Free Energy ??

Hobbes

Thier sister company is STEORN NOMINEES LIMITED. Same address, and has filed. That Company appeared in 2005.

I couldn't be bothered to pay to get thier credit report.

jArgHA

for anyone who missed Matt Cooper's interview with Sean McCarthy on The Last Word earlier today, I have edited it out from the todayfm.com site and converted to MP3. the download is available here:

http://rapidshare.de/files/30265755/todayfm_steorn_interview_210806.mp3.html

have to admit that Sean McCarthy is a pretty damn convincing actor if this is all BS, although there is little new information from the interview and he evaded some of the questions posed by Matt. the main new piece of info from the interview is that he has confirmed they are only creating 'mechanical' energy at present (altho mech. energy can of course be converted into electrical energy)

lostexpectation

heres an article from ZDnet,

http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/rupertgoodwins/0,39020691,39281444,00.htm

PR co.. Citigate...

here somebody tries to analyse the photo of ? http://img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=analysisry9.png
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3091&page=1#Item_0

jArgHA

that's a good article by ZDNet, well worth a read

mike65

And a few flaky readers letters in repost.

Earlier I suggested that they sould submit the theories to a peer group ie Nature magazine ect. But it seems its not possible to patent something that does'nt exist.

Mike.

lostexpectation

http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/21/173253.shtml

have a read through this to see if the suceed in debunking this marketing ploy...

info on carlos luna
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/?PROCESS=show&ID=20070890&AT=39281444-39020691t-21000010c

supposedly a chat room will go up today...

thing is it might not be able to proce it is a marketing hoax for ages either let alone a free energy hoax, still its in the top 5 of technorati and was on abcnews aswell

#

Hi,

A quick comment on the ABC news story. First we have no record of ABC attempting to contact Steorn or our PR firm. We are trying to contact ABC at this time.

The points raised by Dr. Kaku highlight the reasons that we have had to challange the scientific world in this way.

Dr. Kaku is more than welcome to join our scientific Jury.

Thanks!

The Steorn Team

---

Hi,

We will be closing down registration for the 'Jury' at the end of this month. We are confident that the process will start before the new year.

However we cannot state how long the testing process will take. We will not be defining limits on the type of tests, the length of tests or the location of tests.

Our chat function will be active soon and we will then be answering further questions in a 'live' environment.

Thanks!

The Steorn Team

mike65

Jasus we'll be on tenderhooks for years to come (or more likely will have got bored and wandered off.)

Mike.

aphex™

mike65 wrote:

it seems its not possible to patent something that does'nt exist.

Link to the patent (Pdf).

mike65

Right, so if its patented why not allow open peer review?

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/free_energy_Ireland.htm

Mike.

Capt'n Midnight

mike65 wrote:

And a few flaky readers letters in repost.

Earlier I suggested that they sould submit the theories to a peer group ie Nature magazine ect. But it seems its not possible to patent something that does'nt exist.

Mike.

British Rail patented a nuclear powered flying saucer.
At least one radioactive element has been patented
Combovers to hide bald spots have also been patented

the above three have thankfully expired

IIRC the patent on GIF images has been disallowed, but the company still gets to keep the $105m it collected on that patent !

A circular transportation facilitation device has been patented despite evidence of prior art. I'm not too sure of the exact wording of the following two patents - forms of combustion to release electromagnetic radiation and the use of electiricity to convey messages in biological systems.

So it seems to me you can patent just about anything even it's obvious, or not novel, or extremely unlikely to be developed into anything useful during the life of the patent.

perhaps its more claim grabbing ??

jonski

I think it's the case that you can't patent a perpetual motion engine , so instead they are trying to patent the individual parts ? .......or something like that ......

jonski

jonski wrote:

I think it's the case that you can't patent a perpetual motion engine , so instead they are trying to patent the individual parts ? .......or something like that ......

yip,they are patenting the steps that lead to the effects of their device.

Ice_Box

It seems to have been done before...

Hobbes

got a letter from them..

23 August 2006

Dear Applicant,



Re: The Steorn Challenge

Thank you for expressing an interest in joining the panel of 12 jurors that will be selected to test Steorn’s technology.

