NationStates Jolt Archive

Beware -- thar be links ahead...

A few weeks ago, I posted about (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=520509) the Irish R&D company Steorn (http://www.steorn.com/), which had made some rather fantastic claims about discovering a free-energy device. Steorn was fascinating because it went out of its way to not act fraudulently, refusing to accept investments and keeping its members updated with the latest info on the validation process.

In the time since then, I've become a member (http://www.steorn.com/forum/account.php?u=28361) of the Steorn forums (http://www.steorn.com/forum/) and have added an independent blog, SteornTracker (http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/), to my complement of RSS feeds, to keep up with the latest info. And the latest info has been pretty interesting...

First, an update from Crank. Crank is one of the foremost members of the community, and has even toured Steorn's Dublin headquarters. She is also a member of the mysterious SPDC, an invitation-only, NDA-bound online education tool that is designed to introduce beginners to the basics of Steorn's machine. She has been given permission to keep non-SPDC members updated on the goings-on within, and this is what she had to say (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=53431&page=1):

A fortnight old, the SPDC is slowly starting to take shape.

People have quite a few beefs with the forum software. It's not as user-friendly as the software on this forum (for instance, one gets taken to the first post in a thread, then via a link to the last post, necessitating a hunt backwards to find the last 'read' post). No links back to the main page from the bottom of pages, which is an irritation. But it's handy to be able to include images in posts, attach files up to 30MB, and editable (wiki) documents are useful.

One of the main aims (or should I say the main aim?) of the SPDC is to present information about the Steorn technology in a way that allows interested parties (who may not have a physics background) to understand the effect. So far we've been presented with the first module of an e-learning course - this module was visible to non-members when the website first went live, so many of you will have seen the first incarnation.

Because Seamus doesn't have a physics background he was the one chosen to oversee the writing and organising of the modules. This has worked well in some respects, not so well in others. There's been a lot of discussion and diagram-producing by SPDC members, teasing out areas that weren't sufficiently-explained in the module. So it looks like that first module will be overhauled to include the points raised.

At this stage I'm proud to say that I understand (more or less!) the components of an atom, what a 'magnetic moment' is, and why different materials have different atomic numbers.

The modules will work on several levels. The basic flash presentation will provide information for people who are at my level (i.e., no previous exposure to the subject) but with links on to more technical 'stuff' for people who want to delve more deeply into the subject.

Never having done science or math, I approached the module with great fear. But...my confidence has grown quite a lot, I'm hoping I won't be quite as intimidated by the second module. I've asked Sean (here on this forum) if the effect will be understandable to 'people with dirty fingernails' and he's said Yes. If all the information is provided in as clear a form as the first module, then hopefully he's right.

Sean has been noticeably absent for the last ten days, there appears to be a big push on to design the 'public demo' unit, and implement/improve the new incarnation of the technology. Because of his absence nothing much new is happening, people are experimenting to find ways to identify lag in materials, playing around with ferrofluid, etc., but the experiments are quite random and scattered at the moment.

Several of the handier members are actively planning how best to organise the making of self-assembly 'Orbo kits', so that members who don't have access to engineering workshops can get their hands on the various parts required.

There's been a deafening silence from the members who are the chief suspects for The Magnificent Seven (the first set of replicators).

So far, there has been no need for modding on the new forum, as people are remarkably polite to each other :)

A few days into the SPDC, we were given the name of one of the physicists involved in the original round of testing. It's intended that this physicist will join the SPDC, and do a Q & A session with the rest of the members. This physicist is still working on 'the effect', so everyone's really looking forward to speaking with him. The SPDC members are satisfied with his credentials, background, experience and area of expertise.

Some surprisingly illustrious names have appeared on the member-list, which has caused a flurry of excitement. Even the most illustrious is approachable and friendly, and (like the rest of us) looking forward to the meat course.

So, if Crank's judgment is to be believed, at least seven people have replicated the so-called "Steorn Effect".

Furthermore, the previously-mentioned SteornTracker blog (http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/) has been at the center of a whirlwind of controversy. Since it is not controlled by Steorn, and allows anonymous comments, it has been a hotbed of leaks, with several SPDC members anonymously slipping in info that would otherwise get them in trouble with their NDAs.

