Is this the end of the Oil Industry??

Tomorrow see's an Irish company launch in their own words:

"a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy.

This means never having to recharge your phone, never having to refuel your car. A world with an infinite supply of clean energy for all."

Who are they and what is it all about? Well watch this video and register at this site

Because of the difficulties they have come across getting the technology publicly validated the gauntlet has been thrown down to the academic community. There is a full page add in tomorrow's Economist requesting anyone from the scientific community to test the technology.

It works with magnets and is an incredibly clever piece of technology that will finally allow us to throw off the burden of oil and all the associated bs that goes with it. Bye bye energy politics, hello freedom.

More info:
Our Technology and the Laws of Physics

Steorn’s technology produces free, clean and constant energy. This provides a significant range of benefits, from the convenience of never having to refuel your car or recharge your mobile phone, to a genuine solution to the need for zero emission energy production. It also provides a secure supply of energy, since the components of the technology are readily available.

The technology is in a constant state of development. The company has focused for the past three years on increasing power output and the development of test systems that allow detailed analysis to be performed.

Steorn’s technology appears to violate the ‘Principle of the Conservation of Energy’, considered by many to be the most fundamental principle in our current understanding of the universe. This principle is stated simply as ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form’.

Steorn is making three claims for its technology:

1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

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

This represents a significant challenge to our current understanding of the universe and clearly such claims require independent validation from credible third parties. During 2005 Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record.

In early 2006 Steorn decided to seek validation from the scientific community in a more public forum, and as a result have published the challenge in The Economist. The company is seeking a jury of twelve qualified experimental physicists to define the tests required, the test centres to be used, monitor the analysis and then publish the results.

Steorn has decided to publish its challenge in The Economist because of the breadth of its readership. "We chose it over a purely scientific magazine simply because we want to make the general public aware that this process is about to commence and to generate public support, awareness, interest etc for what we are doing."

Schuhart

This technology sounds to be about things like your mobile phone, rather than cars, so I’d guess no, it’s not the end of the oil industry. I’m trying to get my head around what exactly they mean by the block is the need to get scientific community to validate the technology – presumably it either works or it don’t. If they can show us a little toy bunny drumming away even after Duracell has given up the ghost, then surely its QED.


There was an article about them in the Business Post a few months back, for anyone interested.

Firm strives to extend mobile battery lifespans
Sunday, May 21, 2006 - By Gavin Daly

A small Dublin firm hopes to revolutionise the consumer electronics market with technology to extend the lifespans of batteries in mobile phones and other gadgets.

Steorn, which is based in the Docklands Innovation Park, is raising funds from private investors to complete development of its microgenerator technology. The company has already raised about €3million in backing, and is three years into a four-year development plan.

Sean McCarthy, the cofounder and chief executive of Steorn, said the firm’s products were based on the same principle as kinetic energy generators in watches. The products should be ready by the summer of 2007.....

SeanW

If it works ... expect it to be bought out by some Saudi.

It can be scaled up to power anything so running a car is no problem. They have shown it to a few academics from some very well known Uni's across Ireland and the UK and each of them confirmed that it does exactly what it says on the tin. But for some strange reason (you work it out!) they would not sign their names to a validation. So that's what the full page ad in the Economist tomorrow is all about.

mike65

I just googled them and came back with very little for a company 6 years in business.

Mike.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

I just googled them and came back with very little for a company 6 years in business.

Mike.

Well for the last three years they have been perfecting the energy technology. Previous to that they have worked with some very high profile companies whom I will not name as its not my place to say. But here's an Indo article from 2001 http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=187&si=502044&issue_id=5161

mike65

If this were all true then the company would have been suppressed by the US government years ago! *tin foil hat on*

Mike.

Schuhart

I still don't get it. If they can demonstrate it, then they can demonstrate it. Why not just show us a video of one of their batteries power something?

I mean, did your man that developed the wind-up radio feel a pressing need for academics to independently validate what he could simply show to you.

mcgarnicle

Yes this is the end of the oil industry.... and the beginning of the snake oil industry.




Haha, see what I did there?

oscarBravo

I'm struggling to see the relevance to Politics.

Hobbes

Steorn wrote:

Steorn’s technology appears to violate the ‘Principle of the Conservation of Energy’, considered by many to be the most fundamental principle in our current understanding of the universe. This principle is stated simply as ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form’.

