic energy of the larger bodies of the solar system for practical use. One more obvious use of this is tidal power (generated by slowly affecting the kinetic energy of the Moon, IIRC, and harnessed by small turbines in coastal areas). One less obvious use of this is the planetary flyby technique used by spacecraft. By decreasing the velocity of Jupiter by [insert mathematically insignificant number here], a small space probe can go into a Jovian orbit at one velocity and exit this orbit at a significantly higher one in a different direction while using virtually no fuel.

      I'm not sure what you mean by the "energy storage" with natural magnets and rotational kinetic energy (Remember, the vast majority of ferrous material on this planet, and thus the source of the Earth's magnetic field, is in the core, not the crust), but there are techniques for using the Earth's magnetic field to produce energy. I saw a test of an apparatus on the NASA channel (Now that's good television) which used the spacecraft's movement through Earth's magnetic field to induce a current in a tether outside the spacecraft, which they then used to power stuff on board the spacecraft. But this was still not "free energy", because the magnetic field generated by the current interacted with that of Earth and decreased the spacecraft's velocity and altitude (as expected by NASA engineers and the law of conservation of Energy). This was mostly recoverable, though, because feeding current the other way through the cable increased the spacecraft's altitude again. The only way to get current out of a magnetic field is to move charged particles through it, which is convenient, because everything is made of charged particles. Energy must be expended to get those charged particles in motion in the first place, and once the current has been generated, the kinetic energy of the charged particles drops to zero.

      My point is, even by harnessing the kinetic energy or magnetic properties or what have you of the cosmos, you do affect them in a small way. Try that fly-by trick enough, and Jupiter will fall out of orbit. Some energy in space looks "free", but in actuality it's really just "insanely cheap" energy.

      --

      10 Bits= $.25
      100 Bits= $.50
      110 Bits= $.75
      1000 Bits= 1 byte
    23. Re:As they say... by Hucko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Steady on, that has nothing to do with the perpetuity of energy creation. If the output energy is greater than initial input, it would not matter that it takes 3 times the initial input energy to create the device. The only thing that matters is that the output energy is greater than the drag forces bringing said device to a stop without further energy input.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    24. Re:As they say... by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Galileo.
       
      Note that I'm in no way endorsing this current chap's claims. But the answer to your question was too obvious to pass up.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    25. Re:As they say... by Phil+Karn · · Score: 4, Informative
      Geothermal power is actually a form of nuclear power. It comes from the radioactive decay of potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232 inside the earth.

      Actually, there is a way to "tie gears to the planets". Tidal power extracts the kinetic energy of the earth's rotation using the moon as a brake.

    26. Re:As they say... by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technically IIRC, this would not violate the laws. There is an outside force acting on it in the form of the magnetic fields. The real test of the devices is if it can create more power before the magnets degauss than it takes to create the machine and magnets. That depends. From the description it sounds like just another impossible machine. The only way it could both operate as described and fit what you are saying is if they are tapping into the Earth's magnetic field and drawing energy from it.

      On a side note, the demonstration has been canceled due to technical issues. I suppose "is impossible" would qualify as a technical issue.
    27. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Giving credibility to stories like this lowers the signal-to-noise ratio."

      Agreed. But who decides what is signal and what is noise? Majority? This machine is most likely a stunt or scam. But so is the "Global warming" myth but that doesn't stop articles about it.

      Wading through the noise is not pleasant but you get to choose what is noise and what is signal. It is this wading and deciding that truly makes you informed. Not right but informed. The alternative is that a few censors get to rule what is noise or signal. Decisions based on the views of an uninformed majority (The earth is flat) or the views of a few with an agenda. Either way, without noise you never know what the signal is.

    28. Re:As they say... by trelayne · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're basically implying that anything that seems to good to be true means that it's chief proponent is a con artist. It's no wonder innovation and gobs of new revolutionary technologies have been far and few between since the 50s.

      In a matter of a year or so, we'll see who the suckers are. The jurors who are currently looking at the technology (and that means being able to build it from scratch) are not small-time scientists. I've been in correspondence (since before the Steorn claim) with a respected scientist who has published in many of the top peer-reviewed physics journals and he has at least one colleague who is a juror in the process. They are world-re-knowned and respected. They (and 21 other labs/scientists) are under contractual obligation to publish their findings (whether yay or nay and all of the details).

      So this will be quite interesting----hoax, misunderstanding, or real.

    29. Re:As they say... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Maldive islands will disappear under the sea in less than 50 years. Why? Because icebergs melt, slowly but most surely. Why? I'll let you try and answer this last question.

      Thanks for the laugh. With luck I'll still be around in 50 years to see that your wrong. The IPCC, which is cited by Global Warming alarmists as the symbol of scientific consensus suggests that by 2100 sea levels will rise between 9-37cm from 1990 to 2100. Check the report yourself here if you don't believe me. The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean.
      It's ridiculous claims like yours that causes people to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, since arguments like yours have as much scientific basis as the notion that global climate is actually cooling.

    30. Re:As they say... by careysub · · Score: 3, Informative
      > How much is the contribution of gravitation (weight->pressure->heat) to geothermal activity? I would have guessed it exceeded that of radioactivity.

      A couple of billion years ago, you'd be right, but the heat inside the earth today is sustained by radioactive decay. There's also some heating due to tidal effects as the planet gets tugged on by the sun and moon as it rotates. Heat from solar radiation doesn't really penetrate, but the warmer the ocean and the atmosphere are, the less heat escapes from the interior.

      A neat paper on the Earth's heat budget is located at http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo519.071/lectu res/Heat_Budget_Earth.pdf.



      The capsule summary:
      * A variety of sources heated the Earth immediately during formation: gravitational collapse, adiabatic compression, and short lived radioactivities that quickly disappeared. Gravitational collapse may not have contributed much heat to the inner Earth because it could have been mostly dissipated during accretion, but this is uncertain.
      * Today decay of U, Th and K produce something like 40-75% of the observed total heat flux from the Earth. Solidification of the core (heat of fusion) produces about 10%. Cooling of the ancient heat deposited in Earth's formation is 15-50% of the flux.
      * So - there is a lot of uncertainty here. It is most likely that radioactive decay dominates over simple cooling of ancient heat today, but this is uncertain. If one includes core solidification as a form of ancient heat (it is latent heat of formation) then the likelihood of radioactive decay dominance diminishes and it becomes possible that ancient heat still dominates today.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  2. Sure. by GWLlosa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear there's gonna be a demo on the Brooklyn Bridge. It just so happens I have purchased a deed to said bridge. Where's my cut?

  3. Not really perpetual motion, though. by SteveWhitty · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it draws power from fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field, it isn't perpetual motion any more than a tidal generating station, for example. It draws power from an external source, therefore it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    1. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by Tatarize · · Score: 3, Funny

      If that's true than we can't really use em. Wouldn't that drain off the magnetic field a bit? Wouldn't that get us bombarded with radiation?

      *puts on tin foil hat*

      Must protect myself from radiation! Is there nothing this thing can't do!

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    2. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by Tatarize · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, really, it would seem that the Earth's magnetic field is probably too weak to really provide much power. However, if this individual managed to convert sunlight (very energy rich) into electric power... that would be amazingly useful and would have near limitless potential.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    3. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by catbutt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the same sense that windmills change the climate by slowing down the wind, I suppose you are right.

    4. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have not just one but SEVERAL methods for converting sunlight into electrical energy. I will share plans for these devices with you for a low fee.

  4. Lisa, get in here! by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Funny

    In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:Lisa, get in here! by The+Hobo · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  5. Mr. Madison... by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 5, Funny

    What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

    1. Re:Mr. Madison... by ZombieWomble · · Score: 5, Informative
      That was the impression I got from reading the various blurbs their PR people have put out. I mean...

      "The law of conservation of energy has been very reliable for 300 years, however it's missing one variable from the equation, and that's time," said McCarthy. That's just completely incoherent - the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy in a closed system is constant OVER TIME. How can it possibly leave out time?
    2. Re:Mr. Madison... by Hoplite3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mod the parent UP! This is the time when I agree that they should make stupidity more painful.