One of the most groundbreaking of these secrets is the possible identification of two scientists working with Steorn to validate their tech. They are:

* Dr. Mazhar Ali Bari (http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/Magnetism/Profiles/mazhar.php), professor of magnetics and experimental physics at the Physics Department of the University of Birmingham in England
* Dr. Jeff J. Bechtold (http://www.austincc.edu/bechtold/), physics professor at Austin Community College in Texas

This is pretty big news, and possibly accurate -- the Dr. Bari leak came from what is believed to be an SPDC member, and the Dr. Bechtold tip was confirmed (http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/2007/03/breaking-news-potential-juror.html) by the minutes of a group Bechtold belongs to. Also, any mention of these people on the Steorn forums is immediately deleted by the mods.

Full disclosure: I am partly involved in this issue; I made a thread on the Steorn forum reporting SteornTracker's find (now deleted), and stuck up for him (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=53991&page=1) when his account was deleted. He was reinstated, though, so thing's have pretty much settled down.

I've also posted my "It's all reality TV" theory (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=53171&page=1#Item_1) on the Steorn forums, generating much discussion both there and on SteornTracker (http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/2007/03/czech-dream-theory.html).

In other news, Steorn is set to release an update on the jury process and some detailed technical information on the first day of Q1 2007 -- April 1st. Yes. Haha. April Fool's Day. I, for one, think it's a bit too much time, effort, and money to go through for a simple hoax.

I'll update this thread with more info when it becomes available.

I also read an article that apparently cold fusion has been replicated in a laboratory and is now classified as a low-energy nuclear reaction. It's a rather interesting time in the world of physics, to say the least. From empirical tests for string theory to commercially-viable adiabatic quantum computers, things are happening.

It was on ScienceDaily yesterday, so it might still be there.

*hopes the somehow did manage to make a free energy device*

The more and more stuff you post on this, and the more I read up on it the less skeptical I become.

Though there is one question I have, how come this is having a much smaller press response compared to cold fusion?

Even if it's not bullshit, free-energy will face the same opposition that all new forms of potentially renewable energy sources encounter: The petroleum and nuclear lobby.

Even if it's not bullshit, free-energy will face the same opposition that all new forms of potentially renewable energy sources encounter: The petroleum and nuclear lobby.

This is unfortunately true. :(

The more and more stuff you post on this, and the more I read up on it the less skeptical I become.

Though there is one question I have, how come this is having a much smaller press response compared to cold fusion?
Probably because people tend to dismiss these kinds of things out of hand...

Probably because people tend to dismiss these kinds of things out of hand...

Especially after the cold fusion thing.

I'm naturally skeptical of things, but I must say, these guys aren't acting like a scam at all. Scammers usually don't say "hey! won't you please come look at our stuff and verify that it works? please?"

Could turn out to be interesting.

Especially after the cold fusion thing.

And now cold fusion may be coming back, as a real phenomenon. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070329095612.htm)

And now cold fusion may be coming back, as a real phenomenon. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070329095612.htm)

Cold fusion would be great if only for the sci-fi nerd factor.

Cold fusion would be great if only for the sci-fi nerd factor.

Yeah, I think there are still posts on cold fusion archived from the late 80's Usenet in Google Groups...we could finally have our revenge.

My bullshit-o-meter just went off the chart. There is virtually nothing about the way this is handled that doesn't reek of a thick coating nonsense

My bullshit-o-meter just went off the chart. There is virtually nothing about the way this is handled that doesn't reek of a thick coating nonsense

Care to elaborate?
Yeah, I think there are still posts on cold fusion archived from the late 80's Usenet in Google Groups...we could finally have our revenge.

At last we will reveal ourselves to the physicists. At last we will have revenge.

My bullshit-o-meter just went off the chart. There is virtually nothing about the way this is handled that doesn't reek of a thick coating nonsense

Really? I don't see how you could know it is nonsense because

a) they are getting absolutely no financial gain from this, infact they are loosing a lot of money since the have refused all investment so far. They also seem a lot more sincere then a lot of people and have gone out of their way to make sure that an independent jury can test and proove or disproove this machine.

b) there has only be very vague scientific data concerning this invention so far, so you couldn't possibly know if it works or not. They have also admitted and stressed loads how contraversial they are being always mentioning how what they are doing should be impossible in principle as it is bending the laws of physics etc...

b) there has only be very vague scientific data concerning this invention so far, so you couldn't possibly know if it works or not. They have also admitted and stressed loads how contraversial they are being always mentioning how what they are doing should be impossible in principle as it is bending the laws of physics etc...
Not to mention that they will be releasing more technical information within the next few days. As a Steorn rep put it, they will be "providing specifics on power density, power to weight and so on."

