Free energy!

Gaspode

Anyone know what happened to that Irish company that claimed to be able to produce free energy, I think it was earlier this year?

Edit: think they were called Storm or Steorm, something like that

kippy

http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx
Theres a few posts in here on it.
Looks like no movement since the last we heard of it.....Havent heard anything by email yet.

lostexpectation

apparently they had a party the other day and invited variosu international forum members/public.


they had one forum member take a long visit at the company which is busy working away preparing to verify and launch the product

they said they were working on another project for water pump for africa, the person visited said she knew who the irish aid guy was.

here's the pics

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88271045@N00/

DublinEvents

Let's hope these folks can rid our world of the ever mounting energy crisis and set humanity free from battling over limited energy resources. By the way, a fusion reactor project in France is also promising almost free energy. It's magnitudes safer than fission reactors since no plutonium is produced as a waste product.

Jimoslimos

DublinEvents wrote:

Let's hope these folks can rid our world of the ever mounting energy crisis and set humanity free from battling over limited energy resources. By the way, a fusion reactor project in France is also promising almost free energy. It's magnitudes safer than fission reactors since no plutonium is produced as a waste product.

I'm hoping that this last statement was made tongue-in-cheek, fusion has been a pipe dream for a long time and is looking that way for a good few years. As for Steorn....a slickly produced PR stunt/scam at best. Why else would the CEO be pimping it in the Economist as opposed to a scientific journal - maximum exposure to a wealthier audience, thats why. Methinks once they've captured enough outside investment you won't be hearing much from them again.

jonski

Jimoslimos wrote:

Methinks once they've captured enough outside investment you won't be hearing much from them again.

I think if you read a bit more into it would will find that they are not taking on any investment . I think the worst that this will turn out to be is a mistake somewhere .

Gaspode

Have to say the cynic in me goes withhte make a quick buck and disappear theory. They're a bit short on details of what they are selling/doing/proposing.

Capt'n Midnight

Have they cancelled their ESB connection yet ?

Ronald Burgundy

As far as I know they're still there on the Docklands marvellling at their invention of perpetual motion.

Ice_Box

Press Release from Steorn...

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 purpose 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 publshing 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 intellctual property via this type of online development and engineering support environment will lead to the rapid deployment of all kinds of different products."

Ice_Box

Their discussion board has thousands of members only too willing to pay this nominal fee what ever it will be.

jonski

Kinda gives it an open source feel to it .

Dave!

Have these people changed the world yet, or what?

Ice_Box

I visit their discussion board every now and then; here is what I can work out...

The technology is to be called ORBO which stands for nothing in particular. They chose it because they already owned the domain orbo.com and they think it’s kind of cool or something.

They have updated their website. It’s now worth a visit.
www.steorn.com

Their development club (The Spud Club) went live a few days ago. This gives some forum members access to some of their secrets and allows them to build their own devices to test the Orbo effect. Members have to sign an NDA. They have been given permission to enter some competition where the prize is one million dollars.

They claim to have made an order for 100,000 "toys" to demonstrate the "Orbo" effect. This perpetual motion machine will be available later this year and could be expensive.

They will demo their device around the world on July 7th which is the day of Al Gores concerts.

The Jury of Twelve which started its work in January have made no statements and are thought to be working away on their thermodynamic analysis and whatnot.

At the end of Quarter 1 (ie April 1st) they claim they will make some technical details known "providing specifics on power density, power to weight and so on."

To summarise, there is still no proof of anything.

Jimoslimos

Ice_Box wrote:

Members have to sign an NDA.

No problem then, since I'd imagine there's feck all to disclose

Ghost Train

Ice_Box wrote:

At the end of Quarter 1 (ie April 1st) they claim they will make some technical details known "providing specifics on power density, power to weight and so on."

April 1st lol

Gaspode

Ice_Box wrote:

At the end of Quarter 1 (ie April 1st) they claim they will make some technical details known "providing specifics on power density, power to weight and so on."