Steorn is making three claims for its technology:

1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

Any company claiming to have broken the laws of Physics is most likely a scam. Looks like a variation scam on the Water based energy batteries that are supposed to give over 100% energy back.

If something like this was true there would be serious scientist peer review on the net for starters.

Looking into the company in question I can find no reference as to this is what they do. In 2001 they where a "technology risk management company".

To add to that that.

Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record.

So there you have it. No basis whatsoever. Something as shattering as this where to be true there would be scientists lining up to stick thier name to it.

They are having a laugh to be honest. I read thier advert in the "Non-Science" paper. It tells you absolutly nothing and they are claiming they put it into that paper rather then a science one to get the public interest but at the same time are asking Scientists to review thier technology.

cormie

Is it just an idea or have they themselves actually powered something with this method? I haven't read the links, just watched the video.

If this turned out to be a viable source of energy, the world would be a much different place I reckon. I'd welcome any change from what we currently live in regarding energy situations (peak oil, war, money, pollution etc).

This could lead to great things. When do they expect to know the results? Surely there would be great interest to patent this technology?

justsomebloke

anybody wonder why they through the gauntlet down to the science community in the Economist as oppose to a Science journal or magazine?

Gurgle

Read their website, watched the video.
Would be great if true, but they're giving offering nothing to even attempt to prove it.

Its a PR stunt.

Their 'free energy' is probably a few milliwatts generated by moving through the Earth's magnetic field.

You can always get a paper published in a scientific journal if you make any competant scientific study on any subject - even if your conclusions are unconcludable. They don't appear to have managed even this much.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Any company claiming to have broken the laws of Physics is most likely a scam. Looks like a variation scam on the Water based energy batteries that are supposed to give over 100% energy back.

If you honestly believe that all we know about Pysics now is all there is to know then good luck!

Hobbes wrote:

If something like this was true there would be serious scientist peer review on the net for starters.

As they CEO has said 90% of the scientists they approached wouldn't even look at it. Those who did confirmed it works but wouldn't sign their name to it.

Hobbes wrote:

So there you have it. No basis whatsoever. Something as shattering as this where to be true there would be scientists lining up to stick thier name to it.

They are having a laugh to be honest. I read thier advert in the "Non-Science" paper. It tells you absolutly nothing and they are claiming they put it into that paper rather then a science one to get the public interest but at the same time are asking Scientists to review thier technology.

It's all about awareness. If they stuck it in some dusty science journal then people wouldnt take notice. And as they comment in the video to have to wait for the scientific community to accept it does not make business sense.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Read their website, watched the video.
Would be great if true, but they're giving offering nothing to even attempt to prove it.

Its a PR stunt.

Their 'free energy' is probably a few milliwatts generated by moving through the Earth's magnetic field.

So they hire one of the most expensive PR companies in the world. Take out a full page ad in the Economist. And then offer to cover ALL costs for independent validation.. Thats one expensive PR stunt

cormie

cormie wrote:

Is it just an idea or have they themselves actually powered something with this method? I haven't read the links, just watched the video.

If this turned out to be a viable source of energy, the world would be a much different place I reckon. I'd welcome any change from what we currently live in regarding energy situations (peak oil, war, money, pollution etc).

This could lead to great things. When do they expect to know the results? Surely there would be great interest to patent this technology?

As far as I am aware it is patent pending. And there is a working model built by a dutch engineering firm.

MeatProduct

It was my understanding that devices such as this come under perpetual motion and cannot be patented since it's "impossible" on account of physics. I can't see the patent being successful, can anyone?

Nick

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

If you honestly believe that all we know about Pysics now is all there is to know then good luck!

Well considering the whole nature of the universe itself it based on the laws they claimed to have broken (in that energy cannot be created or destroyed) then they are full of crap.

What they have claimed to have made is a perpetual motion machine.

At best they can hope to accomplish is a 1:1 energy transfer ratio (which is pretty much impossible too). Think about it for a second. Lets say they power a generator using magnets. Everytime the magnetic field of a magnet is hit it looses energy, as the generator turns it is causing friction which in turn is wasting energy.

It could generate energy but it could never generate more energy then what was put in.

As they CEO has said 90% of the scientists they approached wouldn't even look at it. Those who did confirmed it works but wouldn't sign their name to it.