A public demonstration is scheduled for July, as well.

I do hope he's providing data on how he casually rewrote the laws of physics...

the guys at steorn who supposedly discovered this infinite energy resourse were all prior involved in IT and marketing. That makes me very skeptical. Maybe theyre going to such lengths so that you would think why would they go to such lengths, they must be genuine. Now if its true that they violate the 2nd law, we have instellar travel and a whole new world of amazingness opened up before us including mega scale economic implications. It would be very very serious indeed so to speak, but if its too good to be true, its usually (99.999%) not true.

Two snippets of info I've come across:

* I had thought that Crank was only guessing about the "Magnificent Seven". Here's a clarification from SteornTracker (http://steorntracker.blogspot.com/2007/03/lucky-seven-forum-member-video.html):

On another note, I figured I'd call to attention the seven members in the forum that are currently ahead of the rest of the SPDC. According to Steorn and verified by Crank in posts over the last month, some members of the forum are already reproducing the effect in their own labs. I would call this the "Alpha" group, the folks that get the raw documentation from Steorn before everyone in the SPDC gets it. I wonder at what point these folks can reveal themselves.

Interesting. I wonder why these people are given special access...

* Here is the Ph.D. thesis abstract (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PhDT.......161B) of Dr. James Bechtold, one of the suspected jurors. For a community college teacher, he sounds like he knows his physics.

I refuse to dismiss this out of hand, as to do so would be an insult to science. Sure, it seems incredibly unlikely, as I've said in the past, but given all of this attention, it ought to be given the chance to prove itself or disprove itself. If we do anything else, we not only insult our intelligence and science, but basic rationality.

So how long until they will expand and give actual hard evidence about their claims?

Perhaps this is a very complex hoax. They want to see how much attention they can garner without providing any evidence.

I refuse to dismiss this out of hand, as to do so would be an insult to science. Sure, it seems incredibly unlikely, as I've said in the past, but given all of this attention, it ought to be given the chance to prove itself or disprove itself. If we do anything else, we not only insult our intelligence and science, but basic rationality.
Indeed. In fact, that's one of my pet theories for what they're up to if it's not real -- that they're trying to expose the scientific establishment as being just as dogmatic, intolerant, and close-minded as most religions. Still seems like a lot of trouble to go to, though...

So how long until they will expand and give actual hard evidence about their claims?
Steorn members are already participating in an e-learning course that is introducing them to the basics of the device. It's invitation-only, though, new applicants are no longer being accepted, and everyone in it is bound by an NDA. Be on the look-out for leaks, though.

Also, within the next few days Steorn will release more detailed technical specs; power density, power-to-weight, etc.

Lastly, Steorn will be constructed a handful of larger models set for public demonstration in July. Possible venues include London and maybe New York. Steorn reps have stated that it will be timed to coincide with various environmental-awareness campaigns set to take place that month. After that, approximately 100,000 smaller demo devices will be produced for retail. Beyond that, things are sketchy, but they're hoping that this publicity, coupled with the release of the jury's findings, will net them contracts from manufacturing firms.

Perhaps this is a very complex hoax. They want to see how much attention they can garner without providing any evidence.
Seems like a stupid reason to sacrifice a company worth millions. Not to mention the reputations of the employees. And several years of their lives.

Seems like a stupid reason to sacrifice a company worth millions. Not to mention the reputations of the employees. And several years of their lives.

How much money do we know that they spent? Aside from the website costs, what other money do we have actual proof that they spent?

And people do pretty strange things. Who knows?

How much money do we know that they spent? Aside from the website costs, what other money do we have actual proof that they spent?
We know they spent about £80,000 on the Economist ad. They've hired a marketing firm to handle their website design and p.r. Also, they are paying a professional documentary film crew to capture the validation process. Every person who has traveled to Steorn's headquarters (skeptics, scientists, the party that hosted ~200) had their airfare and accommodations paid for. There are the maintenance, construction, and mechanical costs for the various devices, which have all been seen and captured on film. They even built a reinforced room to house the largest of them. And don't forget that as long as they're carrying on with Orbo, they aren't earning money from anything else.

We know they spent about £80,000 on the Economist ad. They've hired a marketing firm to handle their website design and p.r. Also, they are paying a professional documentary film crew to capture the validation process. Every person who has traveled to Steorn's headquarters (skeptics, scientists, the party that hosted ~200) had their airfare and accommodation paid for. And don't forget that as long as they're carrying on with Orbo, they aren't earning money from anything else.

