NationStates Jolt Archive

I've posted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?referrerid=756788&t=520509) about (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522684) the perpetual motion-claiming company Steorn over the last few months, and have lately gotten more involved in their company's forum. There's been a bit of drama over leaks and bannings the last few days (more on that later) but more importantly, Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy has finally started posting there again and has cleared many things up.

Anyway, he's still posting there now and has been answering questions from many people, including me. I just now got the go-ahead from him to let the folks at NSG participate. So, if anyone interested in Steorn would like to submit some questions for the head of the company to answer, post it here and I'll relay it to him and tell you what he has to say.

This is a great opportunity, as Steorn reps have been fairly inactive lately. Better hurry, though... he won't be able to stay on all day.

EDIT: If you want to follow the discussion yourself, here (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=55021&page=5) is the latest page in the thread. Membership is invitation-only, I'm afraid, so you'll have to send your questions through me.

OMFG! I feel like a butter can dipped in a jar.

Can you make wine out of waterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?

Joking aside, ask when are they going to unveil the product, as I'm a bit skeptic about our technological capabilities on breaking the laws of physics.

Oh if only free energy were free :)... I'm guessing it's working off something similar to a starter design hooked up to an alternator and a means (i.e.: an outlet) for appliances to use the excess energy; but elimination of an actual motor (engine), thus no need for an outside fuel source? This is more a quick simple musing then a question, but I'm curious nonetheless since it seems very feasible (depending upon the loss of energy) and yet so very simple :).

OMFG! I feel like a butter can dipped in a jar.

Can you make wine out of waterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?

Joking aside, ask when are they going to unveil the product, as I'm a bit skeptic about our technological capabilities on breaking the laws of physics.

Three magnets and a coil. SO advanced. :rolleyes:

Sarcasm aside, the concept is simple enough. I could probably make a rig to show the effects with household materials in an hour or two.

1. What would be a real-world application for Orbo(name?) that would affect everyday life?

2. When will a public demonstration be held?

3. Part of the above, when will we see evidence?

I'm excited, but I have reservations.

OMFG! I feel like a butter can dipped in a jar.

Can you make wine out of waterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?

Joking aside, ask when are they going to unveil the product, as I'm a bit skeptic about our technological capabilities on breaking the laws of physics.

Who says physics can change? Because it was the same yesterday, and maybe even 2 seconds ago, does not mean that it can't change in 5 mins, right? Like, how do I know my car is really in the parking lot? Just because i go down there and its there each time before, it doesn't mean that when I go down next time, it will still be there.

Who says physics can change? Because it was the same yesterday, and maybe even 2 seconds ago, does not mean that it can't change in 5 mins, right? Like, how do I know my car is really in the parking lot? Just because i go down there and its there each time before, it doesn't mean that when I go down next time, it will still be there.

It's like if everything in the universe shrank while you slept, would you notice?

Or Schroedinger's cat-in-a-box theory.

Three magnets and a coil. SO advanced. :rolleyes:

Sarcasm aside, the concept is simple enough. I could probably make a rig to show the effects with household materials in an hour or two.


You know, along the lines of energy from magnets, I have wanted to do work with that for so long. I have drawings from notebooks in like 5th grade, where I drew machines operated by magnets and such. I hope they will show us some results.

The thread over there is on fire, with responses coming in at a rate of one or two every few seconds. Due to this, I'll have trouble posting answers here -- try checking the thread for the answers as they occur. I'll post a summary of the answers after McCarthy leaves.

Who says physics can change? Because it was the same yesterday, and maybe even 2 seconds ago, does not mean that it can't change in 5 mins, right? Like, how do I know my car is really in the parking lot? Just because i go down there and its there each time before, it doesn't mean that when I go down next time, it will still be there.

Well, can't blame me for being a skeptic. If the thing works, yay, free energy. If it didn't, yay, free junk.

Joking aside, ask when are they going to unveil the product, as I'm a bit skeptic about our technological capabilities on breaking the laws of physics.

I'm skeptical as well, so I'm waiting to see some evidence. Personally, I don't think our knowledge of physics is complete enough to say with any level of confidence that this is impossible (not to mention it might just be using those laws in a previously unknown way without breaking them) so I'm going to wait and see what results they produce.

Magnets and a coil...whazhat?

I hope they will show us some results.

Who? Steorn or magnets?

Are you asking them, Rowmee?

Who? Steorn or magnets?

Steorn.

The Orbo technology, being a form of perpetual motion, violates the accepted first law of thermodynamics and is thus regarded by current scientific understanding to be impossible. Because of this, the technology is considered a scam or a hoax by critics and most mainstream scientists.
Seeing as the goal of this company is to make money off of this product I'm going with scam.

Steorn.

Ah.

Well, as they said, even IF it works, that's just the first step. Then they gotta get it past Big Oil.

Ah.

Well, as they said, even IF it works, that's just the first step. Then they gotta get it past Big Oil.

My interest is whether it will be available for public consumption and not just for corporate use.

Are you asking them, Rowmee?
Yes -- go to the thread (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=55021&page=5) for the latest. It's happening a bit too fast to catalog in real-time, so I'll post all the Q&A after McCarthy signs off.