Based on the initial registration details that you have provided we would be grateful if you could forward, by return email only, a synopsis of your academic career, including the following details:

Education/ Degrees (Name of University);
Current position (e.g. University/Institute);
Research areas (On whose behalf it was conducted);
Published papers;
Honours/Awards; and
Contact details (e.g. University/Institute department - email address and telephone number).

We will contact you again once we have had an opportunity to review all the synopses that we are expecting to receive over the next few weeks.

Thank you again for your interest.

Yours faithfully,



Sean McCarthy


Please note that we will treat your information under the strictest confidence and that we are bound, in any event, by our obligations under the Data Protection Acts 1988-2003 in respect of same.

mike65

Are you a good spoofer?!

Mike.

lostexpectation

so who is still following this,


carlos luna seems like a interesting guy with a long background in magnetics...
who has worked at steorn since atleast 2002...


sean mccarthy says the some bloggers have show up to see if they have an office, but I haven't seen any irishbloggers say this have any on irishblog.ie describe their visit (beyond nervously peaking over a bush at them)

http://www.steornwatch.com is going to interview him tmw

anyone know the investors 28 shareholders
http://www.steornwatch.com/steorn-whos-who/

after a couple of decades in the oil industry, McCarthy, Walshe
but so little details of all the previous work they mention and no other products of this company...However the various court cases that we have presented expert evidence for are all in the public domain.

live moderated chat transcript http://www.steornwatch.com/steorn-live-chat-transcript-24-aug-06-16
SMcC Of the 3000 people who have asked to test to date it would seem that circa 50 have qualifications

kzg0l1: Why the Economist? A publication not exactly renowned for its scientific content or readership.
Sean_McCarthy: We felt that we needed to make science angry enough to have to deal with us. It is working!

br: if others have done it, why have they not got further?
Sean_McCarthy: We believe that they tried to bypass scientific accreditation.

Catsmokinpot

There is no such thing as free energy :rolleyes: the only theory that comes close to free energy is the "zeropoint" energy theory, i would subscribe to that as a possibility, but nobody has even remotely found a way to extract that energy. but other than that nothing, these people are talking through their arses and trying to make a quick buck. If any of their claims were even half true they would be hailed as the best thing since sliced bread by evey scientist on the planet. however they are not.

Whole countries have tried developing free energy before and with a far bigger budget than a bunch of yobbo's from D3 and need i say with no success, partially because of the laws of thermodynamics.............

people like this are slowing down the progress of mankind with their bullshít.

jonski

An intersting interview from the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1858134,00.html

Hobbes

I have to laugh about his "Someone posted my home address on the web". News flash... he did when he registered his domain.

lostexpectation

Hobbes wrote:

I have to laugh about his "Someone posted my home address on the web". News flash... he did when he registered his domain.

he lives in fumbally? I thought that was a business address, I can't believe he gettting upset over that, he knew must have non he dealing with noboundaries news... still I havn't seen an bloggers admit to going to the addresses... althougth before blogging what would he have called these people?

jonski

lostexpectation wrote:

I can't believe he gettting upset over that,

What part of it do you find hard to believe ?

The interview he did with James from Steornwatch.com is now available on their front page .

Blowfish

Interestingly, a friend of mine discovered that he knows two of the guys working there. He was talking to them about it and says that they seem to be absolutely convinced that it will work.

lostexpectation

I'd like to hear from some of the other people that work there...

http://www.steornwatch.com/ guy did a good interview with the guy, Mr.Steornwatch is a sensible guy although he should have only asked one question about his family and then dropped it, althought SMcC does impress with his reasonableness with all his answers (and in the end downplaying the actions of his house visitor...)

what happened to this guy http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/01/23/ireland.invention/


from their forum
Suggested penalty if it turns out to be a hoax.. Anyone?
1. Slap on the wrist?
2. Fine
3. Jail time
4. Death by firing squad!
5. Everytime someone in public recognizes you they get to punch you in the face!

no- Community service - get them to perpetually run inside an oversize hamster wheel hooked up to a generator and feed its output into the grid.
*lol*

It seems that most of their fraud work has been research, and testomony in court, in the interview he names a court case they were involved in this year and says you could find more if you knew where to look to find court case info... which gives more info on what they've actualyl done which is good.

he still insists it more likley to be free energy then an unknown energy...


said he worked in large engineering company on paper and pulp machinery?? smurfit? perhaps

Scofflaw

I have to say that I think they think they're right. They are acting in exactly the same way I would if I had something like this that I didn't understand.