Perhaps they're being funded by some eccentric millionare that wants to see how far people will go to believe in something completely contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

Perhaps they're being funded by some eccentric millionare that wants to see how far people will go to believe in something completely contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

Or not.

Or not.

Just offering alternative explinations to someone claiming to have developed something opposite science.

For a bunch of athiests, you guys are taking this totally at face value based on what these people tell you.

Just offering alternative explinations to someone claiming to have developed something opposite science.

For a bunch of athiests, you guys are taking this totally at face value based on what these people tell you.

I was just mocking you. And I think you'll find that nobody here has actually said they outright believe what they're saying is true or will work; just that it is extremely interesting and would be great if true.

Just offering alternative explinations to someone claiming to have developed something opposite science.

For a bunch of athiests, you guys are taking something that cannot possibly be true and betting the farm on it.

We won't know if it's impossible until it's actually unveiled and shown to be impossible. Honestly, if anything scientific progress has shown us that nothing is set in stone and our theories change all the time as we discover new things. It could just as easily be taking advantage of a previously-unknown physical property that is actually completely consistent with our knowledge of thermodynamics.

So, I'll keep an open mind and see what the results are. If the evidence shows they're full of it, they're full of it and if not, then we'll have a lot of work to do.

I was just mocking you. And I think you'll find that nobody here has actually said they outright believe what they're saying is true or will work; just that it is extremely interesting and would be great if true.

Oh yes, that would be uberawesome if it was true. But I simply don't believe its true in any way. It's just some horribly expensive practical joke by a rich dude that doesn't have anything better to do with his money.

It's just some horribly expensive practical joke by a rich dude that doesn't have anything better to do with his money.

And that's pretty damn sad...although an epic troll, I have to give them credit for that.

And that's pretty damn sad...although an epic troll, I have to give them credit for that.

Indeed, epic to the max.

Indeed, epic to the max.

I'll keep an eye out for the giant flashing YHBT on their page...

South Islands, I think you're doubting just a little bit too much. The point to science is to be skeptical AS WELL AS open-minded. Being only one or the other is an insult to true science. As Vetalia said, for all we know it merely exploits a trait of thermodynamics we're simply not familiar with yet. Science lives...it grows and evolves all the time. We don't know everything. Frankly, I'd love to see this work...if it does it means Peak Oil will be a snap, at least in terms of general power generation...and who knows what kind of applications it could have? For all we know we could be powering everything with it.

On that same token, I still have quite a lot of doubt because thus far absolutely nothing has shown that free energy is possible. Countless experiments have been done on free energy and none have worked. I'm certainly not going to be convinced until they release more specifics.

But, again, as pointed out by Rhaomi, they are spending quite literally millions of dollars on this, staking their reputations and their company. No one does that for a hoax, so they must honestly believe it works. Question is...does it?

If this Orbo thing is actually real, why aren't they patenting it?
That question was posted on one of their discussion boards and Steorn replied to say that patent offices won't accept plans for perpetual motion machines.

Well, yes they will. I'm aware that Wikipedia says something different, but Wikipedia is (shock, horror!) wrong.
In some countries the patent office doesn't like you calling it a 'perpetual motion machine', but you can get round this by calling it something else. Simple as that.

So, either Steorn is lying about the whole thing, or whoever gave them basic business advice needs to be sacked.

South Islands, I think you're doubting just a little bit too much. The point to science is to be skeptical AS WELL AS open-minded. Being only one or the other is an insult to true science. As Vetalia said, for all we know it merely exploits a trait of thermodynamics we're simply not familiar with yet. Science lives...it grows and evolves all the time. We don't know everything. Frankly, I'd love to see this work...if it does it means Peak Oil will be a snap, at least in terms of general power generation...and who knows what kind of applications it could have? For all we know we could be powering everything with it.

On that same token, I still have quite a lot of doubt because thus far absolutely nothing has shown that free energy is possible. Countless experiments have been done on free energy and none have worked. I'm certainly not going to be convinced until they release more specifics.

But, again, as pointed out by Rhaomi, they are spending quite literally millions of dollars on this, staking their reputations and their company. No one does that for a hoax, so they must honestly believe it works. Question is...does it?

Science should be entirely skeptical, at least until the alleged phenomenon is observable and repeatable.

At this point, as shuttered as this story seems to be, the only really appropriate scientific response is curious skepticism.

The idea of perpetual motion defies physics. The idea of cold fusion also defies physics.