Seeing as the goal of this company is to make money off of this product I'm going with scam.

Actually:

Steorn announces plans for widespread deployment of its free energy technology post-validation

Dublin, 11th January 2007: Steorn, the Irish technology development company, has today announced that its free energy technology will be made widely available to the development community immediately after the independent scientific validation process that is currently underway.

Under the terms of a modified general public licence and for a nominal fee, Steorn's intellectual property will be made available concurrently to all interested parties, from individual enthusiasts to larger research organisations. Steorn is taking this bold move to accelerate the deployment and acceptance of its technology for both humanitarian and commercial products.

Steorn's technology is based on the interaction of magnetic fields and allows the production of clean, free and constant energy. The technology can be applied to virtually all devices requiring energy, from cellular phones to cars.

Steorn placed an advertisement in The Economist in August 2006 to attract the attention of the world's leading scientists working in the field of experimental physics. It has now completed the selection of its jury of scientists who have embarked on the testing of the technology prior to publishing their results worldwide.

Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, commented: "We have experienced enormous levels of interest in our free energy technology from the product development community.

"Experience tells us that opening up access to technology to all interested parties via the internet allows for rapid third party development. We believe that our technology can have a profound impact on people's lives and are confident that the delivery of our intellectual property via this type of online development and engineering support environment will lead to the rapid deployment of all kinds of different products."

Alright, McCarthy is gone... I'll go ahead and copy the questions (from NSG and from the Steorn forum) and answers now.

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

Ah.

Well, as they said, even IF it works, that's just the first step. Then they gotta get it past Big Oil.


Yeah, i foresee Big Oil's loyal ninjas trying to assassinate the Steorn guys :(

Well, as they said, even IF it works, that's just the first step. Then they gotta get it past Big Oil.

Big Oil would become Big Orbo overnight if they could find a way to make it profitable; I'm not worried about them at all.

Drop a ball on a hill a hundred times and count how many it rolls up. I got zero.

Drop a ball on a hill a hundred times and count how many it rolls up. I got zero.

You didn't try the ball with the hamster inside did you?

It seems they took shots at your ability to retain info.

July? Sweet. :cool:

Exactly what questions did he answer, anyway? Nothing with any substance, as far as I read it.

At least he'll patent it and then we can see if it has legs.

Exactly what questions did he answer, anyway? Nothing with any substance, as far as I read it.

At least he'll patent it and then we can see if it has legs.

I must admit, he deflected most with "Wait until validation"

Who says physics can change? Because it was the same yesterday, and maybe even 2 seconds ago, does not mean that it can't change in 5 mins, right? Like, how do I know my car is really in the parking lot? Just because i go down there and its there each time before, it doesn't mean that when I go down next time, it will still be there.

It may surprise you to hear that car thieves operate within the laws of physics. Incredible but true.

Lots of fifth graders with magnets think they've found a way to get energy from them. So far, all of them have been wrong.

Alright, here is the transcript of the Q&A, with all extraneous comments pruned and with the quotes reordered to best reflect the flow of the discussion. Also categorized for easier browsing. Contains 10% less fat. :p

Theories

Steorn (Sean McCarthy): Hi Rhaomi,

Sorry but I have been out of this place for a while - can you tell me your theory about Steorn now and give me a chance to discuss it with you?

Rhaomi: Sure thing.

I've only been here a short while, and have only posted one original theory. It was my first post (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=53171&page=1), actually.

Basically, I was saying that your company was interesting to me because it seemed like everything you did "broke the rules" of fraud. That is, you were not making money off Orbo, it was far too expensive to be a hoax, your company was pre-existing, so it couldn't have been guerrilla marketing for something else, etc.

The only possibility I could think of is that Steorn and Orbo were the subjects of a mockumentary in the making. That it's all a hoax, and that the documentary film crew is capturing the validation process and the reactions of the world not for posterity, but to turn into a movie. That would explain the motivation for a hoax, and would explain why so much money would be spent to support it -- if such a movie were successful, it would make millions.

Of course, many holes were poked in it, so I'm not so sure about it anymore. I'll try to find a link to the original thread now.

Steorn: Ok, I can understand this point of view. Indeed it is one that we identified very early on. So in signing up the documentary crew, we made it a contractual point that we neither profit from the proceeds of the film, or have any editorial control (the same is true for the book). Now Crank can discuss this with the film crew and indeed have a copy of the contract (if she does not already have it). Of course people can always say that Crank is a plant but there is only so much that we can do to prove stuff over the net!

Rhaomi: Now see, this is what I mean -- another theory struck down. :smile:

The only other thing that seems possible to me, and which has been brought up elsewhere, is the idea that you're somehow wrong in your measurements, or something along those lines. Of course that seems unlikely now, what with the extensive internal testing and the models that are apparently set for production.

Another distant possibility was that this whole thing was an exercise to expose the current scientific establishment as dogmatic and close-minded. Watching some of your interviews, I certainly got the vibe that you guys were getting frustrated with the whole thing. But again, the cost of any hoax would surely be too much to prove an abstract point.

