A user on Steorn's forum received this from James Randi, of the Randi Foundation and the $1 million Randi Challenge. This confirms that the prize is available to an inventor of an overunity or perpetual motion device. So this is some added incentive for the people here.
Website: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/ (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/)
******************
I only examined about 40 of the comments here, after being directed to the
site by an interested reader, and there was enough material to convince me
that I should offer a few of my own comments on the string of canards that
are strewn throughout the exchanges that I see being repeated. Now, I don't
expect that any attention will be paid to these comments of mine, because
the woo-woos need to deny the fact that the JREF prize is available and
winnable - if the evidence is produced. Steorn has withdrawn from
acceptance, and has instead offered validation by a team of "scientists" -
which has not materialized in the long months since it was promised! - but
which in any case is of no interest to us, because opinions and affidavits
are not evidence. SIMPLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MACHINE WORKS AS ADVERTISED,
AND THE JREF PRIZE WILL BE AWARDED. That's a simple, direct statement - the
kind of statement that we've always issued, and which Steorn, and all the
other claimants, have chosen to ignore.
Any "bias" or lack of expertise or capability on my part cannot enter into
the testing procedure, since the testing is done by mutually-agreed-upon
experts, not I. I simply put my money where my mouth is, the experts use the
protocol, and I am legally obligated to pay over the prize money; I don't
have any choice in that matter.
We don't "debunk," which would imply that we go into an investigation with
the attitude that "This isn't true, and we're going to prove it's not true."
We investigate, and publish the results. When we investigate, we essentially
don't know whether or not the claim is true; we try to find out, which is
the real scientific approach.
And yes, any and all perpetual-motion or free-energy claims are eligible for
the JREF prize.
I see here many fevered discussions about what will be done with the JREF
prize, when it's been won. I suggest that you win it, first, then do with it
what you will.
As we've tried to get across to you, there is never any "judging" procedure
needed or invoked; the results of any testing procedure have to be
self-evident. For example, if Steorn gets its machine working as advertised,
they win, you see? No judge has to decide that, because it simply WORKED!
What's not clear about that.?
That's it. The woo-woos will continue to carry on, and I don't care. Steorn
has not produced the evidence, they refuse to do so, and they've retreated.
So be it.
James Randi.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on November 20, 2007, 11:41:44 AM
A user on Steorn's forum received this from James Randi, of the Randi Foundation and the $1 million Randi Challenge. This confirms that the prize is available to an inventor of an overunity or perpetual motion device. So this is some added incentive for the people here.
Website: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/ (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/)
[snip]
And yes, any and all perpetual-motion or free-energy claims are eligible for
the JREF prize.
I see here many fevered discussions about what will be done with the JREF
prize, when it's been won. I suggest that you win it, first, then do with it
what you will.
As we've tried to get across to you, there is never any "judging" procedure
needed or invoked; the results of any testing procedure have to be
self-evident. For example, if Steorn gets its machine working as advertised,
they win, you see? No judge has to decide that, because it simply WORKED!
What's not clear about that.?
That's it. The woo-woos will continue to carry on, and I don't care. Steorn
has not produced the evidence, they refuse to do so, and they've retreated.
So be it.
James Randi.
I'm curious about this JREF prize, but the link above to the Randi site did not disclose the details of the prize. Randi writes:
QuoteAnd yes, any and all ... free-energy claims are eligible for
the JREF prize.
Can anyone help with the detailed criteria to meet for this prize? (and a link?)[/b]
Thanks!
Randi is the biggest woo-woo of all. On the other hand why won't Steorn do that? One of the conditions should be for them to publish what they claim in Nature and in Physical Review Letters and have other labs reproduce it. Why don't Steorn ask Randi to assist in that. Nature, at least, listens to him.
Of course, as I said earlier, nothing can beat presenting a self-sustaining device, a device even an uneducated person such as Randi can understand. It's too bad scientific judgement nowadays is in the hands of the uneducated hiring the knowledgeable to express opinions they can always ignore.
I fail to understand why so many people want to discredit James Randi . In my opinion his letter speaks for itself .He is a man of integrity and honesty who does not suffer fools gladly . I have spent much time studying this man .As he says , show me a working machine and I will give you the money .How can you not understand that ?
Quote from: neptune on December 26, 2010, 03:20:15 PM
I fail to understand why so many people want to discredit James Randi . In my opinion his letter speaks for itself .He is a man of integrity and honesty who does not suffer fools gladly . I have spent much time studying this man .As he says , show me a working machine and I will give you the money .How can you not understand that ?