Look at the sun and then tell me how the fuck you can have a fusion reactor in cold weather. :D

The idea of perpetual motion defies physics. The idea of cold fusion also defies physics.

Look at the sun and then tell me how the fuck you can have a fusion reactor in cold weather. :D

Space is nearly absolute zero. Counter?

So, either Steorn is lying about the whole thing, or whoever gave them basic business advice needs to be sacked.

Of course, they might also have a good reason for not patenting the technology, perhaps with the goal of disseminating it to as many groups as possible in an open-source collaborative effort.

Science should be entirely skeptical, at least until the alleged phenomenon is observable and repeatable.

At this point, as shuttered as this story seems to be, the only really appropriate scientific response is curious skepticism.
Aye, and that's my point. By open-minded I simply mean that we don't dismiss it out of hand but give it the chance to be observable and repeatable. People like South Islands don't even want to give it that chance.

Vetalia: I'd love it if they did that, personally...it'd help partially defeat oil and nuclear companies attempts to stop the technology from becoming widespread.

Vetalia: I'd love it if they did that, personally...it'd help partially defeat oil and nuclear companies attempts to stop the technology from becoming widespread.

That was my thinking behind it; if it's not patented, no one could buy up the technology and hold it to prevent it from being released. It would literally be free for anyone to take and work on, and with tools like the internet you could easily have millions of copies disseminated instantly. At the same time, collaborative efforts could improve the technology and enable companies to profitably manufacture it even if they don't own the actual technology itself.

That is, of course, assuming this is actually valid and not just a scam or a clever ruse.

Of course, they might also have a good reason for not patenting the technology, perhaps with the goal of disseminating it to as many groups as possible in an open-source collaborative effort.

Then why did they lie about their reasons for not patenting it?

They claim to have been sitting on this idea for some time, gradually releasing information about it. At any point, a bigger business could bribe one of their employees (or stumble across the idea legitimately) patent it, and ruin them. Why would they take that risk? Why, having stumbled across one of the greatest scientific discoveries in modern history, would they not want to protect it?

Then why did they lie about their reasons for not patenting it?

What exactly did they lie about? Most of the world's patent offices don't grant patents for perpetual motion machines, and if they patent it as something else they could have legal and licensing problems down the line.

They claim to have been sitting on this idea for some time, gradually releasing information about it. At any point, a bigger business could bribe one of their employees (or stumble across the idea legitimately) patent it, and ruin them. Why would they take that risk? Why, having stumbled across one of the greatest scientific discoveries in modern history, would they not want to protect it?

Well, that one's a lot easier to explain: Patents can be bought, and if Steorn patented it they'd be more vulnerable than if they kept it unpatented.

Also, chances are most companies simply don't believe them, so they don't even bother trying to get the device to begin with. Why spend millions trying to get an idea that you can say with pretty high confidence can't exist, and risk being sued for industrial espionage to get it to boot? I mean, claiming something that violates the fundamental structures of physics as we know it is going to get a massive amount of skepticism from pretty much anyone who knows about it, and most companies would probably just dismiss it and move on because of it.

After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and since Steorn hasn't provided it I imagine most companies simply don't believe their claims.

At any point, a bigger business could bribe one of their employees (or stumble across the idea legitimately) patent it, and ruin them. Why would they take that risk? Why, having stumbled across one of the greatest scientific discoveries in modern history, would they not want to protect it?

There is a good point in here - if the technology is 'available', but not patented... what is there to stop someone else from patenting it?

If the idea is to stop big business from grabbing the idea ans shutting it down, leaving the patent rights available sounds... counterintuitive... to say the least.

If the idea is to stop big business from grabbing the idea ans shutting it down, leaving the patent rights available sounds... counterintuitive... to say the least.

If the inventors of a technology are known and choose to not patent it, it would be intellectually and morally dishonest to apply for a patent for that technology and all it would take to destroy those patents would be a few lawsuits and documents with appropriate dates.

There is a good point in here - if the technology is 'available', but not patented... what is there to stop someone else from patenting it?

If the idea is to stop big business from grabbing the idea ans shutting it down, leaving the patent rights available sounds... counterintuitive... to say the least.

Actually, a lot of patent offices have provisions for first inventors that give the first person or company to develop a technology the rights to it even if they're not the first to patent it. So, even if someone stole it they could sue for the rights and win them.

