Cheers

Sorry, had to get that in.

Steorn didn’t apparently come up with the goods in the end, they seemingly demonstrated and proved nothing. There is nothing to explain.

Moving along, I to have been working off another man’s theory and unfulfilled dreams, inexcess of five years. I have studied what information is available and began my work. After too numerous to mention, design modifications and testing it would appear as though my final design will function and produce a useable amount of f e. I have not asked for any publicity nor any public funding. I should have the primary sytem built by December 2009. If all goes as predicted based upon preliminary testing, I will repost and send out invitations to the scientific community to come and observe the testing, and general function of this unit.

In short not everythig has to come out of a labratory in a University the reciprocating engine would be a fine example of this.

And, “tapping off” energy from a recently formed magnetic material will wear it out, sooner rather than later, so that we will never see the full potential of Steorn-type free-energy?

I hope I was wrong.

Steorn isn’t breaking any law of thermodynamics it is only using an energy container, it is in fact using the usable energy in the magnet that may be consumed passed some time, possibly the machine stopped working for a mechanical magnet malfunction.

And again it isn’t a new idea, this kind of machine has had a very long history since the 1960s.

Even with the tremendous physics knowledge you may have, neither you nor I *know* whether it’s “snake oil”. And referencing some bluddy “Law” doesn’t necessarily support your contention. “Laws” are codified by humankind, yes, based on empirical experience, sometimes over 2000 years worth. Let another emprical event with a slightly different parameter set come about, and that “Law”, at the very least, must be modified to be only a special case, even if it applies 99% of the time. It’s been done before. To be a true physicist is to try to identify the anomaly, and come to some hypothesis as to how and why it functions. For the event in question, the slightly different parameters have to be identified. It would, if today’s physics was honest and, just for a moment got away from pure theory which it is wont to do today (Kaku et al.), and return to empirical work, result, to the chagrin of many, in a changed theory , or even a changed “Law”.

So what to do? The device must be observed in action for a time long enough to note that there is a phenomenon at work, an “unknown” source of energy, which the observers usually don’t understand. But if one knows about:

a) the Earth’s magnetic field

b) magnetic field dynamics

c) Quantum Electrodynamics

one should be able to derive hypothesis as to how the device keeps going like the “Energizer Bunny” … and even longer. Find out why the device keeps going longer than it should.

Re: “why don’t they just build a car that doesn’t need any fuel”

Answer: lack of money to engineer the scaled-up version, and build it.
When they get the money, McCarthy et al. said that would come. It’s in their plans.

Tom Fenton