To summarise, there is still no proof of anything.

I've had a look around the site today. much ado about nothing really - all very slick and well presented, but in essence they are talking about nothing. There is no product, so service, no promise that you can actually graps from their technomarketing pseudo-sciene blurb.
How sad to spend that much money on trying to sell nothing.
When I grow up I'd prefer to have a real job.

jonski

So why do you think they have spent so much money ?

Ice_Box

Video update from Steorn...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3aaRrEIp-0

jonski

Nothng new really and still no evidence of them having anything .

DrFunkenstein

Aye most likely charlatans, although hopefully not ehh..

The only way I can see for viable (well after the initial outlay and regular maintance costs) free energy (not Zero Point) would be wind turbines generating to perform electrolysis on water, collecting and burning the hydrogen produced..

it would be a self sustaining system, assuming it was wet and windy :rolleyes:


If anyone could knock up designs, specifications and design the processes needed so I can build a system to do this, t'would be much appreciated

Dr.F

cavedave

Magnetic forces do no work
http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/04/magnetic-fields-do-no-work.html

jonski

cavedave wrote:

Magnetic forces do no work

or so says that blogger

Son Goku

jonski wrote:

or so says that blogger

And James Clark Maxwell and every experiment and technology ever. They do no work.

cavedave

What have these maxwells equations ever done for me? Most of the arguments for free energy devices seem to be
A: it does not work according to known laws of physics. But plug it into the national grid and become an instant zillionaire proving me wrong
B: I know my perpetual motion machine generates electricity but I have not bothered to plug it into the national grid because then the fillings in my teeth are part of a big oil conspiracy.

It is quite sad because there are many areas of interesting research that people are scared to go near because they will be labelled a crank. For example there does seem to be an effect on time of birth and personality but research into this based on light, diet etc is shown to "proves astrology" so it is an area that is commonly ignored. There are many "cold fusion" techniques where a very small area is made very hot indeed, but you cannot study cold fusion so you have to call it table top fusion instead.

Professor_Fink

cavedave wrote:

Magnetic forces do no work

That largely depends on your perspective. Feynman has an interesting discussion about why magnets get pulled together in one of his books.

Professor_Fink

cavedave wrote:

What have these maxwells equations ever done for me? Most of the arguments for free energy devices seem to be
A: it does not work according to known laws of physics. But plug it into the national grid and become an instant zillionaire proving me wrong
B: I know my perpetual motion machine generates electricity but I have not bothered to plug it into the national grid because then the fillings in my teeth are part of a big oil conspiracy.

It is quite sad because there are many areas of interesting research that people are scared to go near because they will be labelled a crank.

What makes a crank is not a claim that they have discovered some new phenomena in an area that has not been studied before, but rather a claim that they have discovered a phenomena is a regime that has been studied intensively and thoroughly and no such effect has every been observed.

We know the physics of how magnetic fields behave and interact with matter for the types of energy scales, and space time curvature that we find in a lab. You _cannot_ find a way to build a perpetual motion machine like this, as the physics which we know govern it do not allow for nonconservation of energy.

If you said that energy might not be conserved on the scale of a Planck length in the vicicity of a gravitational singularity for particles with energy more that10^100 Joules, then that would be a different story. We've never been able to do experiments in that regime, so we cannot absolutely rule it out.

Son Goku

cavedave wrote:

What have these maxwells equations ever done for me?

There the basis for all modern technology. Especially the entire computing and communications industry. In fact they probably, in terms of profit, the single most fruitful piece of mathematics ever.

bonkey

cavedave wrote:

It is quite sad because there are many areas of interesting research that people are scared to go near because they will be labelled a crank.

Thats not entirely true. People won't go near it because they won't get funding for it and then complain vociverously. These complaints they make themselves are typically where the reason "labelled a crank" comes from.

For example there does seem to be an effect on time of birth and personality but research into this based on light, diet etc is shown to "proves astrology" so it is an area that is commonly ignored.