But also, if none of these companies take their claims seriously they have nothing to worry about to begin with. If this thing is real (and again, that's a gigantic if) they could easily be doing these kinds of things intentionally, to fan the flames of doubt just enough to keep potential industrial espionage at bay.

If the inventors of a technology are known and choose to not patent it, it would be intellectually and morally dishonest to apply for a patent for that technology and all it would take to destroy those patents would be a few lawsuits and documents with appropriate dates.

I'm not sure 'intellectual' and 'moral' dishonesty are factors likely to haunt the dreams of the oil industry fatcats.

I'm also not sure quite how efficacious 'a few lawsuits and documents' might prove to be in the face of untold billions of dollars of stern resistance.

I'm not sure 'intellectual' and 'moral' dishonesty are factors likely to haunt the dreams of the oil industry fatcats.

I'm also not sure quite how efficacious 'a few lawsuits and documents' might prove to be in the face of untold billions of dollars of stern resistance.

Well, I'm sure that when the case reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, and is won in the name of Steorn, we'll be more than willing to continue to sell our energy to you guys. (Assuming that you're American. ;))

Oil fatcats would have a hard time pulling something like that over our Supreme Court.

I'm not sure 'intellectual' and 'moral' dishonesty are factors likely to haunt the dreams of the oil industry fatcats.

I'm also not sure quite how efficacious 'a few lawsuits and documents' might prove to be in the face of untold billions of dollars of stern resistance.

True, but then again the oil industry isn't a fan of bad PR and it isn't a fan of spending tons of money tied down in court. They're in enough hot water as is and I doubt they'd be willing to risk something like a Congressional inquiry even if it is toothless.

The most likely explanation is that they just don't believe its possible.

Actually, a lot of patent offices have provisions for first inventors that give the first person or company to develop a technology the rights to it even if they're not the first to patent it. So, even if someone stole it they could sue for the rights and win them.


Again, I wonder if the situation is really so simple when oil money is on the table. We already have a situation where Microsoft can basically decide how much they are willing to allow themselves to be 'spanked', because they have the power to just shut down whole governments.


But also, if none of these companies take their claims seriously they have nothing to worry about to begin with. If this thing is real (and again, that's a gigantic if) they could easily be doing these kinds of things intentionally, to fan the flames of doubt just enough to keep potential industrial espionage at bay.

Seems like a risky tactic if the technology is genuine.

I find myself wondering how much of their OWN money, this group is supposed to have spent...

Well, I'm sure that when the case reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, and is won in the name of Steorn, we'll be more than willing to continue to sell our energy to you guys.

Because, what... Canadians are immune to money?

Because, what... Canadians are immune to money?

Well, our Supreme Court Justices have consistently done what's in the best interest of the public rather than what would possibly benefit them monetarily - and happily, our Supreme Court has nothing to do with elections other than new appointments. ;)

True, but then again the oil industry isn't a fan of bad PR and it isn't a fan of spending tons of money tied down in court. They're in enough hot water as is and I doubt they'd be willing to risk something like a Congressional inquiry even if it is toothless.

The most likely explanation is that they just don't believe its possible.

I don't see it. The oil industry couldn't give a monkey's nut about bad PR, and they are in only as much trouble as they allow themselves to be, for the look of the thing.

The top five oil companies claim high input costs all year to justify high output costs, and then declare 80 billion dollars of profit in the same year? Where are the windfall taxes? Where are the gouging suits?

When you have oilmen in the White House, and when you can cripple the country in hours by shutting down your output, and when you have those kinds of dollars... the 'rules' change.

Again, I wonder if the situation is really so simple when oil money is on the table. We already have a situation where Microsoft can basically decide how much they are willing to allow themselves to be 'spanked', because they have the power to just shut down whole governments.

I don't know, the EU's done a fairly decent job of keeping them in line. Given that this company is based in Europe, some of the shenanigans that American companies can get away with in our legal system just won't fly there. The European regulators aren't as malleable as the ones here in the States, and they're far stricter with enforcement and penalties than we are. My guess is that they're using skepticism as a way to secure their product from potential leaks or espionage so that they can avoid legal complications.

Seems like a risky tactic if the technology is genuine.

I find myself wondering how much of their OWN money, this group is supposed to have spent...

Risky, but from what I've read their business model hinges more on selling licensing to use their ideas than it does actually making them, so they don't have too much to lose from consumer skepticism right away.

Apparently, they're also losing a lot of money from spending on R&D, marketing, and administrative costs. Also interesting is the fact that they made literally no revenue last year despite huge increases in spending.