Well excuse for being blunt I would say the CEO is lying. Does he list these scientific groups he approached and ask yourself why is it the remaining 10% absolutly refuse to put thier name to the project?

It's all about awareness. If they stuck it in some dusty science journal then people wouldnt take notice.

Sorry but this is really stupid as well. Dusty Science Journal? There are numerous science journals they could of put thier stuff into that are far from dusty. "The New Scientist" or "IEEE" are just two offhand I Can think of that would get some level of peer review.

And as they comment in the video to have to wait for the scientific community to accept it does not make business sense.

True, but when your making claims that go against all laws of physics you would generally want an expert to look at it.

Its like someone trying to sell you a banger of a car and they say "This car is brilliant but we don't feel any mechanic should look at it because waiting for a response from them wouldn't make business sense to us".

Would you the buy a car in this instance?

Deleted User wrote:

As far as I am aware it is patent pending. And there is a working model built by Kinetron, a dutch engineering firm.

Do you work for this company? The reason I ask is you appear to know a lot more information then is publically available.

Btw the patent offices have a law that states any kind of perpetual motion machine type patents must display a working version before they will accept the patent.

pH

MeatProduct wrote:

It was my understanding that devices such as this come under perpetual motion and cannot be patented since it's "impossible" on account of physics. I can't see the patent being successful, can anyone?

Nick

The US patent office have refused to patent any 'perpetual motion' devices from plans. They will however allow the patent once a working model is provided

Steorn have apparently been working on kinetic motion generators (like the kinetic wind watches) - the hope here being that merely walking around with a mobile phone/pda/mp3 would be enought to keep it charged. Whether they can build such a generator remains to be seen, but any claims for over 100% efficiency or 'free energy' are bogus.

MeatProduct

Hello Hobbes,

I'd never assume that our laws of the universe reflect the true nature of it, now that's just in my own experience. I'm utterly convinced there's plenty we don't understand and very open to the possibility that a device such as this is feasible, we just need a proper understanding of it (assuming it works of course).

Unfortunately the scientific community is a bit slow to break out of the confines it has encased itself in and radical changes (as this would be) tend to be ignored and sometimes ridiculed. I've followed developments in this field before and it's an all too familiar story.

Here's a few who have tried in the past:
Tom Bearden
Floyd Sweet

Nick

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Do you work for this company? The reason I ask is you appear to know a lot more information then is publically available.

I can confirm that I do not work for them.

Poker & Pints

nixmix is a liar, scam artist and donkey for this company out to try and solicit $$ for this company. Prob Steve's lover. He should be banned.

Provide proof. Easy to organize a live demo in public in town.

Poker & Pints

Poker & Pints wrote:

nixmix is a liar, scam artist and donkey for this company to try and solicit $$ for this company. He should be banned.

LOL!
As I said I do not work for the company. I do know some of the guys there though and have been avidly following the progress of their discovery for the past 2-3 years.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

So they hire one of the most expensive PR companies in the world. Take out a full page ad in the Economist. And then offer to cover ALL costs for independent validation.. Thats one expensive PR stunt

Sure is.
Your point?

Deleted User wrote:

As far as I am aware it is patent pending. And there is a working model built by a dutch engineering firm.

Where would one find information about this working model?

Deleted User wrote:

It's all about awareness. If they stuck it in some dusty science journal then people wouldnt take notice.

Avergae Joe public wouldn't take notice, but every professor in every physics and engineering department in every university in the world would read it. If they had any actual data to present then it would go in a scientific journal first and the press report would come second.

This reminds me of that russian guy a few years ago who published a paper about how he created an anti-gravity field by spinning a superconducting disk at high speed. He got a paper published, hundreds of people copied his experiment and not one of them found any anti-gravity effect. He was (rightly) ridiculed.

Steorn are avoiding that ridicule by not telling anyone how its done.

MeatProduct

Gurgle wrote:

This reminds me of that russian guy a few years ago who published a paper about how he created an anti-gravity field by spinning a superconducting disk at high speed. He got a paper published, hundreds of people copied his experiment and not one of them found any anti-gravity effect. He was (rightly) ridiculed.

Dr Eugene Podkletnov

Edit: Gurgle, would you mind pasting the link showing where not one reproduced his results?

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Sure is.
Your point?