Oh, and one random theory thrown out by a friend of mine: that you're all being funded by an eccentric billionaire. That just seems too cliche to me, and isn't borne out by the financial info Thicket cited.

In any case, I'll be looking forward to more info in the future, and I appreciate you addressing some of my concerns personally. :cool:

Steorn: Ok, the most probable explanation is in fact that we just got it wrong, I could explain for example self sustaining devices without CoE violation. The probability of us being right is in fact very, very slim. However it is a very far cry from this position to fraud. We have done as much as possible to demonstrate this, everything that we do is always weighed against the question of what would those who would cry fraud say about this - and how do we mitigate these cries. We are right or wrong about the technology and the Jury is out on this question!

grapefruit: Sean,

Would you be willing to deny or confirm the only theory that has made sense to me (other than your having something impossible, that is :wink:.. ) that Steorn is some kind of "noble hoax" to produce a mockumentary ... that your goal is not to profit from it, but rather to make some sort of statement in an entertaining way about our need to find alternatives to our current dependence on fossil fuels? You've denied a profit motive to a mockumentary, but ...

Steorn: Hi grapefruit.

First I am happy to confirm that Steorn is in the business of profit, profit from our OU technology, but only when it is validated. We are about what we say we are about.

nleseul: See, my view is that, if you're being truthful about everything you've said here, there's no way you could still have made a mistake. Test data can be misinterpreted, and many would-be free energy inventors have definitely done exactly that. But they've always gotten stuck when trying to turn anomalies in test data into actual devices that run indefinitely under load without input energy. There's no way you could have failed to notice if you'd tried to build such devices and they didn't actually work.

For that reason, I think the possibility of a mistake can be logically eliminated. Fraud scenarios can't be logically eliminated; they just don't seem to be supported by the evidence.

Just for clarification—I made this argument to meta on SteornTracker earlier today, and he questioned whether you've ever explicitly characterized the validation product as running indefinitely, under load, with no input energy. So is that a fair description of what the product will be?

Steorn: Yes, that is a fair description. As mad as it seems, we are not wrong about the technology, but no one should believe this at this point, I would not if I was looking at this from a distance.

Kent767

Kent767: just curious what you'd believe if you were in my shoes... you wouldn't believe it, but you agree that you've been forthcoming and thorough enough that its not a mistake..

what does that leave you to believe?

Steorn: If the roles were reversed I would be (1) curious (2) check for a fraud/publicity stunt and when I had ruled this out I would guess that you got it wrong but wish you all the luck in the world and hope that you where right. I would then get on with my life.

Kent767: I suppose that I'm no different then, I just haven't been satisfied w/ condition 2, believe me my life is still getting on just fine though ;)

Steorn: Understood - so then that gets me to ask what your fraud theory is?

Kent767: the end result or the methodology of the fraud?

BTW, the onus is not on me to provide an exact fraud theory, you said you'd check to see if it was a fraud... meaning you'd try to find proof that it wasn't a fraud.

I've not been convinced its not, because I have not seen the science behind it... And the Noether's stuff just doesn't cut muster imo.

Steorn: either or both - I am of course fascinated, we have tried to do everything to stop these theories having a rational basis.

WhiteLite: Sean, playing devil's advocate here, you are claiming you have a self-sustaining, constantly moving device that can handle a load. Unless said device was sucking energy from its surroundings, (and I think that would be breaking the second law of thermodynamics), it seems impossible that that could be a mistake. For the sceptics that would mean you are not telling the truth.

Not that I am defending them or how rude they can be about it. :wink:

Steorn: Hi WL, I am not so sure that domain changes would constitute a 2nd Law Violation - but then who is going to believe my understanding of thermodynamics ...

WhiteLite: Sorry I didn't factor in domain changes in the above idea but that wouldn't sustain a device forever. Anyway, I'd trust your understanding of thermodynamics over mine any day. :shamed:

Kent767: The end result, I could see either humiliating weak minded people, extorting money (much further down the line) from weak minded people, or extorting money from rich weak minded individuals (see. private investors).

The methodology for the private investors could be fine with encouraging people of the internet to be skeptical, withholding information from the public etc.

The SPDC surely makes a nice talking point to them, saying we have 200 people across the globe replicating this tech. (which we both know of the 200 members maybe 5% of them have the means of reproducing anything)

Claiming to have names of independant verifications of Universities (and even giving certain names to SPDC members), sure sounds nice.. but discouraging contact from a single member (other than crank) to talk to him?

Perhaps if it weren't a scam, I'd try to convince a larger majority of people to verify small tidbits of information independantly... much less likely to be a plant that way...

I'm sure many of these ideas are wrong, but again the onus is on you to prove its not a fraud, not on me to prove it is...

Without that, I have to stick to point #2 and can't move from there until more information is publicly available.

The idea that this information needs to be kept secret is a little confusing to me... You claim to have many test devices running self sustaining under load etc... but can't talk about the IP because your afraid of someone beating you to market?? (what's taking so long?)

There are a few of my issues.