      "That's just completely incoherent - the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy in a closed system is constant OVER TIME. How can it possibly leave out time?"

      Hell effing yes. dE/dt = flux through the boundary, that's conservation of energy. If the system is isolated, the righthand side is zero, but it is still a statement about energy AND TIME.

      Rock on, you crazy thermo-knowing poster. Rock on.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    3. Re:Mr. Madison... by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's just completely incoherent - the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy in a closed system is constant OVER TIME. How can it possibly leave out time? Worse yet, the law of conservation of energy actually spills out as a consequence of Noether's theorem, and the time symmetry of the laws of physics -- that is, the fact that the laws of physics should be the same today as they will be tomorrow. CoE is, in a sense, a consequence of time.
    4. Re:Mr. Madison... by ZombieWomble · · Score: 4, Informative
      Even more fun... I did some more research, and found out that they're apparently exploiting some inherent time variation in the strength of something over time - it's not clear exactly what, though. Initially I thought it was the strength of a given magnetic interaction, which was sort of feasible, but then he went on a bit more...

      http://quthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/06/steorn-it-j ust-keeps-going-and-going.html

      He gave a talk in UCD the other week, this blog has links to the youtube videos. Check out the second video. About 4 or 5 minutes in, he switches over to talking about some unsolved questions in physics. Turns out, there is no dark matter or dark energy. Apparently it's trivial to fix this problem by incorporating "time variance" in Newtonian Mechanics, which is what they had done with their Orbo deviece. What exactly the nature of this time variance is, or what the nature of the solution is is unfortunately not forthcoming though.

    5. Re:Mr. Madison... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 4, Funny

      CoE is, in a sense, a consequence of time. As opposed to the Orbo, which is simply a waste of it...
  6. Not the only game in town by PacoTaco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately no one is interested in my machine that produces infinite dirty energy. :(

    1. Re:Not the only game in town by adrianmonk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately no one is interested in my machine that produces infinite dirty energy. :(

      Is your machine called "the internet"?

  7. Stop It by asolipsist · · Score: 3, Funny

    If these asses are pulling energy from Earth's magnet field (and if it looks like free energy, they probably are), somebody please stop them, we need it.

    1. Re:Stop It by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      'If these asses are pulling energy from Earth's magnet field (and if it looks like free energy, they probably are), somebody please stop them, we need it.'

      We need a magnetic field. But isn't like there is a finite amount of energy stored that you are using up like a battery. The magnetic field is powered by a gravity generator and that generator is going to keep running whether you utilize the energy output or not.

      The big question is how much energy would you have to draw from the earth's magnetic field it makes any significant different. When you consider how tiny the global energy demands are compared to the actual energy stored in the stable matter of earth, I have a feeling that the result will be a very substantial amount.

    2. Re:Stop It by asolipsist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was being slightly facetious and spelled magnetic wrong, however the principal is important. I'm not sure what you mean by 'gravity generator', the magnetosphere is a complex thing and is theorized to be powered by convection of iron in the Earth's mantle and needs three things to operate:
            1. there must be a conducting fluid;
            2. there must be enough energy to cause the fluid to move with sufficient speed and with the appropriate flow pattern;
            3. there must be a "seed" magnetic field.

      The magnetosphere is also the reason we're all still alive, and why Earth has an atmosphere. I can think of almost nothing more environmentally unsound than monkeying around with this field, of course this silly 'perpetual motion' machine will have a de minimis effect, but it's a bad precedent. If the field ever changes enough to endanger reason #3, we're cooked.

  8. older story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's an older story on Slashdot covering the same company and technology.

  9. Typo by mhannibal · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a typo - "allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce power" should be "allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce revenue".

  10. do we want to end up like Mars? by Dster76 · · Score: 4, Funny

    everyone knows that by creating Orbos, the natives of Mars lost their magnetosphere and ensured their civilization's premature demise.

    (fake science makes for fun ingredients for science fiction!)

  11. pft by do_kev · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anything that truly allows you to get something for nothing would so drastically alter our understanding of reality such that many things we take as absolute truth would become unreliable (predictability and statistics would be meaningless.. we would have to accept the possibility of spontaneous creation of radiation and perhaps even matter..)

    I don't know where they're getting their energy from, but I cannot even fathom the possibility that it defies the law of conservation of energy.

  12. Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >>"The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."

    There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. There's no strong evidence that PPM work. In fact, there's a number of things about the universe which strongly suggest that PPM are impossible, just as there's some things which strong suggest God is impossible. Really, even from a 'making an analogy' point of view: this machine is like having proof God exists.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    1. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. And, at the risk of burning karma, I'll say there's quite likely a statistically significant correlation between those who believe in god and those who believe in the possibility of perpetual motion machines.

      What's interesting isn't whether either can exist, but what causes some people to believe them, and the belief apparently being strengthened in face of logical arguments to the contrary. I find it fascinating.

    2. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 5, Funny
      God is real unless explicitly declared as integer.

      Sorry --- old Fortran joke.

      (For the youngsters out there: in "traditional" Fortran, variables didn't need to be explicitly declared. Those starting with the letters i to n were integers. The rest were reals.)

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    3. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (yes, 'logical' 'rational' atheists also base their beliefs on faith, just as much as 'logical' 'rational' theists do.)

      I'm doubtful. At least in my experience, most modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God, but merely do not accept theistic world views. Absence of belief does not require faith.

    4. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adrianmonk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real.

      I've been thinking intently about that subject for about 20-25 years now. I've even changed "sides" once (and haven't changed back). I daresay I've thought about it more than many or even most people. I only feel like I can maybe claim that because of how startlingly ignorant many people on either side of the issue seem to be of the other side. The theists I've known have typically had their minds completely closed to the other point of view, sometimes unwilling to think about themselves, and in a few cases ready to attack and/or ostracize someone who thinks too far outside the box. And the atheists I've known, for their part, have often rejected Christianity (which religion I mention because I live in the US, where it's the dominant religion) without having a good understanding of it, often naming some element of Christian theology as the reason they can't accept it when it turns out that element is something most mainstream Christian theologians wouldn't say is a legitimate part of Christianity.

      I have a hard time thinking there is "really strong" evidence that God isn't real. "Really strong", to me, sounds too close to "compelling". I'm not saying there aren't some very good arguments in favor of the idea that God isn't real. But all the ones I've seen are based on some metaphysical assumptions (usually hidden assumptions) that someone is taking as self-evident even though there are logically defensible alternate views.

      In case anyone thinks I'm saying the above because I support the other side, I should mention I don't think there is any "really strong" evidence for the existence of God either, which is part of why I'm an atheist.

    5. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 2, Informative

      Absence of faith, or the belief that it's not possible to decide on the given evidence, is agnosticism. Belief that God does not exist is atheism. If you mean the former, don't use the term "Athiest"

    6. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Silly Fortran. Try an untyped language. Then God is whatever you first assign to it. Why, God could be a string!

      Actually, I hear there are people who think believing in strings is equivalent to believing in a god.

    7. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Informative
      Wrong. Atheism is the lack of theism. A-theist. Non-theist. I know many atheists and when pressed we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god. If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      Agnosticism is more properly defined as the belief that god is unknowable, or that the question of whether or not there is a god is not a proper question. Sort of a "we can't know so don't ask" position.

      The definitions are quite often mangled such as you have done. Start hanging around on Pharyngula.org to get a better idea of what atheists are all about.

      --
      This space available.
    8. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by be-fan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spinoza (a devout believer in God, btw) made a pretty convincing argument that if God does exist, he couldn't take the form of the traditional Jewish/Christian/Muslim diety.

      The gist of the argument is thus: the premise of most monotheist religions is that God is singular, perfect, and omnipotent. However, the Torah/Bible/Quaran also ascribes to him qualities such as loving his creations and wanting them to live a just life. These views are contradictory. First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite. The premise that God is finite screws up a lot of assumptions. If God is finite and separate from his creations, then the two must be contained in some greater thing, and this greater thing would be more perfect than God, by virtue of being a superset of him. Moreover, if he's finite, that opens up the possibility that he is not singular. Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable. Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with. Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability. Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change!

