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

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

I think you should consider publishing your results in journals such as Nature of Physical Review Letters. They really deserve serious attention.

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

Did you take a look at the results I just posted and especially at the remark about playing with the R value? It's exactly what you did when you were changing R in your data to see the result. Same effect. So, what we're seeing is that the OU is either due to a different phase shift for a given R (that is, some additional capacitance added ) or for a given C the input "sees" a different R than the R "seen" by the output.

I wonder about this additional capacitance added. Experimentally, we don't use the 115pF value in our calculations. Measurements are measurements and the result is derived solely based on I, V and R. The experimental result, however, shows a different outcome than the theoretical outcome based on 115pF and 10Ohm elements, the theoretical possibility for OU notwithstanding. So, either there is an error in measurement or the formula we know from theory for the phase shift isn't exact.

[Omega_0]

I agree that these results are extraordinary and need serious research. I don't know why there is not a single such result even after 6 months of the demo, inspite of there being so many talented scientists and hobbyists. Millions are being spent on study of bees, ants and rocks, and billions on football, as we speak. I have spent only about $300 so far on this stuff. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who is deluded, no one else thinks this could be important.

I can't publish these results formally, firstly because its not original research, credit goes to steorn. Secondly, I'm myself not very confident, these are first results and are a bit inaccurate. Thirdly I don't want to become a laughing stock there. This place is safe

Now I wonder why steorn did not publish it themselves, is it prior art ? They did not even patent it. Instead they are trying to teach everyone basic physics. Something is not right with the world or their claim is BS.

[Omnibus]

Speaking of the role of capacitance, I was thinking, could it be that the capacitance of the passive voltage probe (96pF) is adding up (lowering it, rather) to the capacitance in the circuit. You may remember the figure below which I posted in another context. In that figure we have the yellow trace which is current measured with the shunt while the green trace is current measured with the Hall effect current probe. You can see slight phase shift of the yellow trace to the left. Remember, the effect is greater when the phase shift of current is to the right (current is leading voltage more pronouncedly). I don't see how the Hall effect current probe may add to the capacitance of the circuit (by its very nature it's outside of the circuit). The voltage probe measuring the voltage drop across R, however, may be considered as part of the circuit adding 96pF parallel to R. However that 96pF is in series with C making the capacitance lower. Another reason for the current shift to the left (which would cause lowering of OU) is the eventual parasitic inductance which appears to be there -- current from probe and shunt don't coincide the shunt current being greater. So this addition of capacitance through the passive voltage probe cannot explain the OU result. In fact it is detrimental to it.

On the other hand, don't forget that we have another passive 96pF probe which measures the voltage applied by the pulse generator. It acts as a shunt, of course, but we consider the measured voltage as the true voltage supplied by the pulse generator. This is how we treat that voltage in our theoretical calculations. Is that voltage the actually applied voltage, though (we don't question the current; current is measured with a Hall effect current probe and that's a guarantee it's the real current passing through R)?

See, the above is important to establish because, as I already said, the experimental results are such as if somehow either the phase shift is not the phase shift which corresponds to what theory calculates of the R "seen" by the input isn't the same R "seen" by the output (haven't checked the role of Vm in the theoretical assessment).

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

I agree that these results are extraordinary and need serious research. I don't know why there is not a single such result even after 6 months of the demo, inspite of there being so many talented scientists and hobbyists. Millions are being spent on study of bees, ants and rocks, and billions on football, as we speak. I have spent only about $300 so far on this stuff. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who is deluded, no one else thinks this could be important.

I can't publish these results formally, firstly because its not original research, credit goes to steorn. Secondly, I'm myself not very confident, these are first results and are a bit inaccurate. Thirdly I gdon't want to become a laughing stock there. This place is safe

Now I wonder why steorn did not publish it themselves, is it prior art ? They did not even patent it. Instead they are trying to teach everyone basic physics. Something is not right with the world or their claim is BS.

There is a massive misunderstanding of what Steorn have actually done. You're one of the very few that really know what's going on, at least experimentally and regarding the analysis of data. I've read so much crap on the subject even by self-proclaimed experts (and some of them, otherwise, seem not to be freshmen in the matters of electrical research) let alone zealous activists deliberately set up to destroy the field, that it's a breath of fresh air to see fine results such as yours.

I have a lot of experience both in mainstream science and in this field (why separate it from mainstream science?). There should be more people like you and this will make a big difference in the world. Unfortunately, many people are just blinded and this has hurt science and the world big time. You are not deluded. In fact you are one of the few who are not deluded even if at the end this turns out to be in error because you are honestly looking for the truth, untainted by phony dreams of personal gain.

As far as publishing goes (I have tens of peer-reviewed publications, so maybe I can utter an opinion on that) it is not true that yours is not original research. It is as original as can be notwithstanding that you should give credit in the publication to Steorn. Of course, if you still feel unconfident about the results you should try to perfect them as best you can. No one's perfect. Also, a scientist has the freedom to be wrong as long as he or she is honestly pursuing the truth. Those who try to turn such scientists into a laughing stock are a laughing stock themselves. Why should we give in to such rogues.

As to why Steorn aren't publishing, the answer is that the only concern they have is the bottom line. They have always insisted that they are not a science entity and that business underlies all their activities. That's sad but we can't do anything about it. The only thing we can do is to do the research and try to publish the results we think are worthy of presenting through the scientific channels.