• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Steorn & Claims of Free Energy

;)


Surely they've had their scientists write up some 'papers' on this and can send off the info for pee review...go on say it ain't so :lol:
 
Here is an article from the Times Online about this scam;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2331264_1,00.html

Quote
"The onus is on him to prove it rather than for me to disprove it. I don’t want to pooh-pooh the greatest invention in the world, but I have my own things to work on."

And another, perhaps more intriguing quote;
"The machine that could solve one of the world’s ills is shrouded in mystery. The Times got as far as a door marked “strictly no admittance” through which an animated-looking Frenchman disappeared."

An animated Frenchman? If Asterix is involved then it must be true, by Belenos!
 
So, we have any idea as to when this 'wonderful' device is going to be unveiled? Ah, dodgy electromagnets (they had a hard upbringing :lol: ), doncha just love 'em.
 
With this wonderful device, I'm sure that it wouldn't be beyond the wit of some human to build some sort of spacecraft...
 
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just needs some plasma field generators and you'd be away
 
I was hoping you weren't going to mention the cones - they still need to be machined to a billionth of a space inch. Can I interest you in a tin foil hat? :shock:
 
I had to go to a completely different provider for my tinfoil hat. My original choice of provider was, after lengthy delays, unable to craft the hat to my exacting specifications which I decoded from graffitti that I found on the Circle Line.

So...still no hard news on Steorn, eh? Dang.
 
Nah, he's sitting pretty in a geo-stationary orbit and enjoying free energy.

My tin hat is based around the now legendary iron collandar of yore - ya can't beat ancient tech...
 
I'm pretty convinced that these people have deonstrated something, and you also can't say it breaks the laws of thermodynamics until you find out where the energy is coming from.

Currently, they have no seen source of income from this - they aren't accepting investment, selling anything whatsoever and their careers are over if it goes wrong.

Apparently, they have had the anomalous performance confirmed by 8 independent people, several of which built their own devices in an independent environment. (This is all bound up in the usual mutual non-disclosure bumf and none of them wanted to go on record anyway).

Now this is already looking better than Tom Bearden's MEG, where the working model was supposedly destroyed and (I beleive) no-one else has built a working MEG.

So, either Steorn are lying through their teeth, or they have genuinely created some anomalous results from a magnetic motor and are looking for scientists to a) reproduce them and confirm it isn't energy such as heat coming from elsewhere and b) if so explain what it is.

My bets, genuine company, genuine claim, a mistake somewhere. Considering both their apparent intentions and physics, looks like the most likely outcome.

I would, however, be a little worried in getting energy for free from nowhere. Surely, if something like this IS true, it's more likely that we're sucking it from somewhere else than creating energy. And surely that energy could be integral to a process we haven't identified yet...
 
GadaffiDuck said:
;)


Surely they've had their scientists write up some 'papers' on this and can send off the info for pee review...go on say it ain't so :lol:
Click to expand...

Ah - pee review! A group of scientists standing and or squatting on a pile of academic papers... The untimate review process, really...


:p
 
I wonder if it is possible?

Would it be wrong or blasphemous to wonder if the laws of physics are outdated?
 
coldelephant said:
Would it be wrong or blasphemous to wonder if the laws of physics are outdated?
Click to expand...
Don't be daft!

Physicists probably have such thoughts at least once a day.

The laws of physics are only established according to the evidence we have at present - new evidence might require a rethink at any time.

This is the excitement of science. :imo: :wow:
 
Science likes to believe things can only happen in the way that's already been observed. I like to think there's more than one way to gas a cat...
 
Science likes to believe things can only happen in the way that's already been observed. I like to think there's more than one way to gas a cat...
Click to expand...

Thats quite a generalization and wrong (imo). Yes science is based on observation but your also forgetting that its based on experimentation and theory. Experimentation will involve trying things that have not been seen before and trying to comprehend the results. Science is also based on creating theorys and then carrying out experimentation and observation to prove your theory. How can that in any way be described as 'believing things can only happen in the way thats already been observed'.
 
Mattattattatt said:
I would, however, be a little worried in getting energy for free from nowhere. Surely, if something like this IS true, it's more likely that we're sucking it from somewhere else than creating energy. And surely that energy could be integral to a process we haven't identified yet...
Click to expand...

I actually have a recurring nightmare along these lines. I come into the possession of a little machine which can replicate things. The only apparent downer is its size which can contain something a little smaller than a credit card. In my dreams I'm merrily copying 20 quid notes folded up tightly. This machine has no power source and it's not explained where the material that makes up the new copy ever comes from. The little machine is very, very heavy in my dream too.

