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

[PaulLowrance]

A few more recent Sean quotes I missed in my last post,

"Can we expect some independent, 3rd party, validation of your device as a part of the demo in January?"

You sure can.

Ok what is rubbish about the video was the simple fact that this guy knows that there is CEMF present in his test, but hides it with the scale of his scope traces. So its not a rebuttal at all - its clearly someone playing games.

So does he have a point behind the sillyness - perhaps there are supporting methods that can be used to show that there is no CEMF, including but not limited to the current reversal that I believe he may have decided to leave out because perhaps its a bit more difficult to do a fraudulent debunk? - and indeed you will see these in the next experiment.

The difference of course in all this is what we are dealing with in the so called "rebuttal" is a simple method to debunk through deception - so be it - not a lot I can do about that - lets see if the fella can con the next version of the experiment - as I said it will be pretty amusing anyway,

[gravityblock]

There is an erroneous expression for the self inductance of a loop of diameter ‘a’ and wire thickness ‘b’ found in the book Classical Electrodynamics 3rd edition.  Reviewing the derivation we find that this expression is actually the mutual inductance between two parallel loops of radius ‘a’ separated by distance b.  Oooopsss, and it mis-leads the masses because nobody is able to think and have a mind of their own, lol.

Classical Electromagnetism predicts electromagnetic “Hot Spots” at the corners of rectangular loops. These Hot Spots are not seen in the lab. Consider a square loop of wire that contains a constant current. The current at the corners changes direction 90 degrees; this is effectively a changing current.  By applying classical electromagnetic equations, we derive the effect of this current change on a test charge located just above the corner.  Experimentation shows that there are no detectable corner effects. The spherical field completely cancels these corner effects.

The toroidal magnetic field of classical electromagnetism does not predict
the existence of longitudinal electromagnetic propagation. As such, the
classical models do not predict reception off the ends of a dipole antenna.
In fact, without longitudinal waves, the classical models are not even close to the measured radiation patterns.  The reason is that the classical models do not predict magnetic effects in the longitudinal direction because the Biot-Savart field model of magnetism is a transverse only model.

In the classical electromagnetic theory of light (Maxwell’s Equations) only
transverse electromagnetic waves are anticipated. Yet in all other media in
which waves propagate, they propagate in both longitudinal and transverse modes. Why does classical electromagnetism only predict transverse waves?  The answer is that classical electromagnetism views magnetism as a transverse only field phenomenon.  The spherical field model readily predicts wave propagation in both longitudinal and transverse modes.



GB

[MileHigh]

Gravityblock:

I am not going to rebut your examples except to say that I am not aware of transverse waves being an issue.  When EM radiation propagates the electrical and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other.  So if "z" is the transverse direction because the electric or magnetic wave is traveling and oscillating back and forth in the direction of z, then the complimentary electric or magnetic wave can be aligned in any direction in the x-y plane.  Transverse waves are not anything special that I am aware of.

The determination of what the electric or magnetic field looks like (magnitude and direction) at any point in time and at any place in space is very well understood, but I am not a microwave engineer so I can't say much more than that.

MileHigh

[broli]

I'm not exactly sure what they mean by capturing more inductive energy than is put in. There are two possible cases:

1) When they capture the collapsing field more inductive energy is captured than used. From their scope traces we can estimate that the inductive energy is 1/5 of the whole pulse. While 4/5 is ohmic and irreversibly lost as heat. This would explain why Sean keeps mentioning the heat energy.

2) When they capture the collapsing field more energy is gained than inductive+ohmic combined. This feat would be very amazing in itself. As the mechanical energy becomes a bonus.

Can someone please forward this or bring it up on their forum to get an answer from them. It would be very interesting and enlighting to know which case they are referring to.

[lumen]

Broli,

I didn't think they were capturing any of the flyback from the pulse to the toroidal coils.
I understood it to be the generator at the top that was recovering all the losses.

Recovering the flyback from the toroidal coils would be a plus if it is possible.