Issues I have with your company explicity. You used to work in anti fraud technology, why does google not return any results for a single bank or product you've ever partnered or worked with in the past? Why the large influx of money last year, (what kind of venture capitalist commits to a company with NO proven track record?)

I"ve got more.. but this is getting wordy.

Steorn: ok, but were do we make the money in all these plans?

Kent767: you already have.... 3million or so

Steorn: Ok, but this is where your theory falls apart, the company has raised money, I get none of it and take all the risk - so you believe that I would sacrifice my career and ruin my family for a crappy salary?

Kent767: why wouldn't you? There's no proof that the extra capital you've received wont be snatched up and ran off with :-p (nothing against you personally, but the chances of this occuring are pretty likely compared to the chances of free energy actually existing)

Steorn: Ok, so I am now going to empty the company bank account and head for a warm country with no extradition - again this falls apart because if I was going to do this I would have done it before the publicity and all the money that we have spent since. Why have my face all over the net and a far smaller bank account to rob?

Kent767: I'm not sure, perhaps I haven't accounted for a much larger longer con :-p

I'm just saying the chances of this being the case (not likely), is still much larger htan the chances of you having what you claim ( an engineer has to at least agree with me there )

One only needs to look at history.

Steorn: Ok, but for this theory to work, there must be a lot more money coming in soon - from where?

Kent767: 100,000 units of a fake product? From book deals on the greatest prank pulled in the 21st century?? All seem more probable than free energy.

Steorn: Ok, now how much do I have to spend to rig a Jury? Where is my profit, all seems less likely than us being wrong.

Kent767: Absolutely nothing if the jury is faked. If its real but rigged, much less than 3 million.

Steorn: Were does the 3 million number come from??? We have funding well in excess of 10 million. Your position may make some sense to you, but it is wrong - time will tell.

Kent767:from my rear , the actual dollar figure is irrelavent, the fact that you have lots of money is still there. Agreed on the second point. Just stating why I can't rule out #2 as you stated.

I'm also running down just 1 of the infinite possibilities of different types of a hoax that could be pulled.

The odds are still overwhelming... free energy still loses out. It probably isn't the hoax i've described. But Its still far more likely imo, that its a hoax I have not thought of, rather than free energy.

Steorn: Its your opinion and you are entitled to hold it. But again only time will tell what the truth is.

The SteornTracker Blog and Copyrights

SteornTracker (blogger): Sean, glad to have you back in the forums. I was wondering if you'd be willing to comment on a couple of things that have happened recently. Do you have any comment on the potentially leaked juror? Will that be part of the update this Friday? Also, any update on Dr. Mike's visit?

Finally, this is more of a background question. When you started the forums back in August, did you already have plans for the SPDC, or did that idea originate after the forums had started? Are there other examples in other industries that the SPDC models for IP licensing, or did Steorn invent the idea from scratch?

Thanks!

Steorn: Hi SteornTracker - its good to be back ... there will be an update on the Jury process on Friday and I will never comment on speculation on who is in or out of the Jury. The SPDC concept has been in our plans since early last year.

And I must also apologize in advance for the nasty letter that you are going to get from our lawyers in the next few days.

Kent767: A letter from a lawyer would certainly make me believe it was a hoax as well :-p

I believe Infinium Labs perpetrated a similar stunt against [H]ardOCP (sending cease and desist letters) when they discovered the company was not legit.

Steorn: Well any URL with Steorn or Orbo in it is getting a letter, we need to enforce our trademarks, it has nothing to do with the content.

Kent767: So steorntracker is safe to just ignore the form letter?

Steorn: Nope - we in fact have to enforce our trademarks or it will create an issue for us down the road, I suggest that it is renamed.

Fiksu_Vekotin: That's not actually so strange. Microsoft had it's lawyers scare a guy who owned a website mikerowesoft.com. The guy's name was Mike Rowe! Long story short, he had to give up the domain.

nleseul: Hm. I don't really follow that kind of legal issue too closely, but haven't the courts usually been finding that referring to a company in a URL (e.g., www.ihatemicrosoft.com) doesn't violate trademarks?

Steorn: I am a slave of our trademark guys in this matter.

SteornTracker: I definitely understand the importance of protecting trademarks. But...
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html#1

Fair use comes into play when dealing with comments and criticism. I guess we'll have to let the lawyers work it out.

Quanten: Steorn, actually you need to carefully check with a specialist IP lawyer or run the risk to be rejected out of court with prejudice. I think that there is a long jurisprudence that in certain case (like to citate the mark) using a trade marked name is OK, as long as it is not for commercial use(*). Ihatemicrosoft, and other (company name)sucks web site brings enough proof of that. Furthermore such news make the header from digs, or slashdot.org. Usually accompagnie with grassroot effort to say "company X is trying to censor our god damned right of free speech" (**) and so on. Which in no certain word can in some case be a PR disaster, and seeing that since august you seem to run on PR...

(*) I think this even extend for example to the right to use the logo to comment on a product/firm, but I could be mistaken. I am not a lawyer.

(**) just look for older article on slashdot for example.