Anyway, it turns out this machine is just pulling out material from another dimension or some weird matter/anti-matter thing and rearranging it to match. I'm never sure as I'm not too good with physics and it's reflected in my dreams. Either way, I also get cancer in my dream through using this machine. :(
 
I think, especially with energy, a lot of ideas are dismissed as impossible because they do not follow laws such as those of thermodynamics. This doesn't have to be the only way that we can convert energy... I say convert, not create... that seems to go against the balance we see around us.

My point IS general... Isn't it possible that there maybe other types of matter and energy (or stuff that doesn't fit into either category) in the universe that do not interact naturally, but by creating exceptional, artificial circumstances, we can. Relationships that cannot exist naturally, but can be created in very specific contexts. Of course we'd only observe them if we accidentally encountered them, and even then we couldn't explain them. In many cases, we might not even know what we did to form these relationships, and may never repeat them.

Of course science is based on theories, but those theories are based on something. Looking for things that are unseen, unobserved or break accepted laws is (understandably) not really the best use of professional time or funding.

If the Steorn device is observed (by real scientists) to demonstrate the effects claimed, then science will move in to try and explain it based on those observations, trying to apply existing laws first.

Until then, though, most scientists will simply claim it to be impossible.

feen5 said:
Science likes to believe things can only happen in the way that's already been observed. I like to think there's more than one way to gas a cat...
Click to expand...

Thats quite a generalization and wrong (imo). Yes science is based on observation but your also forgetting that its based on experimentation and theory. Experimentation will involve trying things that have not been seen before and trying to comprehend the results. Science is also based on creating theorys and then carrying out experimentation and observation to prove your theory. How can that in any way be described as 'believing things can only happen in the way thats already been observed'.
Click to expand...
 
An article on Steorn from the Tom Bearden site.

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/082106.htm


The sum of these claims is that our technology creates free energy.”

It would be preferable that the latter statement have been “the sum of these claims is that our technology produces free energy.

Meanwhile, for awhile now we have also been urging several inventors and groups, highly skilled in nonlinear magnetics, to develop little “rotary toy” kits of nonlinear magnetic assemblies with just such overall asymmetry in the line integration of F dot ds around the closed loop taken by the rotor. The condition for overall rotary asymmetry is that the line integral of F dot ds around the circular path does not equal zero, but is greater than zero. That’s exactly what McCarthy in Ireland (with that Steorn unit) describes. And that “nonzero line integral condition” type of system is exactly what Lorentz discarded way back in 1892, and that our EE departments still arbitrarily discard from electrical engineering.

Another way to put it is that, in a symmetrical permanent magnet system, the forward mmf is equal and opposite to the back mmf. So in the forward mmf region, the system self-accelerates and freely gives you some power, but in the back mmf region it is self-braking and freely takes back power. If the two are equal and opposite, then the device deliberately takes back as much as it gives, and it cannot self-power anything. Specifically, that and the manner usually used for a rotary closed loop, means that the system is arbitrarily symmetrized because the fields are arbitrarily fixed and do not change.

The self-enforcing symmetry way is precisely the basic way we are taught to build all our EM systems, so that we have to put in energy continually, lose some, and get some out to the load. The only reason we input energy (such as cranking the shaft of a generator) is to forcibly break symmetry by forcibly producing an internal dipolarity in the generator. Then the proven asymmetry of a dipolarity (separated opposite charges) will absorb ordered virtual photon energy from the vacuum and coherently integrate it into observable real EM photon energy, and thus emit real observable photons continually without any observable energy input. When there is a broken symmetry, then “something virtual has become observable”, according to Nobelist Lee. The two scientists Lee and Yang, of course, predicted broken symmetry in physics back in the early 50s (particularly 1956 and early 57). So startling was this proposed giant revolution in physics -- if real -- that experimenters promptly proved it (Wu and her colleagues proved it experimentally in Feb. 1957. Again, this was such a giant revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee then awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, in Dec. 1957.

And since then, the implications of that vast revolution in all of physics has not even made it across the campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department.