1. If you don't understand what's happening, you can't be 100% sure you're right, and you can't quite be certain what to patent.

2. You can't release it to the scientific community in the normal way, because it would make it almost impossible to patent - or rather, make the patent very vulnerable to challenge.

3. Were I a physicist, and approached by Steorn to review this and put my name to it, I wouldn't. It's one thing verifying that more energy comes out than goes in, but, again - if you don't understand how it does that, you can't be sure it's doing anything genuinely interesting, and you risk going down the tubes if some common and overlooked effect is at work.

4. Were I a physicist, I would /I]be prepared to do it as part of a "scientific jury" - as Steorn have suggested.

5. Steorn can't patent a perpetual motion machine unless they have a working model of it. They can't prove they have a working model unless it's been 'certified' by independent scientific review - so see points 2-4 above.

6. As to putting the ad in The Economist - good idea. They're not doing this for charity, and as well as the relevant scientific attention (which they seem to have got), they are also drumming up potential investors and customers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

I have to say that I think they think they're right. They are acting in exactly the same way I would if I had something like this that I didn't understand.

OK so they don't understand it, and their (and your?) answer is to advertise their ignorance to the world? That's bizarre! - The correct way to handle it is to get the fool who's claiming over-unity to go back and recheck everything, again and again until the mistake is found - quietly in the privacy of their own workshop.

Then ask if they're still claiming over-unity, if the answer's still yes then fire the guy for gross incompetence.

If these people can't figure out what they've gotten wrong in all this time then (they've had the device 2+ years?) then they're amateur bunglers.

Any predictions on how it's going to play out - will they :

• Disappear without a trace
• Be permanently 18 months away from 'commercialising' their invention
• Be thwarted (so close to the breakthrough) by Big Oil/CIA/Secret World Rulers

jonski

pH wrote:

OK so they don't understand it, and their (and your?) answer is to advertise their ignorance to the world?

No , they are saying that they do understand it , and they are still saying that it is OU ( a week ago I had no idea what that meant , still not totally sure I do ) and that the test by the means they have choosen will prove them right .

At this stage the majority of people seem to be going along the lines of " yes , they believe they are right , but it is due to error , somewhere ".

Time will tell .

Gurgle

pH wrote:

Any predictions on how it's going to play out - will they :

• Disappear without a trace

Thats where my €5 is.

And of course they'll be brought up by the tinfoil hats next time someone makes a pepetual motion machine.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

OK so they don't understand it, and their (and your?) answer is to advertise their ignorance to the world? That's bizarre! - The correct way to handle it is to get the fool who's claiming over-unity to go back and recheck everything, again and again until the mistake is found - quietly in the privacy of their own workshop.

Then ask if they're still claiming over-unity, if the answer's still yes then fire the guy for gross incompetence.

If these people can't figure out what they've gotten wrong in all this time then (they've had the device 2+ years?) then they're amateur bunglers.

Any predictions on how it's going to play out - will they :

• Disappear without a trace
• Be permanently 18 months away from 'commercialising' their invention
• Be thwarted (so close to the breakthrough) by Big Oil/CIA/Secret World Rulers

You have a very definite view! You're assuming it has to be the result of incompetence - you may well be right that it is incompetence, but to assume it has to be is not right, surely?

By the way, when I say they don't know what it is, I'm assuming they don't have a theoretical explanation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gurgle

Scofflaw wrote:

You're assuming it has to be the result of incompetence - you may well be right that it is incompetence, but to assume it has to be is not right, surely?

Much more reasonable to assume its incompetance than to assume its a breakthrough redefining the scientific world's understanding of the universe.

Those breakthroughs do happen.
Incompetance happens much more often.

Ice_Box

Fox news interview with Sean McCarthy CEO Steorn...

http://media2.foxnews.com/082806/082806_cav_mccarthy_300.wmv