Any time someone uses the term "prove" in relation to a non-scientific field, whilst discussing science, you can safely assume they are misrepresenting something. Science doesn't prove anything.

Furthermore, even the allegation that there seems to be this correlation suggests that study has been done. How else could this claim be made? Well, it could be a completely baseless "I think the correlation exists" claim, which would be akin to someone saying "I think there is an actual basis to some of this astrology stuff and would like to have research funded to look into it". In such a case, yes, you will get ignored by mainstream science.

There are many "cold fusion" techniques where a very small area is made very hot indeed, but you cannot study cold fusion so you have to call it table top fusion instead.

And? Renaming something means you get to do the research.

Its an important point, though, because it can be compared to your first one.

"I think there is a basis behind astrology" gets renamed to "there appears to be an influence by light conditions, time of birth, various other factors, and the resultant personality" and still doesn't get funding.

Stuff-that-isn't-cold-fusion gets renamed to something-other-than-cold-fusion and does get funding.

This would suggest that the "rename to get funding" hypothesis is incomplete or incorrect. Similarly, the "labelled a crank" hypothesis.

What makes the Steorn guys cranks (in my book) is the completely unorthodox way in which they have set about trying to gain "scientific acceptability". They claim that no-one would touch their stuff with a bargepole for peer-review because of this same alleged fringe-science-bias. Then , having gotten the publicity, by their own admission there were no shortage of scientists actually saying "sure, I'll quite happily review it".

Did Steorn turn around and say "I guess we were wrong, we can actually find people willing to scientifically validate our work"??? No, they didn't.

They instead established a system of (alleged) validation where they (allegedly) hand-picked the reviewers from amongst the (alleged) list of applicants, got them to sign NDAs, only allow (alleged) findings to flow back through their own publicity channels.

I deliberately use the term alleged repeatedly above, because the claims cannot be verified at this time. Steorn themselves are the single source of information regarding these claims. Given that what is at stake in the first place is Steorn's credibility, they are one source who's information cannot be accepted without verification.

Now here's the thing....

Lets assume that sometime in the coming years, Steorn actually deliver the goods, turn science on its head, and deliver clean free energy for all. I will be absolutely delighted to be wrong but will argue that my skeptical position was still the right oen to take and will be right far more often than it is wrong.

I'm pretty sure that their supporters, or those repeating some contentless mantra like "keep an open mind" will feel the same should they be wrong - that they're right to consistently lend their support to all of these claims, and as each one falls, they're right to "keep an open mind" when the next one comes along, because sooner or later one of them will pan out.

If only I could play poker against people taking that mindset. "Hey, I've got nothing, but you know, until the last card falls and I see that I've lost, its possible that I have the best hand, so I'm right to keep putting money in the pot".

And before you argue that there's a difference between putting money into something and believing it may have merit, I agree, there is. People not willing to put money into something don't really believe in it.

Many are just not willing to stand by their lack of belief, preferring instead to criticise others (like those who fund science) for not putting their money into something they don't believe in either.

Its simple. If you believe in the likes of Steorn, then find a way that you can given them your money rather than complaining that science is unfairly stacked against funding such people.

If you think you have better things to do with your money...well...what exactly is it that you're complaining about?

cavedave

There the basis for all modern technology. Especially the entire computing and communications industry. In fact they probably, in terms of profit, the single most fruitful piece of mathematics ever.

My contention that Maxwells equations had never done anything for me was not intended to be taken seriously.

bonkey good points well made

This would suggest that the "rename to get funding" hypothesis is incomplete or incorrect.

There are some examples of this phenonomen. For example the study of cancer causing viruses. Papers in the past have made attempts to make sure they did not mention viruses explicitly inorder to try get funding.

Tabletop fusion does get funding
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040303080222.htm
Effects of the environment on pregnancy does get some research
http://www.newstarget.com/021742.html
but probably not as much as it should.