It reminds me of the invention of amorphous semiconductors by Ovshinsky. “Everybody knew” that a semiconductor had to have a crystalline structure, and – so they said – Ovshinsky was either a fool or a charlatan. They called him every name in the book, etc. But he persisted, and finally a Japanese company funded the effort. Then one day our beloved scientific community awoke to find that all the Xerox machines had Ovshinsky amorphous semiconductors in them and those semiconductors were working just fine. Bummer! No one ever apologized to Ovshinsky (who is doing well and still has his website, his company, and good success, etc.). But gradually the youngsters did doctoral theses on amorphous semiconductors and post docs got amorphous semiconductor programs funded to work in them. So that’s how our scientific community “discovered” and gradually adopted amorphous semiconductors.

As Max Planck once said,

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, as quoted in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]
Click to expand...
 
Steorn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn#The_company

Interestingly

According to information available from the Irish Companies Registration Office, Steorn has not filed accounts since October 28, 2004. Under current Companies Registration Office practice[7] strike-off procedures could begin against Steorn by the end of October 2006. A strike-off would have serious consequences, such as the loss of Steorn's limited liability status. Furthermore, any assets of the company, including any patents or other intellectual property, would become the property of the Irish State. [7] On August 24, 2006, in a live chat event Steorn responded that they are ready to file the 2004 returns within a week.[8]
Click to expand...

Companies usually delay filing accounts because they are in the shit. Now they say they have a free energy machine, and just need a little more time to develop it and make billions. Fortuitous or what?

A cynical person might draw any manner of inference from this.
 
Experimentation will involve trying things that have not been seen before and trying to comprehend the results.
Click to expand...

Can you give us an example of this please? :idea:
 
almond13 said:
Experimentation will involve trying things that have not been seen before and trying to comprehend the results.
Click to expand...

Can you give us an example of this please? :idea:
Click to expand...
It's not exactly experimentation, since we can't try out different arrangements of galaxies, etc (yet! :D ), but modern astronomical observations have led to many contradictions with accepted physical theory.

Hence we have various hypotheses about dark matter and dark energy floating about. With more observation and theoretical work, these hypotheses will be weeded out one by one, and the survivors refined, until we have a new and better understanding of the physics of the universe.

(On the local scale, this new theory will have to be equivalent to what we already know, while diverging from it on galactic scales, much as General Relativity is equivalent to Newton's Gravitation when 'small' masses and 'low' speeds are involved.)
 
Seems like this is going to be a daft argument...but then I am in a daft mood so I will plunge right in.

Ok.

You have a scientist right? Scientist makes an opinion.

In order to make his opinion theory and credible, evidence is needed.

Scientist gets evidence, makes report to other scientists.

Other scientists politely ask if he has applied his theory yet.

Scientist says that as it happens he has been experimenting and has a log to show them.

Scientists look at log and copy experiments.

If experiments are all conducted in an identical way (almost exactly) and if the same result is achieved and if it is the result that the theory predicted then the scientist's theory is proven.

Having been proven it is announced as proven.

The process, as you can see from reading the above, is in fact a case of the group of scientists who the report was made to saying "I will try to prove you are right by conducting these experiments and observing and logging and reporting my findings to the group".

In other words, this can be summed up by the following;

Proof is in the puddding x Seeing is believing to the power of a group of scientists.
 
Can you give us an example of this please?
Click to expand...

Thanks Rynner thats a good example and you can also add to it the various particle accelerators around the world looking for sub atomic particles.
 
Dark matter, supposedly, cannot interact directly or be directly observed by "normal" matter - we can only observe it's gravitational effects on it. However if we have a load of "stuff" in the universe that we can't see but can have an effect on normal matter, and presumably vice versa, then we're a bit fubar'd for explaining why normal matter does what it does, especially if the dark stuff works by totally different rules. Surely, all we'll ever see is discrepencies.
 
What are 'gravitational effects' if not direct interaction with normal matter?

Which means that dark matter does work by the same rules, although we may not necessarily know what all the rules are yet. We may never know what all the rules are, that's part of the fun. It's a bit like Mornington Crescent really.
 
Nice find I'd seen stuff about the collision but not a statement from NASA 8)
 
The deadline for applications to test Steorn expired 10 days ago and no news yet.


The status is still listed as:
Pre-Phase I Current Phase
Analyse list of scientists, contact and verify interest, choose twelve and negotiate terms.
http://www.steorn.net/challenge.aspx?p=1


Press Pages are empty, stating:
Press coverage
We are currently contacting news providers for re-publishing licences. Press coverage will be updated soon.

I am losing faith (actually hope would be a better term as I never really had all that much faith)
 
I dont have one

apart from Greenpeace / Friends of the earth / RSPCA / RSPB / Woodland Trust that is

;)


ooh this is my 100th post since the servers fell over and I lost my 700+ previous post count
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top