You fail to understand, right? Then read again the last sentence of my last post. The guy has no idea what constitutes a "working machine" even. His is a pathetic enterprise which should have never existed had science and its mechanisms of assessment the reality of claims functioned properly.
@ Omnibus . OK I understand now . This is not an ideal situation , but neither Randi nor anyone else can be an expert on all branches of science . Nevertheless , You might agree that if an overunity device won the James Randi prize , the publicity would be good for free energy .
Quote from: neptune on December 26, 2010, 03:20:15 PM
I fail to understand why so many people want to discredit James Randi . In my opinion his letter speaks for itself .He is a man of integrity and honesty who does not suffer fools gladly . I have spent much time studying this man .As he says , show me a working machine and I will give you the money .How can you not understand that ?
Hi Neptune,
I agree with you.
The fundamentalists of free energy and their followers (yes there are numerous for whom FE is a religion, not a research field in science) know that they have not yet found anything, or want to believe in any absurd OU claims. Instead of trying to dispel their ignorance, they prefer to denigrate and fight the skeptics who denounce their incompetence. Instead of proving their assertions, they deny the objections. They react in the same manner as muslims against Muhammad cartoons, question of shaken faith.
They are wrong. They can't convince the skeptics because they have nothing.
When the free energy will be a reality, skeptics will be convinced.
Quote from: neptune on December 27, 2010, 05:37:24 AM
@ Omnibus . OK I understand now . This is not an ideal situation , but neither Randi nor anyone else can be an expert on all branches of science . Nevertheless , You might agree that if an overunity device won the James Randi prize , the publicity would be good for free energy .
I don't agree. James Randi is incompetent in any branch of science so he should stay away from involving himself or paying others in assessing the merits of scientific claims (so should other incompetent people such as the one who answered you above). Involvement of incompetent people in deciding whether or not a device is OU is bad for the free energy.
@ Omnibus . I suppose it depends how you define science . Randi is , if nothing else a very competent conjuror , and that has helped him detect fraud in the past . I hope that if we can agree on nothing else , we can graciously agree to differ . The bottom line for me is that if a guy gives me a million dollars , I am not too worried about his qualifications .
Quote from: neptune on December 27, 2010, 10:53:48 AM
@ Omnibus . I suppose it depends how you define science . Randi is , if nothing else a very competent conjuror , and that has helped him detect fraud in the past . I hope that if we can agree on nothing else , we can graciously agree to differ . The bottom line for me is that if a guy gives me a million dollars , I am not too worried about his qualifications .
On the contrary, it's a tragedy that some uneducated woo woo person can have the million dollars to control the opinion about what is and what isn't in science.
What I'd really like to see is an open letter from STEORN to James Randi.
Sean McCarthy could explain why they haven't demonstrated their claims in an unequivocal way, after all these years of claiming to have "robust overunity", "always proven to work", and so on. Then he could explain why nobody has seen any of these alleged circuit boards they are touting on their website.
While of course making the usual fatuous canards about Randi and his prize.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 27, 2010, 10:55:07 PM
What I'd really like to see is an open letter from STEORN to James Randi.
Sean McCarthy could explain why they haven't demonstrated their claims in an unequivocal way, after all these years of claiming to have "robust overunity", "always proven to work", and so on. Then he could explain why nobody has seen any of these alleged circuit boards they are touting on their website.
While of course making the usual fatuous canards about Randi and his prize.
$$$.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 27, 2010, 10:55:07 PM
What I'd really like to see is an open letter from STEORN to James Randi.
Sean McCarthy could explain why they haven't demonstrated their claims in an unequivocal way, after all these years of claiming to have "robust overunity", "always proven to work", and so on. Then he could explain why nobody has seen any of these alleged circuit boards they are touting on their website.
While of course making the usual fatuous canards about Randi and his prize.
Not true. @Omega_0, for one, has verified it independently. He was the first one to independently reproduce Steorn's claims.
Quote from: Omnibus on December 27, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Not true. @Omega_0, for one, has verified it independently. He was the first one to independently reproduce Steorn's claims.
no he hasn't and he has said as much. he corrected you and this false version of the story you keep telling if i recall. you're as shameless as tinselkoala with the crap you make up. ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 28, 2010, 09:38:36 AM
no he hasn't and he has said as much. he corrected you and this false version of the story you keep telling if i recall. you're as shameless as tinselkoala with the crap you make up. ::)
@TiselKoala(@alsetalokin) is well known for the joke he made withthehillbilly @overconfident. He never appologized for his Whipmag scam and that's a shame. @Omega_0, on the other hand, is the first to independently confirm Steorn claims and that's a fact. He wouldn't have posted extensively results showing similar outcome as Steorn's let alone open special threads to discuss them. He is also extra cautious which is understandable because Seorn are a company and he obviously doesn't want his results to be used in their fundraising activity, moreover, having ho further evidence of others confirming the results. If nothing else, the methodology and the insight @Omega_0 was displaying is way above the joke-videos @TinselKoala(@alsetalokin) was slapping all over the internet. They were supposed to debunk Steorn's claims but they only showed how envious and self-centered he really is and actually were a waste of time to watch. That's too bad because the guy has also some qualitites and can be of help in the discussions if his attitude changes.