      It's very hard to logically reconcile these concepts while still believing that God sent his son to die for our sins, because he wants humanity to be saved. The traditional mono-theistic religions basically give up on the idea of God as perfect and omnipotent in order to maintain the "big man in the sky" idea. Spinoza couldn't deal with that, he posited instead that God was infinite and immutable, not just being a separate entity in the universe but being the entity of which the universe itself was an expression. The problem with this idea, though, is that you can't expect such an entity to answer your prayers, to offer opinions regarding reproductive practices, etc.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    9. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 2, Informative

      Absence of faith, or the belief that it's not possible to decide on the given evidence, is agnosticism. Belief that God does not exist is atheism. If you mean the former, don't use the term "Athiest"

      It's really semantics. Even agnosticism can imply two considerably (logically speaking) different positions. Classical agnosticism also makes an epistemologically unsound assertion: that one cannot know whether or not god exists. Modern agnostics however tend to simply say "I don't know based on available evidence." So now we have two definitions of agnostic.

      One can be an atheist and still not assert the non-existence of god (a so-called weak atheist). In fact, it is not a contradiction to be both a theist and an agnostic, when one applies the classical definition of agnostic. I've also learned that, to some, agnosticism implies that one gives equal probability to the existence or non-existence of god, which is why I've begin to shy away from applying the term to myself.

      It's therefore still possible for an atheist to conclude there is insufficient evidence to believe, and accordingly would adopt a world view that doesn't include God. This sounds a lot like agnosticism except when you consider that someone who says "I don't know if God exists but I believe he does" could get away with calling themselves agnostic, because agnosticism deals with the matter of knowledge, not of belief.

      This essay represents my opinions decently. I've lately begun shying away from labels like these because people have such differing notions.

    10. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adiposity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. In other words, it is not possible to have knowledge of God, period...not that there is just insufficient evidence.

      Atheism, however, is not restricted to those that assert the nonexistence of God. Its original meaning ("ungodliness") is no longer in common use. It has been applied to those that lack a belief in God, as well as those that assert the nonexistence (sometimes referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism). Depending on your dictionary, you may have any of several definitions, but here's one that disagrees with you, and one that agrees:

      wordnet: atheism

      # S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

      # S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

      Another word has come into use which perhaps more accurately reflects the second postion: nontheism (literally, "not theism"). This essentially equates to "weak atheism" or a lack of belief in God, without assertion. However, the "a" prefix is commonly used to mean "without," so "without theism" is a reasonable definition of atheism.

      It would be nice if everyone used the same word to mean the same thing...but they don't. Most self-described atheists I know do not assert the nonexistence of God. Most theists I know consider atheists those who do assert the nonexistence (although from a Christian judgement point of view, the distiction is basically meaningless). Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism."

    11. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      If atheism is similar to not collecting stamps, why is there not a specific word for people who do not collect stamps ?

      In any case, weak atheism (lack of belief in a god) and strong atheism (belief that there is no god) are quite different, so referring to them both as "atheism" is very likely to lead to this kind of pointless arguments over semantics. Consequently I recommend either using the word "agnosticism" for weak atheism and preserving the word "atheism" for strong atheism only, or always specifying whether one is speaking of weak or strong atheism when talking about them. It will cut off the etymological crap and allow us to jump right to the religious flamewar ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Really? I'm not saying he does, but I'm really interested in this evidence, can you give some examples?

      Mankind.
    13. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man: Hey, aren't you a string?
      String: No, I'm a frayed knot.

      *ducks*

    14. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite.

      No it doesn't. The set of positive integers is separate from the set of negative integers, and both are infinite.

      If God is finite and separate from his creations, then the two must be contained in some greater thing, and this greater thing would be more perfect than God, by virtue of being a superset of him.

      This of course assumes that size - or the total amount of qualities - equals perfection. I can think of many qualities which would lessen, not increase, perfection. Gluttony, for example.

      Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable. Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with.

      Assuming that there is only one perfect state. There is no reason to assume such a thing, or can you give any ? And if there is more than one perfect state, an entity could flip between them without losing or gaining any perfection.

      Look, just give it up. The logical arguments for or against God has been made for the past few thousand years, and they've failed to prove anything. It simply can't be done, especially without first defining what "perfection" and "omnipotence" mean.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least in my experience, most modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God

      I'm guessing you havent been on the internet very long. The majority of all online forums appear to contain atheists vehemently asserting the non-existence of God. It's like there's a Godwin's Law, but for atheistic evangelism.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    16. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that there are differences within labels - usually relating to differences about how we arrive at our beliefs. But, Websters defines Atheist like so:

      Main Entry: atheist
      Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
      Function: noun
      : one who believes that there is no deity

      From Oxford:

      Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

      atheism /aythi-iz'm/

            noun the belief that God does not exist.

          -- DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

          -- ORIGIN from Greek a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

      So... I'll stick to my use of the terms, as they match up with the most authoritative sources.

    17. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The premise of most monotheist religions is that God is singular, perfect, and omnipotent. However, the Torah/Bible/Quaran also ascribes to him qualities such as loving his creations and wanting them to live a just life. These views are contradictory. First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite.

      On the contrary, God being infinite and creation being finite necessarily separates Him from His creation. God being infinite is part of the essential definition of God. Being infinite also makes Him necessarily singular.

      Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable. Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with.

      Yes, as is confirmed many times in the Bible (and probably Koran and Vedas). God is unchanging.

      Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability. Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change!

      I'm not sure how he made this leap, but probably from temporal thinking. God's consciousness is infinite and transcends time, while we progress linearly through time. God's actions in the finite world, like the creation itself which comes from Him, are finite manifestations of the infinite. God's love and God's actions don't imply change in Him, only a change in us relative to Him.
    18. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by SEMW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      both positive and negative integers are contained within the set of real numbers, which are also infinite, but have a higher cardinality. Careful with what you're trying to imply there. Both the positive and negative integers are also contained within the set of all integers, which has exactly the same cardinality as the positive integers and the negative integers. The cardinality of the union of two sets of cardinality aleph-null is aleph-null. So your next sentence doesn't follow.

      Not that trying to apply set theory to the question of the existence of God isn't just a bit ludicrous, IMHO. The same goes for the Axiom of Choice, Godel's incompleteness theorem, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; all of which I've seen dragged into and horribly misused in philosophical and theological arguments.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    19. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is all based upon taking a rather more limited view of God than is strictly necessary, isn't it?

      First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite.

      Before I address this, I need to clarify it, since obviously this is not a conclusion that would be reached by any modern logic (since, as mentioned there can be multiple infinite things). If, however, you assume that God has volume and takes up space, and "infinite" equals "encompassing all that exists" (which appears to be the kind of conclusion that a lot of early theologians seem to reach), then this is a lot more interesting a claim.

      However, I see no real problem here. God could be present in every single atom and watching over every single particle interaction, but choosing not to participate in some - letting creation do its own thing, so to speak. In essence, creation would be made up of part of God, who chooses not to exert control over that part of himself, and instead let it work on its own. The major religions you speak of have no trouble with the idea that God can incarnate - how is this much different?

      I don't see at all how the rest of the arguments follow the first one, but having addressed that first claim, we can move on.

      Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with.

      Or that you're definition of "state" is wrong. Time and space are one thing. If God is omnipresent, then he should be omnitemporal as well. All of the "states" of time could be one state - the perfect state in which God exists.

      Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability.

      Obviously the argument is for immutability, not perfection. It is taken as a given that perfection implies immutability.

      This is a much better thought out argument, but still, ignores the omnitemporality of God. The *change* in those things implies change. Over the course of all time and space (which as I have said, could encompasses one "instant" of existance for God), there would be just one state. One set of thoughts, one set of emotions, one desire for the creation - in essence, one picture of all that is, was or will be. Of course, I can't really picture what exactly that means for an omnitemporal being, so I can't say how it works, other than that your definition of perfection can hold.

      Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change!
      I think I've pretty well established the flaw in this part.

