STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[exnihiloest]

It is not at all how long the battery will power the motor that should be criterion for OU but whether or not all the input power goes only for heating. Steorn claims it does.

It is not the point. A claim is not a proof.
I invite you to re-read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof and try to understand why what is asserted without proof (such Steorn OU) can be denied without proof.

[Omnibus]

Steorn did not provide neither proof nor clue of OU. Thus we can assert: Steorn has no OU machine.

This is just your own private opinion and it is without proof therefore it can be denied without proof.

Steorn give as proof experimental data of U and I staying the same under load (no rotor-coil electrical coupling). Where is your proof that it doesn't mean also that all the input power has only been used for heating which is the real criterion for OU?

[powercat]

@powercat,

>>a lot of people have built motors  with no attempt to generate power

I have made a version that also had a generator output coil.
My solid state has an output generator coil also.
And I posted both in this thread.

Groundloop.

Yes I did see your version, I apologise for not remembering, it is good to see that others are now building generators to.
I will now post something more important then my ramblings.

TK is really working hard at this.

Orbette 11: Two Rows are Better Than One...But Why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jrOE0ckYag

Orbette 12: CEMF test of Two-row Orbette with "aiding" polarity of rotor rows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2If2FwORfQ

Orbette 13: Two Rows, Bucking Polarity (all same poles facing out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEPgohLqZg

Orbette 14: CEMF test of Bucking Two-Row Orbette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3YV1pKwC2M

cat

[exnihiloest]

This is just your own private opinion and it is without proof therefore it can be denied without proof.

You seem not yet able to deal with the principle of the burden of proof, which is for the first claimant (Steorn).

...
Steorn give as proof experimental data of U and I staying the same under load (no rotor-coil electrical coupling).
...

Not a proof. Most of U/I energy is wasted in the coil resistor and/or in the magnetic saturation of the core. Reaction from the rotor have negligeable influence. And a battery is a voltage generator that maintains a almost constant voltage on long time period.

When I power a 10 Kohm resistance from my car battery during several minutes, I read U/I constant. Weak charges do not allow to measure changes of the baterry voltage below the voltmeter accuracy.
Well, according to your measurement protocol, my car battery is a OU device! Thanks Omnibus I had a working OU machine and did not know it! 

Data would be conclusive if we had:
U, I, motor torque, t, and measurement accuracy, with duration of several hours (or may be less, depending on the torque in comparisson with the battery).
Where is it ?

[PaulLowrance]

People have not to test Steorn device, this would mean reversing the burden of proof and wasting time.
As the battery of Steorn motor is strong enough to power it for weeks, Steorn did not provide neither proof nor clue of OU. Thus we can assert: Steorn has no OU machine.

"He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. [] The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

We have just to wait for evidence from Steorn before checking. It is a question of scientific methodology.

That is highly illogical. Science is not about waiting for people to prove things to you. Nothing would ever get done that way. If it interests one enough, then by all means investigate, which is what people are doing here.

Besides, I have my proof that the magnetic material cooled by nearly 3°F, all of which was on video. To varying degrees this was seen numerous times in other experiments.