What exactly did they lie about?

Read my original post.


if they patent it as something else they could have legal and licensing problems down the line.


No they couldn't. The only legal and licensing problems would be if someone else got hold of the idea and patented it. The correct way to prevent someone stealing your idea is to get a patent. That's what patents are for.


Well, that one's a lot easier to explain: Patents can be bought, and if Steorn patented it they'd be more vulnerable than if they kept it unpatented.


Patents can be compulsorily purchased, without the patent holder's consent? Are you sure?

Space is nearly absolute zero. Counter?

How many thousands of degrees Centigrade is the sun?

How many thousands of degrees Centigrade is the sun?

Indeed. :fluffle: Although, before the introduction of certain composites and alloys, people didn't believe that superconduction could be performed above certain temperatures, either. ;)

Hmmmm. I smell the smell of male cow manure....

If the idea is to stop big business from grabbing the idea ans shutting it down, leaving the patent rights available sounds... counterintuitive... to say the least.

I don't know. Linux and it's subsequent variants seem to be mostly license free. If the owners put it down as open source in a public announcement, how do you patent it?

I don't know. Linux and it's subsequent variants seem to be mostly license free. If the owners put it down as open source in a public announcement, how do you patent it?

They [Steorn] haven't put it down as open source in a public announcement, therefore they need to patent it. Now. Yet they are not doing this, and their explanation why not appears to be a lie.

Why are people making excuses for them? If their irrational behaviour is part of a clever masterplan to make the world a better place, why wouldn't they say so instead of telling dumb lies about how they can't patent it because of some non-existent rule?

What are these?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/patents.htm

ADD: Anyone who takes this stuff seriously, look at this. Go on. You deserve it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000A0GOPA/sr=1-6/qid=1175429516/ref=dp_image_text_0/026-6899147-9691668?ie=UTF8&n=229816&s=music&qid=1175429516&sr=1-6
That's your home, that is. That's where you live.

Lastly, Steorn will be constructed a handful of larger models set for public demonstration in July. Possible venues include London and maybe New York. Steorn reps have stated that it will be timed to coincide with various environmental-awareness campaigns set to take place that month. After that, approximately 100,000 smaller demo devices will be produced for retail. Beyond that, things are sketchy, but they're hoping that this publicity, coupled with the release of the jury's findings, will net them contracts from manufacturing firms.
I hope they have one in Dublin. I could go on behalf of NSGNews :p
They [Steorn] haven't put it down as open source in a public announcement, therefore they need to patent it. Now. Yet they are not doing this, and their explanation why not appears to be a lie.

Why are people making excuses for them? If their irrational behaviour is part of a clever masterplan to make the world a better place, why wouldn't they say so instead of telling dumb lies about how they can't patent it because of some non-existent rule?

What are these?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/patents.htm

ADD: Anyone who takes this stuff seriously, look at this. Go on. You deserve it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000A0GOPA/sr=1-6/qid=1175429516/ref=dp_image_text_0/026-6899147-9691668?ie=UTF8&n=229816&s=music&qid=1175429516&sr=1-6
That's your home, that is. That's where you live.

They've patented all the components separately, rather than than the whole device. Perhaps they were just wrong about patenting perpetual motion devices. Maybe whoever's in charge of that part of the project is just an idiot.

Perhaps they were just wrong about patenting perpetual motion devices. Maybe whoever's in charge of that part of the project is just an idiot.

Any patent agent could have advised them. Still, I'm curious about the idea of them patenting various components. Do you really mean all of them - so the whole device is out there?

ADD: As best I can figure out, their patent applications don't actually involve their 'core technology'. Also, who are these people anyway? Some sources say they make CCTV systems, others that they are an e-business consultancy. Their own website says they develop anti-counterfeit technology.

Really? I don't see how you could know it is nonsense because

a) they are getting absolutely no financial gain from this, infact they are loosing a lot of money since the have refused all investment so far. They also seem a lot more sincere then a lot of people and have gone out of their way to make sure that an independent jury can test and proove or disproove this machine.

b) there has only be very vague scientific data concerning this invention so far, so you couldn't possibly know if it works or not. They have also admitted and stressed loads how contraversial they are being always mentioning how what they are doing should be impossible in principle as it is bending the laws of physics etc...