      It's very hard to logically reconcile these concepts while still believing that God sent his son to die for our sins, because he wants humanity to be saved.
      I don't see a problem...I can draw in two dimensions, though I am three dimensional, and perceive a single point in a fourth dimension. The effect I can exert on a dimensionality less than my own shows a very different aspect than one would see if they could observe me in full. So in our religions, we see a God who cares about us in a specific moment - which is perhaps a limited aspect of reality.

      It can be correct from the limited point of view that is available, though not enough to show a complete picture.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    20. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know many atheists and when pressed we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god. Tell that to Richard Dawkins. As for the stamp thing, you're right, not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, and for many atheists, not believing in God is good enough. But if you read books about how great not collecting stamps is and go to meetings about not collecting stamps, then not collecting stamps is a hobby, and, unfortunately, some people feel the need to bastardize true atheism by turning it into a pseudo-religious belief.
    21. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which, of course, nullifies any concept of free will. For example, take the story of Eden. If what you say is true, God tempted Eve with the apple, but he did so knowing full well what her decision would be, because, hey, he transcends time. IOW, knowing the outcome already, he manipulated her into sinning (why he would do that is another question entirely).

      And this principle applies universally. The bible claims that humanity was given free will, that we would come to God of our own chosing. But God, being transcendant of time, knows every choice and every action I will ever perform, and can manipulate me as he sees fit. Therefore, I can't possibly have free will, as all my choices, from God's perspective, are entirely predetermined.

      If you gave me a true list of everything you did yesterday, does my knowledge of your actions nullify the free will you had in doing them? Of course not. What if I invented a time machine and traveled back to the beginning of yesterday? Does my time machine nullify your free will? It would only nullify your free will if I shared that information with you (which is why God doesn't typically share that information with us). The idea that foreknowledge implies determinism is based solely on the experience of our temporal life, since for OUR knowledge, that correlation DOES usually exist. But it is a fallacy to extrapolate that correlation to one transcendent of time.

      To put it another way, distinguishing between God's past knowledge and God's future knowledge is an artificial distinction. The challenge in thinking about God is in the constraints we put on our thinking that arise from our close association with time and space.
    22. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Experiment+626 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      That's a catchy quip, but suppose someone doesn't just happen not to collect stamps. Rather, they go around ridiculing and/or debating stamp collectors, lobbying the postal service to stop printing collectible stamps, encouraging others to start hanging around wehatestampcollecting.org to get a better idea of what anti-stamp-collectors are all about, and so on. It's what they like to do with their free time, kind of like... a hobby. Likewise, if you hold to the belief that there are exactly zero gods, and base your actions in life on that theological assertion, some people might describe that as your belief system.

  13. No by mnemonic_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except it doesn't do that, making your comment irrelevant.

    1. Re:No by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, like any good crank, they seem to have busily covered all manner of bases while talking about their invention, so that its very hard to interpret what the hell they're actually saying.

      The only clear claim is that it's "magnetic" in nature. They have stated that they've created magnetic fields such that you can traverse them and arrive back at the same point with more energy, which is provably impossible in a static magnetic field. So they need a dynamic field - either through their own creation (which, I'm pretty sure, would still leave you in a zero-sum game at best), or through an external field changing like, say, the earth. They have played up the earth angle at times, speaking about fluctuations and comparing it to gravity in an article linked from TFA.

      But a big argument against this line of reasoning is that they keep playing up how it breaks physical laws, and if this was the case it would be an extremely easy to understand concept, well in keeping with physical laws. The only catch is that the effect would likely be incredibly tiny, and they probably wouldn't get on the front page of slashdot with such a claim.

      Still, it's possible we're all wrong and there'll be egg on our faces tomorrow. But I don't think I'll be putting my bets on that just yet.

    2. Re:No by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hm. After posting my sibling post to yours, I did a bit of a search and found this:

      http://quthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/06/steorn-it-j ust-keeps-going-and-going.html

      Blog post with a series of videos of a talk the CEO gave at UCD. The key premise of "fluctuations" does not, as I mistakenly suspected, seem to be the fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field after all, but rather the fact that the response time of magnetic domains is non-zero (they claim millisecond +) and that, by changing their system faster than the universe can notice, they can get around this whole pesky conservative field thing which does on in magnets.

      So yes, magnets pushing on magnets, but VERY QUICKLY. That makes it more believable, right?

    3. Re:No by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So yes, magnets pushing on magnets, but VERY QUICKLY. That makes it more believable, right?

      No, that does not make it more believable. Either it is a clever hack to extract energy from fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field (which I don't believe) or it is just a scam. That stuff about changing magnetic fields "faster than the universe can notice" is pure babble, it does not explain how you could generate energy.

      To generate energy, you have to either

      1. Extract it from some other form of potential or kinetic energy, such as tides flowing around the ocean, or water high up on a mountain. That energy is not "free" either; the tides are driven by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun and the moon; when you use tital energy you slow down the rotation of the earth by an infinitesimal amount. When you extract energy from falling water, you are capturing energy that was put there by the sun powering the evaporation of the sea and raining it down on mountain tops.
      2. Annihilate some matter and turn it into energy, which is what happens in fission, fusion, or matter/anti-matter reactions.

      Just don't mix your matter and antimatter cold :-)

  14. I know where it gets its energy from.... by 3seas · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...from all the criticism and energy people waste their time on generating against this thing.

    See conservation of energy isn't being broken.... and the source is perpetual....

  15. A more open technology... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://www.steorn.com/orbo/licencing/

    Our free energy technology will be made widely available to the development community immediately after the independent scientific validation process.

    Under the terms of a modified general public licence and for a nominal fee, Steorn's intellectual property will be made available concurrently to all interested parties, from individual enthusiasts to larger research organisations. Steorn is taking this bold move to accelerate the deployment and acceptance of its technology for both humanitarian and commercial products.
  16. If it were real... by Chris+Snook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...they wouldn't need to convince anyone. They could just sell the energy, use that money to make a bigger device, sell more energy, lather, rinse, repeat. You don't need investors when you can print money.

    --
    There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
  17. Re:Breaking the Law by Ballinasloe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someday someone is going to create a real perpetual motion machine and no one is going to believe them.

  18. US PTO standards by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think at some point in the 19th century the US Patent Office decicded that to patent a Perpetual motion machine you would have to produce a working demo and have it run for a year and a day (they had a LOT of bogus claims). So if these guys think they can make one, time to build a demo and set it up for review.

    It would be possible to draw some energy from the earth's magnetic field, but not very much its not a very strong magnetic field.

    --
    Erlang Developer and podcaster
  19. New creation .. by foobsr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... presumably a 4th July joke, replacing the April edition for obvious reasons.

    On the other hand, Rudy Rucker in the 'Edge Question' 2007: "Endless free energy will flow from the subdimensions. And, by using subdimensional shortcuts akin to what is now called quantum entanglement, we'll become able to send information over great distances with no energy cost. In effect the whole world can become linked like a wireless network, simply by tapping into the subdimensional channel."

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  20. Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax by PMW · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you go to their website they have the following statement:

    Our Claim Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely. The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form. Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007. That's a claim to a perpetual motion machine. To their credit, they aren't hiding the claim, they're throwing the claim right out to the public. The whole thing is obviously a con-job to get money from suckers with more $$$ than sense. I really wish slashdot wouldn't post this kind of nonsense.
  21. Dead giveaway... by LordSnooty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact it's unveiled in the form of a 10-day exhibition at a 'museum' tells us something about the nature of this 'product'. Have a look at the Kinetica Museum (avoiding unnecessary Flash intro)

    Right across the top is their angle on events:

    Between Shows > Our Next Show : starts July 5th, world's first free-energy demonstration

    However, despite it being a piece of entertainment, the company are serious. See this story from Ireland, where they are based: "The company stumbled upon the technology while working with wind turbines to power remote surveillance CCTV cameras for ATM."

    They discovered it by accident! That's how all the best inventions are conceived.