That its not a PR scam. In fact for a reputable company to go to these lengths without having the technology to back it up would only do an immense amount of damage to the company. The chief execs might as well throw the company away!

Gurgle wrote:

Where would one find information about this working model?

I recommend directing any questions on the actual unit on the Steorn Forums

Gurgle wrote:

Steorn are avoiding that ridicule by not telling anyone how its done.

And then why are they asking academics to independently verify it? The thing is once an academic signs up to investigate the product they must publicise the results. Surely if they did not have any confidence in the product they would not want the findings known?

pH

MeatProduct wrote:

Unfortunately the scientific community is a bit slow to break out of the confines it has encased itself in and radical changes (as this would be) tend to be ignored and sometimes ridiculed. I've followed developments in this field before and it's an all too familiar story.

Here's what you do when you 'break the confines of science'

• Do the experiments, verify the results.
• Then publish in such a way as other scientists and labs all over the world can replicate
• Sit back, await the plaudits, applause and a Nobel prize. You're going down in history as the next Einstein.

If you don't understand why publication of a secret breakthrough in the economist and on the web, and then asking for investors 'cos you're nearly there and should be in production next year is not the same thing then you need to take time to understand both science and scam artists a little more.

As we've seen with human cloning and cold fusion recently, until an independent scientist has replicated your work it means absolutely nothing.

Hobbes

MeatProduct wrote:

I'd never assume that our laws of the universe reflect the true nature of it, now that's just in my own experience. I'm utterly convinced there's plenty we don't understand and very open to the possibility that a device such as this is feasible, we just need a proper understanding of it (assuming it works of course).

Scientists feel the same way. However the law of Thermodynamics is a pretty concrete law. If they had any actual proof of breaking this law you would be looking at Nobel peace prize as well as numerous scientific journals documenting it.

Instead we have a claim from a non-scientist who owns a company without any real past in this area claiming to do something that even the greatest minds in the Science community claim cannot happen.

I'm pretty sure if it was true people would take notice.

Here's a few who have tried in the past:
Tom Bearden

Lets see a guy who had managed to get a patent but has absolutly no working model but claims he can make a working model for 11 million and you have another where I can find absolutly no proof that his experiement worked.

MeatProduct wrote:

Edit: Gurgle, would you mind pasting the link showing where not one reproduced his results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov#Attempted_verification

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

That its not a PR scam. In fact for a reputable company to go to these lengths without having the technology to back it up would only do an immense amount of damage to the company. The chief execs might as well throw the company away!

I would say it is a PR scam. Let me tell you of a similar company in Idaho. They claimed they had created a system that got more energy then you put in (through water).

Like the company here they made the same claims that scientists had ignored them and that they were going to the public to prove it worked. They got a mention in international papers.

Turned out it didn't work. Oh they created energy but you would not get more energy then you put in (it was basically a capicitor that was recharged by electrolisis). However the company itself was a huge pyramid scam.

The owners vanished after making lots of cash.

And then why are they asking academics to independently verify it? The thing is once an academic signs up to investigate the product they must publicise the results. Surely if they did not have any confidence in the product they would not want the findings known?

Why are they doing that now publically when they claim they have already been refused? Why do they not name what scientific journels refused them? Why do they not post the details publically on thier website?

For that matter they claimed to post thier information in the Econimist but I had a look at the advert and it makes no such claims. All it tells is to go look at thier website which has no information on it either.

Gurgle

MeatProduct wrote:

Edit: Gurgle, would you mind pasting the link showing where not one reproduced his results?

here ya go

Dr Podkletnov is viewed with suspicion by many conventional scientists. They have not been able to reproduce his results.

A story from 2002 about research in 1992 - Still no nobel prize.

And contrary to the statement that he was ignored - damn near everyone has tried it - from NASA to Boeing and as far as google can tell me, nobody has had any success.

-edit- not saying its impossible to block gravity, I just don't believe that Podletnov's work, as published, holds the key.

This steorn thing on the other hand is pure BS

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

I would say it is a PR scam. Let me tell you of a similar company in Idaho. They claimed they had created a system that got more energy then you put in (through water).

Like the company here they made the same claims that scientists had ignored them and that they were going to the public to prove it worked. They got a mention in international papers.