Steorn: Run on PR, not true, we have rejected every interview we could since we got our Jury, we are in a heads down and deliver the validation mode. Anyway, enough said on the trademark stuff, not my area.

SteornTracker: Fair enough—we know all about crazy lawyers. :wink:

Still, it would probably be good for you to try and keep them from going overboard—like Quanten says, "Big evil company shuts down poor defenseless website" stories never make good press, and half the Internet is probably convinced that Steorn has something to hide already.

Steorn: lol - I love it - big evil company - the folks in the office will be proud!!!

nleseul: It is pretty amazing what bloggers can consider a Big Evil Company™. I mean, just off the top of my head, SCO isn't really huge—166 employees, according to Wikipedia—but they still ended up in the role of the Big Evil Company™ when they started going after the Linux kernel source for IP infringement.

Anyway, you will end up big at least when you start selling the solution to the world's energy problems, right? :wink:

Kent767: you have to admit, a free energy company shutting down a site that tries to see if they're real or a fraud....

wouldn't look good to the online community.. (not that our opinion matters much), but there you go.

Steorn:Lol my man you seem to twist everything, I guess that it makes you feel smart. I have explained that it has nothing to do with content or views, just trademarks. Who knows about steorntracker, not me, lets see what happens. I hope nothing.

Kent767: I never suggested it was your wish to shut them down... I'm just stating how it might "appear."
I have no need to make myself feel smart, I am humbled daily on that matter.

The Jury Update

Fiksu_Vekotin: Since you seem to be in a talkative mood, any hints on what we might expect from the jury update? (not that it really makes a difference untill the jury reveals it's identity.)

Steorn: Well, instead of a press release kinda of thing we are going to do a video interview (its being filmed tomorrow). It will touch on a whole load of issues including the Jury.

nleseul: Are the technical specs (power density and such) going to be part of that video as well?

Steorn: We will discuss it, but they will go up on the site on Friday.

Prior Relationships

ttch: This has probably been covered before, but could you give us a quick run-down on the relationship between Steorn and FraudHalt? Also Steorn and Steorn Nominees?

Steorn: FraudHalt was a customer (I am still the CTO of the company) and Steorn Nominees was a holding company for our investment in Orbo Ltd.

ttch: Pardon me, but you are the CTO of one anti-fraud company while being the CEO of another? That would seem to be an unusual arrangement.

Steorn: First the position is unpaid and is due to historical reasons (I am the architect of their products).

Dr. Mike

icuken: Sean, are you still planning Dr. Mike's [a scientists and prominent skeptic] visit?

Steorn: Yes - I need to follow-up with Mike, will happen next week.

nleseul: Sorry to bring this up again, but just for clarity—the visit will happen next week, or you'll get in touch with him next week?

Steorn: Just setting up dates next week (have to agree that with Dr. Mike).

nichoman: This is good to hear.

Some NSG Questions

Vandal-Unknown: When are they going to unveil the product, as I'm a bit skeptic about our technological capabilities on breaking the laws of physics.

Steorn: At validation.

Fiksu_Vekotin: This begs the question...

Any estimates on when validation will come? I think I've read something about next fall, but don't know where that came up.

Steorn: I am not sure, it is a long process that is out of our control I am afraid.

buck09: have you given thought to the possible economic affects of such a product being introduced after validation (given successful)? Is there anything in place to gradually introduce the techonology to maybe ensure a smooth transition? - maybe this is too far in the future.

Steorn: Our plan is an equal access plan. Following validation anyone who wants access gets its. We will not deliver products to market (the 100,000 units are really just validation) - at the end of the day the market will decide where the technology goes and at what pace.

nleseul: That brings up an interesting question—would you be doing anything to ensure that, say, Hezbollah can't sign up for the developers' forum and learn everything they need to make an "Orbo bomb"? Or is there even any reason why this would be a concern?

Steorn: Well lets face it after validation everyone will know how it works, it will not be a secret. I doubt that it will be very useful as a bomb!

Fleckenstein: 1. What would be a real-world application for Orbo(name?) that would affect everyday life?

2. When will a public demonstration be held?

3. Part of the above, when will we see evidence?

I'm excited, but I have reservations.

Steorn: Public demos in July, the tech can be applied to pretty much anything and details upon validation.

Other Companies

Suomipoika: Did you ever think about possibility to release your findings as "public domain" right from the start? Perhaps by sending few orbos to Randi & other skeptic-clubs, technical magazines, etc. I'm askin this because this "jury"-thing sounds quite bizarre to me and I can't see how you are going to make the money with it.

You have 100 000 Orbos manufactured, why aren't you selling them already? If you start selling them after validation, others will penetrate the markets very quickly. Plus you are taking the risk someone finds the "effect" during validation and builds MORE Orbos than you!

Surely you can't licence or patent "the effect"... can you? What are you exactly licencing?

Tzigone: Suomipoika, he's said previously that they don't have 100,000 manufactured and sitting in a warehouse, but that they will produce up to that number if demand is there. And that they aren't going to see until after validation - because you know people scream "scam" if they asked for money for non-independently-validated product.