Ice_Box

Those of you intrested in following the Steorn story might be interested in this excellent blog...

http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/

The blogger reads the forum and writes about the interesting things that are happening over there. Saves you having to read through all the tinfoil hat stuff.

m3hm3t

as some body said, france also has projects about free energy, i also heart same story from 2 or 3 turkish enerjy firms, one is with magnets and wind, other one is with small bit energy(lika generating 220 watt from 1 watt with a device) other one is using some different kind of batterys for house or others, there is one metarial used in almost everything , it is called bor or baron, turkey has 90 % of it in the world, and they are making batterys from it for house and factorys whic is promising 90% saving from electrcy bills, and turkish company making it called vestel, maybe one of you heard this, or there international name SEG i think , if anybody wants more info about them, i can check there websites, they are also waiting for validation from goverment,

cavedave

Another day another free energy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI

http://www.wpbf.com/news/13383827/detail.html

Who knew breaking the second law of thermodynamics could be so easy?:D

What seems to be happening here is microwaves heat up the water enough to release the hydrogen which then burns. Does this sound right? What sort of effiecency could this have?

m3hm3t

it is not free energy , how many watts does his RF generator consume to make hydrogen?

cavedave

it is not free energy

hence the sarcastic

Who knew breaking the second law of thermodynamics could be so easy?

how many watts does his RF generator consume to make hydrogen?

or in other words

What sort of effiecency could this have?

mathias

By the looks of things Steorns idea could be based on this ,

http://www.cheniere.org/

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/010702a.htm


Barking mad or what ?

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/010702a.htm

And how come Tesla keeps getting brought into these things , so many of these Sci Fi theorys keep dragging his name into it ?

This is the patent ( Beardens not Steorns ) and has a description along with an electrical circuit and timings ,

http://www.cheniere.org/references/MEG_Patent.pdf

Ice_Box

Steorn news.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfqlojgbcw/


Irish firm to put free-energy machine on display today
04/07/2007 - 08:20:59

The Irish company which claims to have designed a machine that creates energy from thin air is due to put the technology on display today.

Steorn claims its Orba device uses the interaction of magnetic fields to generate a constant source of free and clean energy.

If true, the technology would defy the laws of physics.

It is currently being tested by 22 of the world's top scientists, who are expected to conclude their review sometime next year.

In the meantime, Steorn is putting the Orba on display in London and on the Internet later today.

---

I thought it was called Orbo and not Orba. I simply have to see this demo though. Im going to London.

cavedave

Hopefully this demonstration does not kill anyone (that has happened before)

Tar.Aldarion

Ooh, interested to hear more about what they intend to come out with.

Ice_Box

RTE NEWS..

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0704/steorn.html

cavedave

These clowns demonstration did not work today. They blamed the heat of lights rather then the second law of thermodynamics.

Does anyone else think this is probably some sort of performance art project? A Marxist critique of the gullibility of the media or some such?

oscarBravo

cavedave

I have a question about breaking scientific laws. You cannot as far as I have been told. But take Newtons laws of motion. Why is plutonium allowed to break this? When you combine two subcritical masses of plutonium quickly the reaction is alot more then "equal and opposite".

How is it that this can be explained? presumably it is something to do with the reaction still being equal and opposite mechanical effect but being overtaken by a nuclear reaction. How is this "breaking" of physical laws allowed?

bonkey

cavedave wrote:

I have a question about breaking scientific laws. You cannot as far as I have been told.

You've been told wrong.

But take Newtons laws of motion. Why is plutonium allowed to break this? When you combine two subcritical masses of plutonium quickly the reaction is alot more then "equal and opposite". How is it that this can be explained? presumably it is something to do with the reaction still being equal and opposite mechanical effect but being overtaken by a nuclear reaction. How is this "breaking" of physical laws allowed?

While I'm not entirely sure that yoru example is a violation of the laws you mention, we know that Newtonian physics is - strictly speaking - incorrect.

To be more accurate, Newtonian physics give us a relatively accurate model within certain boundaries and tolerances. This is good enough, for example, to build a car, but probably not to put a satellite into orbit.