I think, Randi had already lost his million. It is only needed he came to us for proving of pre series DRJ600.11 with 350% total eff. or even series ready DRJ200.11 I WILL BET FOR 1 MILLION he will not comes to prove our machines and he is as always say so man. Simply saying lyer. So Folks, sthg written can not go by, em i right? Dr Adolf Nowak www.nsppp.bloog.pl
Omnibus, you really should stop lying about me.
I put it to the audience: watch my Orbette videos from the beginning to the end. Then look at what Omega has done. You decide.
And as far as that "alsetatokin" fellow, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Do you know the definition of "scam"? Apparently not, because "Al" always told everyone who asked that there was nothing unusual about the OCMPMM and that it was not a free energy device at all. Remember?
So, when you talk like you do, I would appreciate it if you AT LEAST provided a reference or a link to support your canards.
You always told everyone who asked that there was nothing unusual about the OCMPMM and in the same breath you claimed that it had continued spinning for seven (7) hours without input of external energy. The first part (your blabber about what's unusual) can be ignored but the second part (the device spinning for 7 hours without external energy input) no one could replicate. Do you still claim the device you showed was spinning for 7 hours without external energy input?
As for your videos, ostensibly replicating Steorn's device, they are nothing but nuissance and also should be ignored out of hand.
@Omega_0, on the other hand, showed extensive studies of the energy balance on a Steorn-type motor and the results confirmed almost exactly the run of the energy-time curves Steorn presented which is indeed an indication of OU behavior. @Omega_0 is the first to confirm independently Steorn's claims.
@Dr No . So you are betting a million that James Randi will not come and test your machine . I am betting £1 that you are right .OK £1 is not much but it is all I have . Randi specifically states that all applicants GO TO HIM at their own expense , so I figure my £1 is safe .
Quote from: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 01:47:27 PM
...
@Omega_0, on the other hand, showed extensive studies of the energy balance on a Steorn-type motor
...
Nothing conclusive, due to Steorn's erroneous methodology.
Steorn's methodology is correct.
Quote from: neptune on December 29, 2010, 02:51:32 PM
Randi specifically states that all applicants GO TO HIM at their own expense , so I figure my £1 is safe .
I think, Herr Randi is not so randy on free energy. But ok, do You know his ZIP? I can send him sthg more powerful. He shouldn^t oversee 50 kT blitz of free energy over his head. Em i right?;-]
Quote from: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 01:47:27 PM
You always told everyone who asked that there was nothing unusual about the OCMPMM and in the same breath you claimed that it had continued spinning for seven (7) hours without input of external energy. The first part (your blabber about what's unusual) can be ignored but the second part (the device spinning for 7 hours without external energy input) no one could replicate. Do you still claim the device you showed was spinning for 7 hours without external energy input?
In the first place I think you have me confused with someone else. In the second place, I have examined the blow-by-blow data report that alsetalokin posted on the Steorn forum, live, every few minutes during the seven-hour run, and the RPM versus time graph shows a very slow decrease in the RPM up until a rather quick dropoff at the very end. There is nothing inconsistent with the behaviour of conventional devices in this behaviour, just as alsetalokin explained. As I recall, however, YOU, Omnibus, at the time, fully endorsed the OCMPMM as proof of your particular SMOT-like overunity conjectures.
Now that I think about it, maybe that was alsetalokin's point. He did, after all, direct the initial posting of the famous video directly at you, and once you had seen it, he removed it from YT, IIRC.
Quote
As for your videos, ostensibly replicating Steorn's device, they are nothing but nuissance and also should be ignored out of hand.
Ignore them then. Sean McCarthy and Steorn don't.
Quote
@Omega_0, on the other hand, showed extensive studies of the energy balance on a Steorn-type motor and the results confirmed almost exactly the run of the energy-time curves Steorn presented which is indeed an indication of OU behavior. @Omega_0 is the first to confirm independently Steorn's claims.