Steorn: Well yes the tech can be patented and so we will be seeking license fees. The method of getting to market has been debated again and again in here. We want to get to the fundamental point - is it or is it not. After that the commercial battles begin.

Suomipoika: Ok, one more: The TECH can be patented. How about the EFFECT?

If some other company finds another way to produce the effect (different kind of technical configuration, etc) does this company need to pay licence fees?

zet: Aren't you guys freaked out by the possibility that both Vladimir Putin and a combined Arab deatch Squad will try to contain your technology? I mean, if you're right and Orbo can be scaled up to drive cars, trains etc, these guys are out of funds real soon.

Steorn: I do not buy conspiracy theories to be honest - I do not see black helicopters outside the office (we do get a lot of bloggers though). The battle with the energy industry will only start after validation, until that point we will be viewed as a bit of a joke.

zet: Good to hear your viewpoint. I agree that until positive validation you're well below a lot of people's radarscreen. Still, as a friendly "want to believer" I would urge you to be very carefull and considerate about this issue. This has nothing to with conspiracies etc. Its called "realpolitiek" and regimes with 100's of billions of euro's flowing wont thing twice of sending in the wet-teams to Dublin if push comes to shuff. (hope I spell that right).

Good luck with the process, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Steorn: Hans - thanks, I think that we are covered.

Suomipoika: I still don't understand what you are patenting (and licencing). I doubt that a spinning wheel with attached magnets simply can't be patented. If the structure is more complicated, it can be constructed different way to avoid licencing. For me it is very hard to believe, that anyone should pay licence-fees to Steorn, or that Steorn will ever get any licencing fees.

Steorn: Well this comes down to what a patent is, which is something that has utility is novel and allows someone skilled in the art to build and so on. Have no doubt that the technology can be patented.

Unanswered Questions

nichoman:As a fellow scientist, are you open after you post more information about taking on a list of reasonable questions or clarifications? Wouldn't this benefit everyone?

Steorn: I think so, but to be honest there is very little that has not been asked and answered (even if the answer is that we cant say at the moment). But I am always open to rational debate.

nichoman: Excellent. All I can ask for at this time. :bigsmile:

Kent767: also, repost, this hasn't been answered yet :-p

Steorn: "Ok, the most probable explanation is in fact that we just got it wrong, I could explain for example self sustaining devices without CoE violation. The probability of us being right is in fact very, very slim."

just curious... could you please describe such a device??

In my experience something that self sustains ( sustain means to put energy back into itself), would by definition have a CoP of 100%, which is in fact impossible and a violation of CoE.

Steorn: Yep I could describe such a device, but is would take a long time, you could simply harness the domain energy stored in a magnet, there are many ways.

Kent767: like the perendev? Certainly that would not sustain as the domain energy would be released... Unless you consider a diesel motor self sustaining?

Steorn: Kent - what has Perendev or diesel motors got to do with it? Anyway, the point being that you can access the energy stored in a magnet and use it like a battery, and hence seem to have a self sustaining device, but its way too late to get into this now. Add it to your fraud list for the moment I guess.

Kent767: My point was that it would not be self sustaining if the energy ran out....

unless your pulling energy from an infinite sink, it is not sustaining... it is running temporarily..

this has nothing to do with my fraud list, just curious from an engineering standpoint.

the diesel motor reference was to make the point that a diesel motor can run as long as there's gas in the tank and the glow plug is hot (one could engineer a diesel engine to use heat from the burning diesel to keep the glow hot, (my RC planes work like this)

Steorn: Ok, then look at the magneto-calorific effect and see how you can draw energy from the surrounding environment.

Kent767: again, with MCE the ambient temperature could only be used to a degree, eventually the device will stop. it is not self sustaining. can't get colder than absolute zero ;)

the ambient air around provides more energy into the system, again not self sustaining.

nleseul: The key word in what Sean's saying is "seem to be self-sustaining." It might not be truly self-sustaining, but it's at least feasible to have a device that will run for weeks without needing any obvious input energy. Though of course such a device would almost definitely stop working under load.

Kent767: Agreed, a device that seems self sustaining is impossible, but sean implied that it would in fact BE self sustaining, which is in fact impossible.

nleseul: He said that initially, which seemed kind of confusing to me too, but he apparently corrected himself in a subsequent post with the word "seem."

At least, that's my interpretation.

Steorn: Ahh yes the joy of posting late at night while watching a cricket match. Ok by self sustaining I mean that a magnetic system will (appear) to self sustain (and of course not for ever). Such a system could harness domain energy or use MCE and cause one to believe that you had OU.

Kent767: OK that clears it up sean,

I thought you were saying one could have a self-sustaining device and not necessarily be OU :-p

Meta:In my discussion with Scott Little, it was made clear EarthTech has no problem with public knowledge about them, and who THEY are working with, and have even had running description of experiments in progress, as they have done with Dr. L. C. Case.

Putting aside all that though, lets say there was a firm that was credible, competent and recognized, energy research positive, open minded, etc. (similar to EarthTech) that you were/are not working with.

Can or will you answer my original question within that frame? I can see no downside myself.