Turned out it didn't work. Oh they created energy but you would not get more energy then you put in (it was basically a capicitor that was recharged by electrolisis). However the company itself was a huge pyramid scam.

The owners vanished after making lots of cash.

Now you see therein lies the issue Hobbes. Your scepticism (and you have every right to be sceptical without seeing the unit) makes you immediately equate Steorn with that company in Idaho. Now as I have already stated if this is a PR scam it is a bloody expensive and pointless one as PR scams are usually done to get something for nothing. If the owners were going to run off with the investors cash then they would have done that well before they spend a lot of € on this very very expensive announcement! Which would no doubt ruin their reputation and the reputation of all who work within Steorn.

Hobbes wrote:

Why are they doing that now publically when they claim they have already been refused? Why do they not name what scientific journels refused them? Why do they not post the details publically on thier website?

They have been refused, many times in fact! I'm sure a lot of it is down to the fact that in the past there have been con's, like the Idaho company you mentioned, so academics don't want to spend time on something when they steadfastly believe the laws of thermodynamics are unbreakable. In a way I guess it is academic arrogance: 'what we know now is all there is to know' etc

Hobbes wrote:

For that matter they claimed to post thier information in the Econimist but I had a look at the advert and it makes no such claims. All it tells is to go look at thier website which has no information on it either.

Again I push people to ask direct questions like that on the Steorn Forums as that I could not answer.

MeatProduct

Gurgle wrote:

here ya go

Thanks for the link, had read that one when it first came out back then.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Again I push people to ask direct questions like that on the Steorn Forums as that I could not answer.

Why link to a forum you can't post on?

Like I said, if they can prove it please point us to the actual information. I registered with the site to read the white paper but they have the site rigged so you can't view the white paper.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Why link to a forum you can't post on?

Like I said, if they can prove it please point us to the actual information. I registered with the site to read the white paper but they have the site rigged so you can't view the white paper.

Sorry,wasnt aware the registration wasnt active. Will let them know.

MeatProduct

Hobbes wrote:

Lets see a guy who had managed to get a patent but has absolutly no working model but claims he can make a working model for 11 million and you have another where I can find absolutly no proof that his experiement worked.

Hobbes, I wasn't trying to prove a point, I wanted to illustrate that I've seen this sort of thing before and what it usually results in. There have been numerous scams with these sort of devices. It is not my stance that I don't believe that such devices are possible on the other hand.

That, however, does not assuage my lack of confidence in the scientific community. I'm a bit cynical about the mental flexibility and open-mindedness of it, this is purely my opinion and I've no intention to try to force that on anyone.

For anyone interested here's a link on "free energy" devices that has a few videos to look at.

Nick

sliabh

Carl Sagan put it nicely a few years ago.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

We have the claims. We have not seen any evidence. The "no one will go on the record for us" is a hallmark of a scam.

Even Fleischmann and Pons were able to publish research for their cold fusion. So why can't these guys?

My guess, because their technology doesn't exist.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Why link to a forum you can't post on?

Like I said, if they can prove it please point us to the actual information. I registered with the site to read the white paper but they have the site rigged so you can't view the white paper.

Just found the link where you can register for the forums,it's hard to find!
http://www.steorn.net/forum/people.php?PostBackAction=ApplyForm

MeatProduct

sliabh wrote:

We have the claims. We have not seen any evidence. The "no one will go on the record for us" is a hallmark of a scam.

Well this is it. A video of it would be a start.

Nick

shayflanco

Hi All,

Just so you know Steorn has identified the issue with reg for the Forum and we are working on it - once we get the all clear will post reply on this board.

Also a comment not been able to access the Whitepaper - this is because we have to verify all requests for this - We are a small Irish tech company and we have been massively busy on this all day with different requests.

So will make sure we get everything done ASAP and let you guys know!

Cheers

S

shayflanco

Hi All,

Just so you know Steorn has identified the issue with reg for the Forum and we are working on it - once we get the all clear will post reply on this board.

Also a comment not been able to access the Whitepaper - this is because we have to verify all requests for this - We are a small Irish tech company and we have been massively busy on this all day with different requests.

So will make sure we get everything done ASAP and let you guys know!

Cheers

S

Ciaran500

Deleted User wrote:

Sorry,wasnt aware the registration wasnt active. Will let them know.