That we generally refer to Newtonian Physics as "Newton's Laws" is just a form of nomenclature.

I was reading an article from SciAm recently, where I came across what is perhaps the best clarification of this point I have seen yet:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Taking the comment about what a law is, I am then prompted to remember a comment I first heard from Rvd. Ian Paisley to the effect that "all generalisations are suspect".

Finally, I would point out that we have no way of enforcing laws, nor of being 100% certain that they are enforced. We can be almost 100% certain that within certain boundaries and so forth that they hold true, but thats about it.

If I say that there is Bonkey's Law which states that in any scientific conversation, terminology will be misused at least once, does this mean that it must happen? Just because I said its a Law? What if it became a widespread, accepted generalisation (like the more-well-known Godwin's Law)? Does this make it true?

In science, the very idea of 100% certainty of positives cannot exist. I believe we can be 100% positive that something is not the case, but that anyone who states positive with 100% certainty is over-reaching at least slightly.

Ultimately, I think thats partly because of my background in Applied Mathematics. In pure mathematics, we can be 100% certain of certain things. However, this requires that we define clearly all influences. If I say that the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees, I could be wrong. If I say it holds true on a Cartesian plane, then (unless my memory is fading or I've forgotten something) I cannot be wrong. In the real world, however, everything in science is based on observation (and thus, to a degree on assumption) rather than declaration. We cannot declare that things are the way we need them to be, we can show that they very much appear to be that way, and on the assumption that our interpretation of this appearance is accurate, we can then go on to draw conclusions.

But there's always those assumptions, no matter how tiny we consider the possibility of them being (even slightly) wrong to be.

Thus, if you've been told you cannot break scientific laws, you were told wrong. You cannot break the laws of physics. However, whether our stated laws of physics are the actual laws of physics is something we cannot state with 100% absolute certainty.

Going slightly further...lest someone think I'm supporting Steorn here...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. What we understand to be the laws of physics are - if not 100% certain - extraordinarily well tested within the boundaries that are currently possible. What Steorn are claiming is that we got it wrong. The possibility that they have found something exists...but it will not be accepted until and unless they credibly establish their claim to the satisfaction of those they are saying are wrong. Thats they way science works.

If someone has an idea of what might be the "trick", then the onus is on Steorn to show that this person is wrong. Note - they have to show, not merely state, that this person is wrong.

For example, if someone says "they're just using a magnetic motor", they can't say "no, we're not", but rather they have to allow third-party, independant validation by anyone who cares to test this claim.

Thats how it works. Science is where it is because modern science has taken this champion/challenger model to extraordinary lengths. Steorn are not playing that game. They're hiding their validation process rather than making it as open as possible. They're explainaing that with reasons that are simply not acceptable to the scientific community. The way in which they approach this is the same as many scam artists who've tried to make a quick buck from similar claims in the past.

So yes, Steorn could be right. They may have found something. But the correct position of the scientific community should be "convince me" and Steorn refuse to do that, seeking some sort of public acceptance instead. Thus, the odds of the skeptical scientific position being correct that this is not the real deal are increased.

My current guess is that Steorn will soon declare that they've run out of funds, and that this "best hope for mankind" will unfortunately never see the light of day unless they abandon their previous position of "no funding till we've proven ourselves", and will "reluctantly" seek outside investment to bring this revolutionary product to market. This will be necessitated in part by the unforseen technical problems that their current "demonstration" encountered.

cavedave

That makes sense thanks for the clarification.

On a side note Godwin's Law is a non falsifiable hypothesis. To disprove it you would need and infinitely long internet forum thread which cannot happen.

professore

Son Goku wrote:

There the basis for all modern technology. Especially the entire computing and communications industry. In fact they probably, in terms of profit, the single most fruitful piece of mathematics ever.

You could say the same thing about Newton's Laws - but Einstein proved they were not *quite* right. I'm not for a minute saying that these Steorn guys have anything - in fact I consider it extremely unlikely - but you never know.

professore

bonkey wrote:

You've been told wrong.