Steorn: Again I cannot say anything about your conversations with Scott, but my position remains that we do not discuss our work with third parties in the public domain. Sorry but this is just the way that it is.

Steorn: Folks,

Thanks for the time - got to head off and get some beauty sleep before my interview tomorrow!

Sean

You are possibly the most gullible fool I've ever read.

You are possibly the most gullible fool I've ever read.
'Scuse me?

McCarthy stated that they were contractually bound from benefiting off of any money made by the movie. The user "Crank" has seen these contracts, and has been a generally reliable person in the past. I trust her word, at least for now.

With regard to the "bad science" theory that I brought up and then dismissed, I was in no way prepared to argue it. Other more qualified people had done so countless times in the past, and had yet to reach a resolution. Meanwhile, everything I've seen indicates that the company is following through with their claims (arranging for large-scale manufacturing and distribution) and did not seem to be in a position that would allow doubt in their device.

Keep in mind that I had just come back from a ban, and did not want to be a bone of contention over issues I was unable to adequately discuss.

'Scuse me?
Fine, you may leave.

With regard to the "bad science" theory that I brought up and then dismissed, I was in no way prepared to argue it. Other more qualified people had done so countless times in the past, and had yet to reach a resolution.
Fine, I'll put an end to it right now. In the real world 1 plus 1 equals 2. Perpetual motion demands that 1 plus 1 equals greater than 2. In the real world there is no such thing as perfect efficiency so while 1 plus 1 will still equal 2, because of loss due to inefficiencies the work done will be less than 2.

Meanwhile, everything I've seen indicates that the company is following through with their claims (arranging for large-scale manufacturing and distribution) and did not seem to be in a position that would allow doubt in their devBice.
Its focus on magnetic technology, its failure to provide any evidence for its claims, its reliance on high net worth investors for the bulk of its income, its uncertain financial history, its stated need for a lengthy external validation process, and its irregular financial reporting practices are all common features of other free energy enterprises.

Keep in mind that I had just come back from a ban, and did not want to be a bone of contention over issues I was unable to adequately discuss.
An ban there? I was not aware of this. What did you do to get banned? Ask how it works and demand more than a vague and impossible analogy?

Arguments in favor
Steorn's advertisement in the Economist cost £75,000, and Steorn has stated it will not accept funds from investors until after its technology has been validated by the jury of "qualified cynics". These facts are not consistent with a company knowingly attempting to profit from a hoax.
The problem with this is that it's very easy to break the laws of men or do something crazy and mysterious but it is nearly impossible to break a law of physics.

Instead of opening up their technology for public inspection, Steorn has pitched their claim directly to the media. This is considered by Dr Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park, to be an important indicator that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse.

Steorn's claim violates the first law of thermodynamics. Ordinary people and established scientists including Leonardo da Vinci have attempted to do this for centuries and failed.

In particular, Steorn claims to violate the law using "a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy". Such experiments date back to the Magic wheel of the 700's and continue to the present day in the form of many variations on the "Magnet Motor". It is also established that the energy of motion which one gains when two magnets attract or repel is exactly equal to the energy needed to restore the starting position, no matter how you arrange the magnets.

In view of the fundamental nature of the laws of thermodynamics within physics, overwhelming evidence would be required to support Steorn's claim that these laws have been violated. No such evidence has been provided.

You cannot extract energy where none exists and cannot create it.

Aren't they now admitting that this isn't entirely self-sustaining? He's talking about drawing energy into the system and that it would eventually run out.

I must admit, he deflected most with "Wait until validation"
July isn't too far off, but I've never seen a tech program go according to the schedule. Even if this is legit, and I'm not sure a device can both propel itself through a magnetic field and then have excess energy, it's sure to have some problems at the last moment that will delay the public demo.

For those of you that have ever been interested in nuclear power, doesn't this remind you of the cold fusion fiasco a few years back? No hoax, just some bad technique.

You cannot extract energy where none exists and cannot create it.

I defy you to prove this claim.

My skepticism grows. Considering the size it was in the first place, thats a fairly large chunk of "I don't fuckin believe it". Consider ye this - if it was true, theres no reason why it couldnt have been tested and proven by now. Try to imagine the amount of cash that this would/could generate, even if it was limited in output/application. There is no way there'd be this kind of pricking about.

I defy you to prove this claim.

Prove? So you want him to do something OTHER than science?

Prove? So you want him to do something OTHER than science?

He stated it as if it was a fact, and I expect proof or an admission that it might be possible to extract energy where none exists and/or create it.

He stated it as if it was a fact, and I expect proof or an admission that it might be possible to extract energy where none exists and/or create it.

it is nearly impossible to break a law of physics.


Scientific statements are falsifiable. In the same statement you partially quoted he stated that it is nearly impossible, not impossible. Scientific "facts" are not proven they are supported. They cannot be proven. What you should ask is for him to support it. Your request is unscientific. Science treats his statement as true until someone falsifies it and the bulk of evidence is on his side.

It's for you to falsify at this point. Show that energy can be created or extracted from where none exists. That's how science works.