  22. Wanted: Anti-Stock by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish there was a way to buy anti-stock in such ideas. In other words, make money off of its loss. Somebody told me there is something known as "puts", but they are generally configured for experienced career investors.

    1. Re:Wanted: Anti-Stock by vidarh · · Score: 3, Informative
      Put options are the "safe" way of doing this, but realizing a return is hard, since the buying the put options will be more expensive the higher the value and the longer the option is valid, requiring a larger price drop to make money of it. A put option essentially gives you the right but not obligation to sell shares at a certain price at a certain time interval in the future, regardless of the market price at that point. The potential loss for put options is the cost of buying the shares now plus the cost of the option.

      If you "know" that the share will lose value, the better (but riskier) alterative is to sell short. It requires you to find a broker that is able to lend you shares in the security in question, which you then sell. When (or if) the shares drop in price, you buy back a sufficient number to cover the amount you borrowed. The problem with shorting, particularly if the shares aren't highly liquid, is that the potential loss is unlimited (you lose the equivalent of any gain in value from you short the shares until you are able to buy them back). Experienced investors will therefore sometimes use call options as a protection. A call option give you the right to buy shares at a certain price at a certain time interval in the future - in other words the reverse of a put. The downside is of course that this protection will eat up a lot of your potential return. Because of the high risk, short selling is highly regulated.

      Your better bet, literally, is to find a bookmaker that will take a bet on it, assuming you can find someone who'l give you good odds, and it's legal where you are. UK bookmakers tend to take bets on almost anything they believe they can reasonably calculate the risk of, or where they can pit their customers against eachother and only pocket the spread.

  23. Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by pdbaby · · Score: 5, Funny

    People like you make me so mad! You and your perpetual energy smear campaign. Thermodynamics thermoshamammics. For Too long we've been governed by the laws of physics. Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!

    --
    Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    1. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey Man, quit it! Energy doesn't like to be anthropomorphised.

    2. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!

      Actually, in Steorn's case, it would be free as in beer.

    3. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have perfected a process to turn useless comments in Slashdot into energy! All I need are a few investors in this wonderful Web 2.0 opportunity. Please email me at mrbogo@ponzischeme.com

    4. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by tzot · · Score: 2, Funny
      Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!
      Actually, in Steorn's case, it would be free as in beer.
      For the time being, only this discussion is free (as in jazz).
      --
      I speak England very best
  24. The Future by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know how the story unfolds. The device will work, by extracting magnetic energy from Earths own magnetic field. In a few years, Steorn will be one of the hugest and most profitable companies in the world, causing oil consumption to almost stop.

    Steorn's main geomagnetic extraction complex will, over time, develop into a city, and then into a gigantic megalopolis, which people will call simply "Steorn". The Steorn megalopolis will be circle-shaped, powered by eight gigantic Orbo generators (also delimiters of the city's eight sectors), and divided into two vertical levels, the lower scum one, where low wage workers live, and the high one, were executives, rich people etc. live and work.

    Over time, a quasi-religious movement will develop affirming that Steorn's consumption of geomagnetic energy is actually causing Earth to die, and the most fanatic among these will form an eco-terrorist movement dedicated to the destruction of all Orbo generators. The funny thing is: this movement will be actually correct! Worse: not only will Steorn be in fact slowly destroying the world, but they will have also developed advanced genetics research on an alien found years before, using these discoveries to genetically enhance their own self-defense troops.

    The history of our future proceeds in many details, but I'll make it short. Suffice it to say that one of these troops will discover all about his increased abilities, the alien, the Orbo generators destroying Earth, and will decide to accelerate the process, by causing a meteor to strike Earth. Earth itself, in a move indicating some kind of self-awareness, will fight back by redirecting its own geomagnetic field against the meteor, destroying it. The collateral effect of this, however, will be a magnetic induced disease over humanity, who will slowly start to die. A cure will be found, but not before much damage happens.

    Due to all of this, the world will realize they must stop using geomagnetism as a source of energy, turn off all Orbo generators, and finally turn back to that old means of power generation left behind decades ago: petroleum. So much, in fact, that even the former leader of the anti-Orbo eco-terrorist group will become one of the earliest investors in oil extraction and oil-based energy production.

    Then history will repeat itself.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    1. Re:The Future by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Funny

      At some point in all of the above, man will discover magic--and promptly stop using it when he discovers that it takes the form of ten-minute-long animations that cannot be skipped.

      (by the way, when do the Chocobos become involved?)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  25. Re:Because Slashdot exists? by Poltras · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can you make energy off these? If you create and aliment a flame-war, for example?

  26. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Brad1138 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE. NEVER EVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER. Can we, as a species, please get over it?

    Although I agree with your statement for the most part, It is short sided to say "NEVER EVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER". There have been a lot of things that scientist (and others) claimed could never happen, just to be proven wrong in the future (ie we can never go faster than the speed of sound). We have a few hundred years,if that, of "modern" science under our belts. In a few million years, our level of knowledge will be a lot closer to a caveman then a scientist. Never say never.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  27. And what do they have ? by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they don't have a first machine, and only equation, they have NOTHING. On paper I can fly to the moon with only a big 7 foot stick , 77 inches of blue string (MUST be blue) and 3/4 gallon of milk. They HAVE to have a physical demonstration of PMM/OU or they are one of those thousands of other scam artist (Stan Meyer, Mark Golde, Dennis Klein...) which pretend to have something they don't really have : PMM/OU, or are quite near, SOOOO NEAR, we only need a bit of reengineering, to get a final solution to the free energy problem (yeah, right). Steorn pretend they worked 3 years (now 4) on this and they would never have a ready machine ? No generator ? Nothing ? (YEAH. RIGHT.).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  28. Beware of this company by hellsDisciple · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These cowboys gave a talk in our University in Dublin. They also wanted to film the talk, presumably so they could chop and change comments by the hostile audience and other learned speakers (experts in Thermodynamics and Magnetics). This quite sensibly wasn't allowed, but the talk went ahead anyway. However there didn't seem to be much behind the flashy powerpoint presentation. I think this is more of a scientifically-fictional pyramid scheme than anything else.

  29. In Soviet Russia... by tbcpp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the law of Energy Conservation breaks you!

    --
    Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
  30. You're out to lunch by p3d0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Mods, don't be blinded because he started his post with "at risk of Karma".

    This device which is really nothing more nor less than the exact same technology that NASA uses for orbital flyby which is how we get probes into deep space is just an application in electromagnetic fields rather than G fields.

    Wrong. The gravitational slingshot technique conserves energy, so it could not be the basis for a perpetual motion machine.

    Now as to those making jokes about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. If an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... Is this not by definition perpetual motion? It keeps on doing whatever until forever.... Pretty obvious folks.

    Don't be dense. Perpetual motion usually (as it does in this case) refers to a device that produces more energy than it consumes.

    Of course those who oppose the idea that we can arrive at energy by some means such as this, openly preach to us that the whole universe erupted out of the head of a pin, [Big Bang anybody?] and are quite happy for all of its mass and all of its energy to have erupted out of nothing in that event. [Logic anybody?]

    I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that time also began in the big bang. It's not like one moment there was lots of mass and energy when there was none the previous moment. There was no previous moment.


    No I haven't done anything but point out the truth and that isn't troll.

    Correction: you're not an intentional troll.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:You're out to lunch by syntaxglitch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't be dense. Perpetual motion usually (as it does in this case) refers to a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Well, really it just refers to a machine that runs forever without energy input, which implies either nonconservation of energy, or some sort of process with no losses to friction or other effects that runs forever on inertia. The latter would be just as interesting in many ways, and certainly also violates the laws of physics, but it's not really the same thing.

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that time also began in the big bang. It's not like one moment there was lots of mass and energy when there was none the previous moment. There was no previous moment. The usual analogy is "what's north of the north pole?" Not only time itself but all the laws of physics "began" at the big bang, so forget causality and conservation of energy as well.

      Correction: you're not an intentional troll. No, actually, I'm pretty sure he was being 100% intentional there.
    2. Re:You're out to lunch by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, given the formatting, your post demonstrates time-reversal!