While I'm not entirely sure that yoru example is a violation of the laws you mention, we know that Newtonian physics is - strictly speaking - incorrect.

To be more accurate, Newtonian physics give us a relatively accurate model within certain boundaries and tolerances. This is good enough, for example, to build a car, but probably not to put a satellite into orbit.

That we generally refer to Newtonian Physics as "Newton's Laws" is just a form of nomenclature.

I was reading an article from SciAm recently, where I came across what is perhaps the best clarification of this point I have seen yet:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Taking the comment about what a law is, I am then prompted to remember a comment I first heard from Rvd. Ian Paisley to the effect that "all generalisations are suspect".

Finally, I would point out that we have no way of enforcing laws, nor of being 100% certain that they are enforced. We can be almost 100% certain that within certain boundaries and so forth that they hold true, but thats about it.

If I say that there is Bonkey's Law which states that in any scientific conversation, terminology will be misused at least once, does this mean that it must happen? Just because I said its a Law? What if it became a widespread, accepted generalisation (like the more-well-known Godwin's Law)? Does this make it true?

In science, the very idea of 100% certainty of positives cannot exist. I believe we can be 100% positive that something is not the case, but that anyone who states positive with 100% certainty is over-reaching at least slightly.

Ultimately, I think thats partly because of my background in Applied Mathematics. In pure mathematics, we can be 100% certain of certain things. However, this requires that we define clearly all influences. If I say that the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees, I could be wrong. If I say it holds true on a Cartesian plane, then (unless my memory is fading or I've forgotten something) I cannot be wrong. In the real world, however, everything in science is based on observation (and thus, to a degree on assumption) rather than declaration. We cannot declare that things are the way we need them to be, we can show that they very much appear to be that way, and on the assumption that our interpretation of this appearance is accurate, we can then go on to draw conclusions.

But there's always those assumptions, no matter how tiny we consider the possibility of them being (even slightly) wrong to be.

Thus, if you've been told you cannot break scientific laws, you were told wrong. You cannot break the laws of physics. However, whether our stated laws of physics are the actual laws of physics is something we cannot state with 100% absolute certainty.

Going slightly further...lest someone think I'm supporting Steorn here...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. What we understand to be the laws of physics are - if not 100% certain - extraordinarily well tested within the boundaries that are currently possible. What Steorn are claiming is that we got it wrong. The possibility that they have found something exists...but it will not be accepted until and unless they credibly establish their claim to the satisfaction of those they are saying are wrong. Thats they way science works.

If someone has an idea of what might be the "trick", then the onus is on Steorn to show that this person is wrong. Note - they have to show, not merely state, that this person is wrong.

For example, if someone says "they're just using a magnetic motor", they can't say "no, we're not", but rather they have to allow third-party, independant validation by anyone who cares to test this claim.

Thats how it works. Science is where it is because modern science has taken this champion/challenger model to extraordinary lengths. Steorn are not playing that game. They're hiding their validation process rather than making it as open as possible. They're explainaing that with reasons that are simply not acceptable to the scientific community. The way in which they approach this is the same as many scam artists who've tried to make a quick buck from similar claims in the past.

So yes, Steorn could be right. They may have found something. But the correct position of the scientific community should be "convince me" and Steorn refuse to do that, seeking some sort of public acceptance instead. Thus, the odds of the skeptical scientific position being correct that this is not the real deal are increased.

My current guess is that Steorn will soon declare that they've run out of funds, and that this "best hope for mankind" will unfortunately never see the light of day unless they abandon their previous position of "no funding till we've proven ourselves", and will "reluctantly" seek outside investment to bring this revolutionary product to market. This will be necessitated in part by the unforseen technical problems that their current "demonstration" encountered.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent description of the scientific method.