Scientific statements are falsifiable. They cannot be proven. What you should ask is for him to support it. Your request is unscientific. Science treats his statement as true until someone falsifies it and the bulk of evidence is on his side.

It's for you to falsify at this point. Show that energy can be created or extracted from where none exists. That's how science works.

I hate when I'm wrong :(

its failure to provide any evidence for its claims

Wtf? It's showing the whole thing to a jury of outside/ 3rd party scientists so they can fully scrutinise it. They are also releasing the scientific data behind it very soon.


its reliance on high net worth investors for the bulk of its income

It doesn't have any investors yet.


its stated need for a lengthy external validation process,

Which would be unusual for a hoax, because a long validation process would proove it to be false. So why would anyone who has created a hoax want that to happen?


nearly impossible to break a law of physics.


Those "laws" are actually getting updated quite often.


Instead of opening up their technology for public inspection, Steorn has pitched their claim directly to the media.


Wtf? They havn't given anything to the media except from the claim, they tried to get many universities to inspect their invention but the universities refused (indicating this fundamentalist view of the scientific community).

No such evidence has been provided.


Same as the first quote.

I'm not liking this Sean guy, I have to say. Plus, he seems awfully evasive on questions where I can't even see why he would be evasive, like the first ones about the fraud theories.

Thanks for posting it, though.

You are possibly the most gullible fool I've ever read.Jeez, name calling much? :rolleyes:

Fine, I'll put an end to it right now. In the real world 1 plus 1 equals 2. Perpetual motion demands that 1 plus 1 equals greater than 2. In the real world there is no such thing as perfect efficiency so while 1 plus 1 will still equal 2, because of loss due to inefficiencies the work done will be less than 2.

Actually, 1 + 1 = 3... for large values of 1.
Ignore me, I was just reading a very long list of mathematics jokes and that was one of them...

Whilst I agree broadly with your post, although I don't agree that calling someone a gullible fool is a good idea (ever heard of a thing called common courtesy?), I say that we should just sit back and wait.
If they have somehow defied the laws of physics or bent them then their claim is truthful and we can all go home with these machines and say "yay, free energy".
If not, then we skeptics can go home vindicated and say "yay, no free energy, but we won," and then live happily ever after.

I personally don't believe Steorn, but I'm not going to be rude and claim that all believers are deluded, mainly because I'm polite but also because I'm intrigued that they pretty much claiming something which is impossible if our understanding of the laws governing the Universe is correct.
If a person claims that then they probably ARE deluded.
If a corporation claims it then it's much more risky for them and thus it'll be more interesting to see how events turn out.

Only questions:

Why are you lying to people about making a perpetual motion machine?

Are you fleecing some investors somewhere for the money you use to run this site?

Do you expect to be able to escape charges of defrauding them and civil penalties later down the road?

Only questions:

Why are you lying to people about making a perpetual motion machine?

Are you fleecing some investors somewhere for the money you use to run this site?

Do you expect to be able to escape charges of defrauding them and civil penalties later down the road?

*gives up*
Being an amateur physicist, I too am skeptical.
However, if we just give them the chance and see whether they've somehow circumvented the laws of physics or even proved our understanding of them incomplete, then we can either go 'yay' and have free energy or go 'yay' and be vindicated as skeptics.
Either way, we can win just by sitting around and waiting.

Either way, we can win just by sitting around and waiting.
Why should I have to wait? The claim that a functioning device has been made. Why can't I see it? Why all the closed door, behind the curtain, cloak and dagger Xi niu gou shi? If it really works then they'd do a public demo and pass it around for examination by qualified physicist and engineers. This means it likely doesn't work and they're just trying to get a lot of attention.

Why should I have to wait? The claim that a functioning device has been made. Why can't I see it? Why all the closed door, behind the curtain, cloak and dagger Xi niu gou shi? If it really works then they'd do a public demo and pass it around for examination by qualified physicist and engineers. This means it likely doesn't work and they're just trying to get a lot of attention.


Because you have no choice?

It's not like you will be able to ignore the technology once it's let loose upon the world (provided that it really works as claimed).

Besides, I think they made good points about how everyone else, that had made the same claim, turned out to be hoaxes so they chose their methodology carefully so as to give confidence in their product since they were avoiding the methods of the scam artists.

I don't want to wait either but I also don't have a choice.

pass it around for examination by qualified physicist and engineers.

Thats what they are doing! Just only to a small amount of scientists, including sceptical scientists.

Thats what they are doing! Just only to a small amount of scientists, including sceptical scientists.
What are their names? They hand-picked (cherrypicked) 12 to write nice reviews while looking at it through cash-tinted glasses. No public demo, no publicly available model. It's all behind closed doors and taking an awful long time and that just screams failure and hoax.

What are their names? They hand-picked (cherrypicked) 12 to write nice reviews while looking at it through cash-tinted glasses. No public demo, no publicly available model. It's all behind closed doors and taking an awful long time and that just screams failure and hoax.

No they didn't choose them. The scientists voluntarily responded to an add. They have already released a lot of data concerning the basic idea behind the invention, and all the data that you need will be released after validation.

I am skeptical too, but not that it's a hoax but that they have got it wrong.