I will be very interested in seeing Omega's self-powered motor running then. I'm sure he'll have it working....SOON.
I repeat for the masses: My Orbette reproduces ALL the behaviours exhibited by Steorn as "proof" of their overunity effect, and also demonstrates several of the effects they have claimed but have NOT demonstrated such as battery recharging and powering an external load.
And I will also emphasize another thing: I have made no claims about the TOTAL energy balance of my device. I have demonstrated that in motors of this type the magnetic coupling to the rotor is so poor that very little of the total input power can make it to the rotor at all.... and I have also demonstrated that a rotor with the dimensions and bearings of a Steorn Orbo only needs to be supplied with a few milliWatts, if that much, to turn continuously at a typical 1000 RPM. These, no matter what else anyone may believe about anything, are incontrovertible facts that apply to Orbos everywhere, mine, Steorn's, JLN's and I'll wager to Omega's as well. I would be very happy to be shown data that refutes me on this major point..... and I'll be waiting a long time.
All this and more is demonstrated in my videos of the Orbettes and my analyses of the Steorn motor.
So, Omnibus, if you have some specific point to dispute in some specific video of mine, I would be happy to hear about it. Meanwhile, like I said, you really should stop lying and misrepresenting me and my work.
You should not push your wasteful videos to the masses as something they should see, having something to do with Steorn. It has nothing to do with Steorn, it's a waste of bandwidth and, like I said, should be ignored out of hand. Also, don't tell @Omega_0 what to do. He knows better than, you. He has reproduced Steorn claims independently and for that he doesn't need to show a self-sustaining device. There is science, there is scientific methid and argumentation and producing a self-sustaining device is not part of the argumentation. It's good to have it. Like I said, that should be everybody's main goal here but that's because of societal reasons, not because of science justification. For a scientist, well done experiments such as those of Steorn, repeated independently by @Omega_0, are convincing enough that the device is an OU device to the best of the existing instrumentation, even if it isn't a self-sustaining one.
Also, you @TinselKoala(@alsetalokin) should stop lying that you have seen the OCMPMM rotate for seven hours without an external energy input. Furthermore, you should stop lying that if a device such as that one rotates for 7 hours without external energy input, it is not unusual. Stop perpetrating that scam of yours. If you disagree that it's a scam show this device and have independent parties replicate it and have it run for 7 hours without input energy. Otherwise just stop lying. Stop your scam.
Rotating itself for even 24 H is nothing important. It is important only, when in this time we can have additional (free) energy to: propel sthg. else, for heat, flying or cure (this is the simpliest and most effective as i found myself.All in all, health is most costly. Em i right?;-)).
OK, then, show me something rotating itself for 24 hours. A table-top device, not the Earth, electrons around nucleus and the like.
I think, You have sthg like that in Your inventory, but only to shy to show us. Right?;-)
Quote from: Doctor No on December 30, 2010, 03:40:38 PM
I think, You have sthg like that in Your inventory, but only to shy to show us. Right?;-)
I don't. I wish I had. How 'bout you?
Quote from: neptune on December 29, 2010, 02:51:32 PM
@Dr No . So you are betting a million that James Randi will not come and test your machine . I am betting £1 that you are right .OK £1 is not much but it is all I have . Randi specifically states that all applicants GO TO HIM at their own expense , so I figure my £1 is safe .
Quote from: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 02:29:28 PM
...
He has reproduced Steorn claims independently and for that he doesn't need to show a self-sustaining device.
...
As already explained in the thread about Steorn's device, OU is the result of a spurious calculation from the measurements, because of an erroneous methodology. Therefore a real self-sustaining device based on alledged Steorn's principle can't work.
This is entirely in line with my own findings as well.
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 31, 2010, 06:44:40 AM
As already explained in the thread about Steorn's device, OU is the result of a spurious calculation from the measurements, because of an erroneous methodology. Therefore a real self-sustaining device based on alledged Steorn's principle can't work.
spam
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 31, 2010, 10:09:16 AM
This is entirely in line with my own findings as well.
Don't lie. You have no findings that closely resemble Steorn's energy balance.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 31, 2010, 10:09:16 AM
This is entirely in line with my own findings as well.
I wonder my wonder Austral Lander, what You say next summer when we present our DRJ10.000. 10.000% effective machine. It is of course not for 1 home intended, but prototype of eternal power station. This will run for here to eternity self building up internal structures(renew):-) What^s more my dear Friend, You wan^t to go to us to see it. It will be enough loud also for Australian^s not to oversee it. Even thouse completly blind from childhood. Even Randi will be full assured of free energy.:-)