Son Goku

professore wrote:

You could say the same thing about Newton's Laws

No, Newton's laws really needed to be expressed in Hamiltonian and Lagrangian format before they were very useful. In terms of return-to-cost Maxwell's Equations were far more productive.

professore wrote:

- but Einstein proved they were not *quite* right.

Really? In what sense did they show Newton's Laws to be incorrect and is it truly analogous to what Steorn are doing?
I would say it isn't. Newton's Laws indicate the natural limit of their regime and have a clear set of axioms upon which they rest. For instance in the first section of Principia Newton claims space to be "unmoved", in anticipation of the fact that it would be possible to affect it.
The law of conservation of energy, on the other hand is not the same as this as it is not a theory, rather a principle used to build theories. If it was wrong everything would be wrong. Now while it is possible that it is wrong, it's extremely unlikely to be wrong at human energy scales, which Steorn are still operating at. Newton's Laws also still work at human energy scales, you have to move to Stellar energies before you see it. Steorn have not "moved" to a point/energy scale where they stand a chance of seeing new physics. So the analogy does not hold.

professore wrote:

but you never know.

Every crank does not gain a veneer of respect simply because science is tentative. For instance "Cups don't fall up usually, but you never know".

professore

Son Goku wrote:

No, Newton's laws really needed to be expressed in Hamiltonian and Lagrangian format before they were very useful. In terms of return-to-cost Maxwell's Equations were far more productive.

Really useful to who? Newton's laws in simple format have been and are still very useful for most everyday engineering.

Really? In what sense did they show Newton's Laws to be incorrect and is it truly analogous to what Steorn are doing?

However, Newton's laws (combined with Universal Gravitation and Classical Electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a semiconductor, optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected GPS systems and superconductivity. Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theory, including General Relativity and Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.


I didn't say anything about it being analgous to what Steorn are doing. I said it's highly unlikely in my opinion that what they are doing is actually will work - i.e. I am extremely sceptical - however since I don't know what they have been doing exactly, if in a year's time I am driving a Steorn-powered car I am not going to turn around and say "I'm not using this car because it can't work".

I would say it isn't. Newton's Laws indicate the natural limit of their regime and have a clear set of axioms upon which they rest. For instance in the first section of Principia Newton claims space to be "unmoved", in anticipation of the fact that it would be possible to affect it.

Everything in science is a theory. That is the strength of science. If it is not then it's not science, it's religion. It's unfortunate that law has become the accepted term as it implies that they are somehow commandments not to be broken.

The law of conservation of energy, on the other hand is not the same as this as it is not a theory, rather a principle used to build theories. If it was wrong everything would be wrong. Now while it is possible that it is wrong, it's extremely unlikely to be wrong at human energy scales, which Steorn are still operating at. Newton's Laws also still work at human energy scales, you have to move to Stellar energies before you see it. Steorn have not "moved" to a point/energy scale where they stand a chance of seeing new physics. So the analogy does not hold.


Every crank does not gain a veneer of respect simply because science is tentative. For instance "Cups don't fall up usually, but you never know".

Yes, a cup could fall upwards. If the cup was metal and there was a large electromagnet in the ceiling ...
If you were in zero gravity ....
In australia, in our frame of reference, everything falls upwards.

So you see your analogy doesn't work either.

I never said either that science justifies every crank - however in science one is not a crank IF one's theories can be independently verified by experiment. Substitute religion for science and heretic for crank and you see what I'm getting at. One of the problems with science today is that unless you have a Ph.D and lots of publications in respected journals (i.e. you are a member of the priesthood) no-one will listen. I suspect that's why Steorn, assuming they believe they have something (again I don't believe !!!!!!!) took the Economist route.

Just noticed you are the moderator - don't ban me

Son Goku

professore wrote:

Really useful to who? Newton's laws in simple format have been and are still very useful for most everyday engineering.

Is that definitely Newton's Laws in full? (ODEs and all) Or simply the "balance the forces method"?

However, Newton's laws ...... Quantum Mechanics.