    3. Re:You're out to lunch by rdt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      quote: That's not known..If you can provide a proof of that, I am sure the science community would enjoy a look. /quote.

      It _is_ known (see Einstein's theory of relativity) and has been pretty well proven. The fact that you don't know it doesn't make it so.

  31. What if it's true? by Danathar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We all know what will happen if it does not work. That's just plane boring to talk about. Also reading people make jokes about snake oil is boring too.

    What's more interesting is to think of what WOULD happen if it were true. How would the politics of the world change? Would it plunge the world into war? Would peace brake out?

    As a thought experiment independent of this being true how would the world change in 3 months, 6 months, 6 years if unlimited engergy was discovered?

  32. Re:Use finesse by tibike77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny you should say that. Because this IS not a perpetual energy machine, but is actually just using a "novel form" of acquiring energy.
    And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake.
    The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field.

    --
    By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
  33. Parent inaccurate (or english language inaccurate) by chrisG23 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Good ole English confusing things and people again. We need to define some terms here.

    If an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... Is this not by definition perpetual motion? It keeps on doing whatever until forever.... Pretty obvious folks.

    English definition wise, yes, any object put into motion will remain in motion forever, or until acted on by an outside force. The problem is you cannot get anything useful like a source of energy out of it. Say you have a wheel you can start spinning with no outside forces on it. It will spin forever. Sounds great right? Now say you attach it to a shaft driving a generator. Free power forever right? No. Spinning the shaft to power the generator is now putting an outside force (resistance and all that) and your wheel will come to a stop eventually. Not too useful.

    What perpetual energy/motion machines are supposed to do is provide more energy/motion than is being acted upon them from the outside force that is putting their motion/energy to work. Let me say it again another way, they create energy/motion out of nothing, and then the surplus is used for some kind of *work* (charge a battery, power a motor, etc. etc.) If they were creating energy/motion and you did not tap the power, then the device would speed up, and speed up, and continue to speed up to infinity.

    What the inventor (and all inventor of perpetual motion devices claim) is that they have found some method of doing this. Creating something that creates energy out of nothing (as opposed to all other sources of energy, which require something. An engine requires fuel, a solar power requires sunlight (or other light) the light from the sun requires hydrogen and other elements to be spent or transformed in a nuclear reaction, etc, etc.

    If a perpetual motion/energy machine is ever really devised, it will likely be found later on that the machine is simply running on an formerly unknown form of energy. (As mentioned on here in other posts).

  34. Re:Breaking the Law by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Easily dealt with.
    Build a working model, and offer it and the plans to build more for public inspection by a variety of scientists.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  35. Build your own perpetual motion machine! by ancientt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't that what solar cells are? 'Practical' perpetual energy? I know there are issues with the breakdown of materials, and eventual cooling of the sun, but if you invented the solar cell and called it a 'perpetual energy' machine, then where would you be? Much like where this guy is I suspect, being called a scam artist before you even get a chance to exhibit, being ignored because you weren't in negotiations with governments and pushing for NDAs.

    I'm hoping that this will turn out to be something similar. I'm hoping that the demonstration will show way of harnessing energy we previously mostly ignored or didn't use the same way. We've got geothermal energy mostly untapped, wave energy mostly underfunded and immense, practically immeasurable energy flung by the sun into space, benefiting nobody. It isn't as if the energy sources don't exist, we just don't have the technology to tap most of the big ones yet.

    The way I understand it, perpetual energy isn't even really impossible, sub-atomic particles pop into and out of existence all the time and sometimes get separated, thus Hawking radiation and for all practical purposes, perhaps all purposes, demonstrate perpetual motion. The trick would be in harnessing them, tricky bit that, what with the black holes and all. If you figure out how to do it you'd get a lot of cool points.

    Failing any of the big payoff candidates like black holes or tapping the sun, maybe you could harness the magnetic properties of the earth? I think they're mostly a product of the earth's kinetic and maybe heat energy, they aren't truly perpetual, but it would be a neat trick to actually find a way to use them.

    Yes, I know, this has the earmarks of a scam, but why not wait until we get a chance to find out more before we dismiss it entirely? You're not spending anything but your time, and to my way of thinking, anything that makes you think and reconsider your notions of what is possible is not a waste.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    1. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by SEMW · · Score: 4, Informative

      but if you invented the solar cell and called it a 'perpetual energy' machine, then where would you be? Much like where this guy is I suspect, being called a scam artist before you even get a chance to exhibit, being ignored because you weren't in negotiations with governments and pushing for NDAs. Rubbish. People have known that our main source of energy is the sun for millenia (e.g. we eat plants that photosynthesise). Announcing that you have a more efficient way to harness the sun's energy is definitely very possible, and would certianly not get you ridiculed. That's a very different matter to announcing that you've just found a way to break the first law of Thermodynamics; which are probably the most widely accepted laws in the whole of Physics, ever.

      perpetual energy isn't even really impossible, sub-atomic particles pop into and out of existence all the time and sometimes get separated, thus Hawking radiation and for all practical purposes, perhaps all purposes, demonstrate perpetual motion. A few points here: "perpetual motion" in the most literal sense is not at all impossible -- get a piece of rock into space, start it spinning, keep it clear of any stray hydrogen atoms that might impose any frictional forces on it, and bingo. Again, that is a very long way away from what TFA is suggesting, which is over-unity -- free energy, get more energy out than what you put it.

      And your examples are not free energy. Hawking radiation subtracts from the mass of the black hole perfectly in accordance with E=Mc^2 (as far as anyone knows, at least; AFAIK it's never been measured). And a high-energy photon might well materialise into, say, an electron-positron pair, but the mass energy of that pair is still less than the energy of the photon. None of this vioaltes the laws of thermodynamics.

      Failing any of the big payoff candidates like black holes or tapping the sun, maybe you could harness the magnetic properties of the earth? I think they're mostly a product of the earth's kinetic and maybe heat energy The Earth's magnetic field is a product of electric currents in the liquid outer core. And no, you can't get energy from a static magnetic field. You can get it from a changing magnetic field, however, and the Earth's magnetic field is changing; but it's doing so over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, so the energy you'd get would be very, very small.

      Yes, I know, this has the earmarks of a scam, but why not wait until we get a chance to find out more before we dismiss it entirely? You're not spending anything but your time, and to my way of thinking, anything that makes you think and reconsider your notions of what is possible is not a waste. There have been hundreds of thousands of 'free energy' devices around. Most are scams; some are by honest people just don't understand the science of what they're doing. None (to my knowledge) has come out of actual scientific research; most are by lone 'entrepreneurs' who get investment money from guillable people and then disappear. At any particular time there are usually OTOO 10 or so 'free energy' companies around. There's nothing new or even particularly original about this one, trust me.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    2. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by Skrynkelberg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hawking radiation does not demonstrate perpetual motion in any way.

      A quantum fluctuation can be seen as a particle and anti-particle popping into existance next to each other. If this happens at the brink of a black hole, and the anti-particle falls in, the particle goes in the opposite direction and can be observed as faint (Hawking) radiation. However, the antiparticle decreases the mass of the black hole, eventually causing it to evaporate, after billions of billions of years. Compare it to solar power - the radiation stops when the black hole runs out of mass, and the sun stops shining when it runs out of elements to fusion. The former is countless magnitudes harder to harness though, due to the low intensity of the Hawking radiation.

      All in all, during hawking raditation, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum are conserved, and it doesn't go on forever either. E.g. there's nothing "perpetual" about it at all.

  36. I've seen this pattern before by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Interesting
    About 32 years ago. I was 13 at the time and I "figured out" on paper a magnetic perpetual motion machine using magnetic lag. I could not make it work and figured that there must be some "magnetic drag" in the system.

    If someone has been able to really make this work, well I'll be truely amazed.

    Such a device does not have to be violating the laws of thermodynamics. For example, the device could be getting energy from somewhere via some mechanism we don't fully understand yet.