So what affiliation do you have with them?

mcgarnicle

Wikipedia wrote:

"Free energy" devices

The Casimir effect has established zero point energy as an uncontroversial and scientifically accepted phenomenon. However, due to a lack of public education in quantum mechanics, the term zero point energy has also become associated with a highly controversial area of human endeavour - the design and invention of so-called free energy devices, similar to perpetual motion machines in the past. These devices purport to "tap" the zero-point field and somehow "extract energy" from it, thus providing an "inexhaustible", cheap, and non-polluting energy source.

Controversy arises when such devices are promoted without scientifically acceptable proof that they tap the energy sources claimed. Promoters of a device demonstrate no understanding of how the device might do so; they demonstrate misunderstanding of widely accepted scientific facts and methods, in development or communication of a theory concerning a device; they make no attempt to include simpler explanations for the claimed performance of a device.

Any of these behaviours are liable to taint the reputations of those involved with such devices, and qualified researchers are therefore likely to be reluctant to make any attempt to verify or even seriously dismiss such a device until its promoters demonstrate enough competence to be taken seriously.

This is typical bs scam. Nixmix you obviously have a vested interest in this crap and are here trying to get others on board. I think it's clear nobody is buying it, either these guys can prove it works or they can't so far they haven't proven it which obviously leads people to assume that they can't.

Ciaran500

Ciaran500 wrote:

So what affiliation do you have with them?

To clarify things, I do not work for Steorn but have been aware of this for a while now.

However I have been following the goings on for the past 2-3 years as I know people in Steorn.

mcgarnicle

mcgarnicle wrote:

This is typical bs scam. Nixmix you obviously have a vested interest in this crap and are here trying to get others on board. I think it's clear nobody is buying it, either these guys can prove it works or they can't so far they haven't proven it which obviously leads people to assume that they can't.

If you say so mcgarnicle!
BTW this PR effort is all about proving it can work!!

Ciaran500

Deleted User wrote:

To clarify things, I do not work for Steorn but have been aware of this for a while now.

However I have been following the goings on for the past 2-3 years as I know people in Steorn.

Have you seen their device? Have you invested?

tja

Now as I have already stated if this is a PR scam it is a bloody expensive and pointless one as PR scams are usually done to get something for nothing

nixmix, you've mentioned this activity being expensive a number of times, but I wouldn't say its a particularly expensive means of generating publicity in comparison to say a TV advertising campaign. According to their rate card a full page ad in the Economist can be had for around 10K sterling and I'm sure that can be negotiated. The company couldn't possibly to pay for or provide the equipment to conduct the validation as that would amount to a conflict of interest. So this isnt really costing them an awful lot at all.

However I don't get the choice of the Economist given this statement:

Steorn has decided to publish its challenge in The Economist because of the breadth of its readership. "We chose it over a purely scientific magazine simply because we want to make the general public aware that this process is about to commence and to generate public support, awareness, interest etc for what we are doing."

If your looking to generate public support, awareness and interest, why put an ad in the Economist? - which would have a much narrower appeal than any of the national broadsheets or tabloids. Furthermore as an Irish company, I'm certain RTE, TV3 etc would be only too delighted to give them all the publicity they would need? (TV3 will put anyone on the news).


Why the song and dance? If it worked as claimed, it would be easy to get publicity, scientific support and investment.
I suspect theres another agenda, but I'd love to be PROVEN wrong.

Ciaran500

Ciaran500 wrote:

Have you seen their device? Have you invested?

I wish!

Zapho

Well I assume they haven't published their work in a scientific magazine because then they'd have to be a lot more specific than "We just developed something that breaks the laws of physics". It makes sense seen as how its still patent pending, they don't want to release who it works until they are protected by a patent.

Nick_oliveri

Cant wait to see then end result, trolling or amazement.... hmmm!

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

BTW this PR effort is all about proving it can work!!

Here is how they can prove it works. Post actual scientific information. The closest I've seen on the site is the whitepaper which is not freely available.

And the best comebacks so far are "You don't know everything about science".

Even if we ignored the peer review, you would have scientists working on this with valid experience. Not even listed on the site either.

It makes sense seen as how its still patent pending, they don't want to release who it works until they are protected by a patent.

As mentioned perpetual motion machines require a working machine to be shown to the patent office before they will issue a patent. Also while its patent pending they generally are not allowed to discuss anything public at all.