That tells me Newton's Laws were replaced, it does not tell me how they were replaced or how Newton's Laws fit into the other theories. Exactly how Newton's Laws fit into the later theories is important. It's very easy to "Newton turned out to be wrong" if you don't know how he turned out to be wrong. The replacement of Newton's Laws says nothing about what is going on here because they are very different situations.

I didn't say anything about it being analgous to what Steorn are doing. I said it's highly unlikely in my opinion that what they are doing is actually will work - i.e. I am extremely sceptical - however since I don't know what they have been doing exactly, if in a year's time I am driving a Steorn-powered car I am not going to turn around and say "I'm not using this car because it can't work".
Everything in science is a theory. That is the strength of science. If it is not then it's not science, it's religion. It's unfortunate that law has become the accepted term as it implies that they are somehow commandments not to be broken.
I never said either that science justifies every crank - however in science one is not a crank IF one's theories can be independently verified by experiment. Substitute religion for science and heretic for crank and you see what I'm getting at. One of the problems with science today is that unless you have a Ph.D and lots of publications in respected journals (i.e. you are a member of the priesthood) no-one will listen. I suspect that's why Steorn, assuming they believe they have something (again I don't believe !!!!!!!) took the Economist route.

That's philosophy of science 101, it's how science works. Steorn haven't offered anything in the way of proof. Catchy Flash videos and Posters don't equate with actual content.
You need a Ph.D. now for very good reasons, it's because if you don't you don't know anywhere near enough. For instance look at CERN, we have constructed a $10,000,000 cyclotron in order to reach energy regimes where current physics fails, that's how difficult it is to find new physics. It's very easy to parrot off lines about "self appointed defenders of the orthodoxy", however the reason people don't listen to guys like Steorn is because they're never right. Popperianism is great, but it also needs a dose of common sense.
However with your priesthood comments, I suspect that you simply have an axe to grind.

Professor_Fink

professore wrote:

However, Newton's laws (combined with Universal Gravitation and Classical Electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields.

Ok, I've already said this in this thread, but it seems to need repeating. Unless the laws of nature are not fixed, and change freely at the whim of some prankster god, then the you cannot break the established laws of physics in the regimes where they have been rigorously tested.

Steorn's machine occupies an extremely well tested region in theory-space. Basically we know all the physics that affects magnets at the energy and temperature scales that Steorn is talking about. There is no wiggle room.

All the worse for Steorn, conservation is one of the most fundamental rules in physics, as it is a direct consequence of the fact that the laws of physics are translationally invariant with respect to time, via Noether's theorem. Fundamental physical interactions have been verified countless times (and in the case of CERN and Fermilab, I literally do mean countless, since they generate too much data to store). Sean McCarthy's arguments about magnetic viscosity are deeply flawed and neglect many effects. He takes a macroscopic look at a quantum system and gets himself lost.

professore wrote:

I didn't say anything about it being analgous to what Steorn are doing. I said it's highly unlikely in my opinion that what they are doing is actually will work - i.e. I am extremely sceptical - however since I don't know what they have been doing exactly, if in a year's time I am driving a Steorn-powered car I am not going to turn around and say "I'm not using this car because it can't work".

That seems unlikely since they've just canceled the public demo.

professore wrote:

I never said either that science justifies every crank - however in science one is not a crank IF one's theories can be independently verified by experiment. Substitute religion for science and heretic for crank and you see what I'm getting at. One of the problems with science today is that unless you have a Ph.D and lots of publications in respected journals (i.e. you are a member of the priesthood) no-one will listen. I suspect that's why Steorn, assuming they believe they have something (again I don't believe !!!!!!!) took the Economist route.

There tends to be only two reasons why people compare science to religion, and scientists to priests. The first is that they have taken some course in philosophy and want to show off how deep a thinker they are (the fact that they miss the obvious differences tends to make this counter-productive), and the second is to annoy scientists.

I have a pretty good idea why Steorn went the Economist route: No peer review journal would print their rubbish and you can't patent perpetual motion machines.