    A hundred years ago nobody would have considered that you could get energy from mass via E=mc^2 and we'd be awfully arrogant as a species to think we have all of physics figured out.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:I've seen this pattern before by 808140 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's true -- but Einstein worked out relativity on paper and we spent lots of time trying to figure out how to test the theory long before a nuclear power plant or bomb was produced. These were engineered using the physics that he and others had worked out since 1905. No one "accidentally" stumbled upon a working atomic reactor while messing around with turbines.

      If you read the article, you'll see that that's what they claim -- that they "accidentally" stumbled upon this amazing technology.

      It's quite rare that anything of any complexity is discovered by accident -- generally, science advances in small steps, not great leaps. In the case of Einstein, people (like Michaelson and Morley) were doing experiments whose results did not agree with the predictions of the prevalent theories of the day, and someone stepped in to explain why. It took us nearly 40 years to do anything like "convert matter to abundant energy" from those initial baby steps.

      In the same way that monkeys randomly banging on keyboards don't produce fine works of literature, people messing around with simple machines whose fundamentals have been understood for hundreds of years don't suddenly revolutionize physics.

      Of course, both are technically possible, but you'd be a shitty gambler if you bet on those odds.

  37. Power from the Moon's Gravity: by MDMurphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tidal power. Massive amounts of water moving towards and away from shore, pulled mostly by the gravity of the moon.

    1. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And there was me thinking that the tides every twelve hours were caused by
      1: The moon pulling a bunch of water towards it (tide 1) 2: The centripetal force caused by the fact that the centre of rotation of the system is off-centre with relation to the centre of the Earth (tide 2) A 3m shift in tectonic plates every day is going to cause a bunch of earthquakes isn't it?

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    2. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by weighn · · Score: 3, Informative

      A 3m shift in tectonic plates every day is going to cause a bunch of earthquakes isn't it? no mention of plate tectonics here - although I will acknowledge that WP isn't the holy grail of Knowledge. But I'm curious about GP's post. Googled 'tide~ tectonic' and can't see any correlation. There is, however, a look at Tidal triggering of earthquakes and its relation to tectonic stress.

      damn, now I'm gonna waste another lunch hour reading about interesting crap I'll never need :)

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    3. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by bdjacobson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tidal power. Massive amounts of water moving towards and away from shore, pulled mostly by the gravity of the moon. Popular Science already investigated this: Basically we don't have any materials that could do the job and withstand the beating and corrosive power of salt water.
    4. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically we don't have any materials that could do the job and withstand the beating and corrosive power of salt water.

      I can believe that. I work at a place where salt is extracted from sea water via solar evaporation. Every bit of steel in the place--including stainless steel--is pretty thoroughly rusted. The amount of maintenance required to keep the machinery up and running is astonishing.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    5. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by fredklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, ocean-going ships appear to "withstand the beating and corrosive power of salt water" quite well.

    6. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Tomfrh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tide 2 isn't caused by a centrifugal effect. Tidal forces are do due variation in gravitational field from one side of a body to another. If the earth and moon were static (and held in place some how), there would still be two tides.

    7. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ocean going ships come in for maintenance annually and nearly complete renewal every five years. That more expensive when your turbines are at the bottom of the sea. There are some companies looking into tidal power in fast moving tidal basins (the Bay of Fundy, East River, Grey's Harbor, and the Straights of Juan de Fuca (I said all that mostly so I could say Juan de Fuca). Biggest issue they're having is you need very fast moving tidal changes to make it worth putting down the turbines so most of the effort is fighting over the few prime spots.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    8. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Kj0n · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think tidal power really qualifies as a clean power source. Of course, now it seems there is an abundance of 'free' power, but in 50 years, when we have taken too much, the moon will crash into the earth.

      The same is true for harnassing power from the earth's magnetic field: there certainly will be side effects when too much power is taken.

    9. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by thygrrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm... I've seen Tidal Power Plants, one in France and one in England. Imagine a dam off the shore. The water comes, they open the dam, then close it with all the water on the shore side. The water goes, and they return the stored water to the (lower) sea by letting it run through some turbines.

      Tadaa.

    10. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by fbjon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make the generators out of rubber duckies.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    11. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by lauwersw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about concrete? There are some designs that make a concrete chamber placed half under water. When a wave rises, it compresses the air in the chamber, which in turn drives a regular turbine. If the water level sinks again, it pulls air in via the turbine, so you profit from both directions.

      That way you avoid at least direct contact with the salt water. I can imagine the air carries enough salt water to corrode the turbine too, but much slower, plus it stays better accessible for maintenance.

    12. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by beezly · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... I will acknowledge that WP isn't the holy grail of Knowledge.

      Aaaiiiiiieeeeee! My world has just exploded!

    13. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. Stainless steel will always outlast steel in a marine environment. I grew up at the seashore, and I worked at a corrosion/coatings laboratory. Unprotected steel will rust in a matter of hours, and become unrecognizable by the end of a season. Galvanized steel is suitable for things like nails and railings. Aluminum can be used as a propeller or boat hull as long as you protect it with zinc anodes. Stainless steel is the only "no maintenance" metal, suitable for cleats, screws, propellers, clamps, etc. It will corrode, too - but at nowhere near the rate of the other metals. If used in a high-stress condition, it will suffer hydrogen embrittlement - but this is true of normal steel as well.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  38. Infinite energy and global warming by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can call it altruistic but you really need to
    consider the long-term ramifications of an
    infinite energy source.

    If there was all of this abundant energy available,
    it would be put to work, and the net result is heat.

    Lots of it.

    Homo Sapiens has already proven they can't manage
    what they have now.

    An infinite energy source would likely result in
    massive global problems, likely not survivable.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  39. Yeah yeah by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whoa, my crackpot meter pegged with just the intro! Surely we can harness the heat from all this BS and solve our energy problems forever!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  40. Re:But you're a person of faith too by Tack · · Score: 2

    Since proving that life is not a dream or that you're not connected to the Matrix depends on things outside your head, you can't prove either.

    What you say is entirely true.

    And it's certainly a very interesting area of philosophy to explore. But to claim that everything (except that which is explicitly defined and self-contained, like the rules of logic) requires faith is to completely remove any meaning to the word "faith." It can no longer be used in meaningful conversion.

    I take a ball, and I drop it 20 times in a row. It falls to the ground each time. Then I go out and learn about the laws of gravity, and the huge body of theory around it. When I pick up the ball and drop it again, I will say that I "know" it will fall to the ground, based both consistent past experience and the science supporting it. You will say that the expectation that the ball will drop requires faith, and to some literal degree you're right, but to use the term that way (and expect everyone else to use it that way) is in practice nonsensical, and should be reserved for pedants and philosophers (which even then requires context).

  41. The particular cheat by BooleanLobster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read the Steorn patent a while ago (the last time it was posted on /.), and I spotted the flaw pretty easily. The machine is meant to move a metal plate around to selectively block the magnetic field from a permanent magnet. If you could do that without using too much energy, then it would be a viable perpetual motion machine, but moving conductors around in magnetic fields takes precisely "too much" energy.

    --
    In hell, you will find a mountain of broken, feces-covered typewriters and a stack of copies of the First Folio.
  42. Re:/. has jumped the fucking shark by Xichekolas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good job...

    (I just wanted to say 'good job' too!)

    --

    Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...

    54

  43. Re:Use finesse by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field.

    Buf if the magnetic field gets weaker, the compasses stop working, and the boy scouts can't use them to find their way in the forest. Won't someone pelase think of the children ?

    Oh, and we'll all die horribly under the particle bombardment of solar wind, but first things first.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  44. Open Source Energy! by aled · · Score: 2, Funny

    Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!


    Let's not use any Energy that is not GPL'ed!!! Closed sources Energies are the cause of all evil!!!
    --

    "I think this line is mostly filler"
  45. Re:Use finesse by fabs64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a FORCE, you can't "tap" it any more than you can tap gravity.

  46. Re:Use finesse by SEMW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny you should say that. Because this IS not a perpetual energy machine, but is actually just using a "novel form" of acquiring energy.
    And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake. Ummm, what?

    From http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/:

    "The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy"

    "The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%"

    That's 2 out of the three lawys of thermodynamics broken, by my count.