No financial backing and nothing more than vague references to data they claim exists... that must mean it's true

Thanks for the bump, Rotovia, as that gives me the chance to drop a bit of a info: Steorn has stated that it will be releasing its end-of-quarter jury update and technical info on April 13th. (Friday the 13th? :eek:)

Stick with the SteornTracker blog (steorntracker.blogspot.com) for the latest info... though I must admit that it's being pestered by a bit of a self-important troll lately...

After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and since Steorn hasn't provided it I imagine most companies simply don't believe their claims.

I have never agreed with that statement. They do not need extraordinary evidence, only reliable, testable evidence OF the extraordinary.

There is no such thing as free energy.
There is no such thing as cold fusion.

You can even get a 100% efficiency machine, anyone who claims they have done that or better is flat out lying. It's not possible, it is a direct violation of phyical laws.

Vetalia, while you don't need superheated plasma to get fusion there is no such thing as cold fusion as it has been described and claimed in the past. All fusion reactors emit neutrons because using straight hydrogen or helium is too difficult and the neutrons indicate that a fusion reaction is actually taking place. To date there is no fusion reactor that has at any time produced more energy than it has consumed and there likely never will be.

The problem with fusion is that while the efficiency of new reactors keeps improving it'll never actually get to 100% or better. It's like reducing the distance between you and a target location by half with each step, you'll start out cruising but in the end you'll never actually make it.

This company and its product are utter quackery and should be ignored. With people like these it's best not to even entertain them and their claims, it'll just encourage them to continue the attempts at swindling people.

I have never agreed with that statement. They do not need extraordinary evidence, only reliable, testable evidence OF the extraordinary.

But that would be extraordinary; repeatable, testable experiments that provide evidence that this is a functional free energy device would be one of the most extraordinary discoveries ever. This would totally rewrite our knowledge of physics as well as solve our energy needs forever.

Not to mention it would be able to keep the universe in existence in its present form forever....that's really, really extraordinary IMO.

There is no such thing as free energy.
There is no such thing as cold fusion.

You can even get a 100% efficiency machine, anyone who claims they have done that or better is flat out lying. It's not possible, it is a direct violation of phyical laws.

Vetalia, while you don't need superheated plasma to get fusion there is no such thing as cold fusion as it has been described and claimed in the past. All fusion reactors emit neutrons because using straight hydrogen or helium is too difficult and the neutrons indicate that a fusion reaction is actually taking place. To date there is no fusion reactor that has at any time produced more energy than it has consumed and there likely never will be.

The problem with fusion is that while the efficiency of new reactors keeps improving it'll never actually get to 100% or better. It's like reducing the distance between you and a target location by half with each step, you'll start out cruising but in the end you'll never actually make it.

This company and its product are utter quackery and should be ignored. With people like these it's best not to even entertain them and their claims, it'll just encourage them to continue the attempts at swindling people.
That flies in the face of the spirit of science. Nothing in science is set in stone. Nothing. Even the most respected physical "laws" can be demolished by a sound scrap of evidence. Sure, it's unlikely to happen most of the time, but it's possible. How sure were we of Newton's universe before Einstein turned it upside-down? And how sure were we of the sanctity of the speed of light before quantum physics showed that information could travel almost instantaneously? Ever hear of spooky action at a distance?

Now, I admit that until Steorn shows some evidence, they should not be believed blindly. But likewise, they should not be dismissed out of hand without taking a look at their claims.

And please, don't accuse them of "swindling" people when they've shown no indication of that.

Now, I admit that until Steorn shows some evidence, they should not be believed blindly. But likewise, they should not be dismissed out of hand without taking a look at their claims.


Many people, over more than a thousand years, have claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine. So far, every single one has proved to be a fool or a fraud or both. That's the background against which Steorn makes its claims. Maybe, in an ideal world, their case would be considered in isolation and that past would not be taken into account. In the real world, applying that principle gets people taken in by conmen and by time wasting idiots. For instance, if someone offers you the Eiffel Tower for sale, you are well advised to consider how many people have fallen for such scams in the past.

Now I'd love to be wrong. I'd love it to bits if this device actually worked. But allowing that to affect my judgement would be a mistake.

I'm sceptical, since it violates the laws of thermodynamics, but they may well be wrong. I'll wait until there's more information before I'm convinced, but I'm all ears when they release more information and get into proper commercial research.

Now, I admit that until Steorn shows some evidence, they should not be believed blindly. But likewise, they should not be dismissed out of hand without taking a look at their claims.They claim free energy, that's enough to dismiss it untill they show some evidence. It's like the physics equivalence of claiming to have an invisible pink unicorn living in your closet.