    The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field. You can't get energy from a static magnetic field. (You can get it from a changing magnetic field, and the Earth's magnetic field is changing; but it's doing so over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, so the energy you'd get would be very, very small.) Doing so would basically be tantamount to breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
    --
    What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  47. lots of ways to tap hidden power by r00t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An easy one is the crystal radio. You're getting power from the transmitter. Make an array of crystal radios, on different frequencies, gang them together... hey, now you're getting a good deal of power!

    The Earth's magnetic field wanders. Use that.

    There are various gyroscopic-like things related to the Earth's orbit and rotation, particlarly having to do with things not being all planar. Use that.

  48. 1.0 ** -64 seconds by crovira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Plank time, baby.

    That's how fast you have to be.

    I call bullshit on the ignorant article

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:1.0 ** -64 seconds by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your title was "1.0 ** -64 seconds". That's still 1 second.

  49. Re:What About using Gravity by CorSci81 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then you're actually talking about buoyancy doing the lifting, not gravity. Unfortunately, gasses don't tend to stratify, they tend to mix. So now you have the complication of separating your hydrogen and oxygen from your inert gas before they recombine on their own. Sorry to be a buzzkill, but you generally don't get something for nothing.... damn thermodynamics anyway.

  50. Coriolis machines by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only(?) perpetual motion machines that can be built on a small scale are coriolis machines. Way back in the 19th and early 20th centuries is was a fad to build perpetual clocks with horizontally rotating pendulums that stole energy from the earth's rotation to power themselves. The amount of power extracted is very small though and requires careful leveling of the clock. Also, they won't work in the tropics or at the poles. They only work in intermediate latitudes.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  51. Yes and No by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One high tide is the ocean being pulled toward the Moon. Twelve hours later it's being thrown away from the Earth by centrifugal force. The Earth-Moon system rotates around a point 1,000 miles below sea level. Tidal braking is however why the Moon always faces the Earth.

    1. Re:Yes and No by Matt+Edd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Twelve hours later it's being thrown away from the Earth by centrifugal force. It's actually the Earth being pulled away from the water.
  52. Windmills by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Windmills harness the power of air moving under force from both solar and the Earth's rotation. One of the oldest transducers known to industry, after the waterwheel.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  53. Wait.... by I7D · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this the joke where we wrap the skeletons of Edison, Watt, Ampre, Einstein, Newton, and the like with magnets - and then wrap copper wires around them to generate power by them turning in their graves?

    --
    Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
  54. Right-On!!! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, this is just too much fun!

    Everybody is cranking out lots of criticisms and such, but you just know everybody is still going to be paying attention on July 5th!

    Typically with over-unity claims which actually make the news, there is a big press release and gab-fest, and then a few weeks later the inventor vanishes from view never to be heard from again.

    I recall one gentleman in Japan, Kohei Minato, three years back who had managed to garner a lot of positive press with his funky spinning wheels. He had an Irish minister of some sort pay him a visit and descriptions of his free-spinning wheel are really cool. (The coolest item is in the last fifth of the page at the bottom.) He generated some modest interest in 2004 when a journalist was significantly impressed with his work and published an article (copied at the link above). I wonder what happened to Mr. Minato. I've not heard a peep about him since then. If he's in jail, it's not the kind you get put in for fraud, because then there would be some record of his being prosecuted. Perhaps its one of those special prisons they have for people who dare to tap into some forbidden energy source the petrochem companies don't want anybody to know about. There are tales of inventors being kidnapped at gunpoint. I know a guy who worked for an agency whose job it is to kill scientists. But hey, shhhhh. Stuff like is entirely not real. I'm only joking. Really. Joking. Shhhh. Plausible deniablility. Cuz the guy is just gone. There's nothing on the man that isn't three years old.

    Well, actually, I did hear one peep. There was a fellow inquiring after Minato, claiming to have last seen him in Japan in December of 2006. Apparently, Mr. Minato has been offered a production facility in another country. But that could be just the background noise of the grand ol' internet. Who's to say?

    Anyway. . , if this Orbo thing is a scam, you can bet it's a great one. Their showing has been really patient and well-crafted thus far. I'm so happy they're still around a year after their first announcement. I mean, think about how much effort is being expended here; it involves a large number of people who are all towing the line. Scientists, and production staff, and PR people. If this is a scam, it's much, much larger than any other over-unity claim, which usually only involve one or two people working in a garage. According the the wonderful world of wikkipedia, Steorn invited a democratically selected member of a forum to visit their facility, and they wowed her with a bunch of smoke and mirrors. This is so rich! Damn, I'm excited!

    I wonder, if it's all scammy, how they've worked out how to not go to jail for fraud? Is it illegal to lie to your investors? Maybe they'll all claim it was just an elaborate test of the PR abilities, a cosmic joke to see who they could fool, and that really, no money changed hands. Who knows?

    Or if they've got some kind of device on their hands which draws energy from somewhere else, like the Earth's magnetic field as some have suggested, then. . , hey, is that cool or what? They've done enough high-profile press work to perhaps not get vanished. (Though I wouldn't count on it.) Either way, Steorn is putting on a helluva neat show. This is pulp science at its best! It reminds me of my favorite period in fiction; the late 1700's, early 1800's, when steam and flying contraptions and "Watson, get the pistols!" was the way science was conducted. A showing of a revolutionary new technology in an art gallery? Are you serious?! Well, damn, let me get my top hat and cane! These days are sorely lacking adventure in science. Too few pith helmets and too much slick corporate chrome.

    So, rock-on, Steron! I can't wait to see what you pull out of your hat! And if you actually have something genuine, a word of advice: Opensourcing it would keep you from getting killed by the Bad Men. If you don't have

  55. Their Disclaimer... by Franklin+Brauner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a good judge of character..and these guys strike me as, at minimum, sincere. I want badly for it to be true -- bring on the Holodeck next -- and replicators! I'm ready for the future!

    However, the proof of the pudding is under the crust. Have a look a their Disclaimer, which says it all:

    "Steorn and its suppliers further do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within the Materials or Ideas."

    Indeed.

  56. magnets by mzs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously when you hear a claim of a perpetual motion machine, then at the instant that you hear the word magnet, you should think scam.

  57. Re:2nd Law convenient when you want it to be by makomk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm no physicist, but I think the rough answer is that people would have to be really dumb to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an argument against evolution, not just because they'd be wrong, but because they'd be arguing against the existence of life in the first place. (Seriously - all living organisms have to stave off the effects of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it's fundamental to their survival. The reason they don't violate it is that the processes involved create more entropy elsewhere.)

  58. TFA thinks it's bunk as well by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA: Here we go, after months of doubt over claims of a magnetic machine promising "infinite clean energy," Steorn will be putting their wares on display for public scrutiny in London. A physics defying perpetual machine, if you will. Starting tomorrow, rumor has it that the Kinetica museum will host the Orbo device for a ten day long public demonstration of the technology. We're expecting a formal announcement at 6pm 11pm London (1pm 6pm New York). iPhone shmiPhone, this is going to be good. Update 1: Still nothing from Steorn yet, but Irish RTE News has also "confirmed" the impending announcement. Moreover, a "very simplified version" of the technology will be viewable by streaming media over the Intertubes. So get ready kids, they say you'll be able to watch janky video of a prototype "lifting a weight" from four different angles starting at 6pm London Eastern Time. Otherwise, you can view the device live at Kinetica from Thursday 5 July to Friday 13 July. Update 2: First picture of the mystical device! [Thanks, Jordy] Update 3: CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to "consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed." He goes on to say "It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real." Whoa. Link to demonstration site now added below. Update 4: Well, 6pm London time has come and gone. However, Steorn's site now says that the video will go live at 6pm "Eastern Time." Apparently, their demo is aimed at the US. A fossil-fuel Independence Day? Riiiiight. Update 5: Jeebus, what a non-event. Even though they wield supreme control over the laws of physics, Steorn had to cancel tonight's event "due to technical difficulties." We'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetically tragic. The live stream is now rescheduled ambiguously to the 5th July. Now move along folks, there's nothing to see here.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars