Steorn revolution begins with "Get Real. Get Orbo"

sink

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So your just dismissing it out of hand, refusing to even look at it theoretically, not very scientific. But that has been the attitude of the scientific community over the last 3 years, at least ye are consistant. And from the general publics stand point thats consistantly very poor.

Shunning scientific journals and the peer review process and appealing directly to mass media and the general public is not a tactic that would ease suspicions. It's a tactic used by creationists, alternate medicines and other anti-scientific junk. Their claims are incredible and so they require incredible evidence, so far none has been forthcoming. Under these circumstances it is right for the scientific community to be extremely sceptical of their claims.

Gurgle

sink wrote: »

Their claims are incredible and so they require incredible evidence, so far none has been forthcoming. Under these circumstances it is right for the scientific community to be extremely sceptical of their claims.

I seem to remember somewhere along the way Steorn told us that (paraphrasing) 'Magnetics have hardly been studied at all, (they) figured out how to make an electric motor and left it at that'.:rolleyes:

gpjordanf1

sink wrote: »

Shunning scientific journals and the peer review process and appealing directly to mass media and the general public is not a tactic that would ease suspicions. It's a tactic used by creationists, alternate medicines and other anti-scientific junk. Their claims are incredible and so they require incredible evidence, so far none has been forthcoming. Under these circumstances it is right for the scientific community to be extremely sceptical of their claims.

It was the other way around my friend, they approached the scientific community with the intention of peer review, once the subject matter came up, it was them who were shunned, and probably you couldn't blame the scientific community, with the history of OU to date. SO that was the reason they went the way they went. All this info is out there if people took the time to check it out.

sink

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

It was the other way around my friend, they approached the scientific community with the intention of peer review, once the subject matter came up, it was them who were shunned, and probably you couldn't blame the scientific community, with the history of OU to date. SO that was the reason they went the way they went. All this info is out there if people took the time to check it out.

That is the same bullcrap spewed by creationists. If they couldn't get published it's because their science was deeply flawed. Science journals have no agenda other than seeking scientific truth and they're not prepared to let junk science fill their pages and rightly so.

I don't see where this argument is going, I will maintain my position that they're either misguided or outright charlatans until I see some validation of their claims. You're permitted to believe they might have something, and i'm permitted to believe that anyone taken in by their spin is simply gullible.

ei.sdraob

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Everybody is very quick to jump on the band wagon and say its all rubbish. What if it isn't? Is this the true nature of the Irish to instantly begrudge our own?

how about you go and read a science book

these people have not produced/published a single paper on this machine which would have to rewrite the laws of physics

their demonstrations keep failing, this is the 4th year they are at this


the whole thing is a gigarmous scam to fool gullible people like yourself

ei.sdraob

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So I have to believe YOUR claims on blind faith, oh well, does that sound familiar.

no plain and simple science, thats verified by experimental evidence


these guys have not published a single paper on the subject, why wouldnt they? if what they claim is true then we need to completely rewrite science books

with this paper in hand other people can build the device and test it themselves, to see whether it doesnt work or does


these people claim to have invented a free energy device,
energy cannot be created or destroyed

thats what they teach kids in schools, i would love to see what degrees and what backgrounds do these people have


and once again, they have published no papers on which other people can attempt to reproduce and examine the device

Giblet

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

It was the other way around my friend, they approached the scientific community with the intention of peer review, once the subject matter came up, it was them who were shunned, and probably you couldn't blame the scientific community, with the history of OU to date. SO that was the reason they went the way they went. All this info is out there if people took the time to check it out.

They don't have anything though. They had their device on display, it didn't work. What was there to disprove? That the broken device doesn't work? PROVEN!

Steorn haven't published anything, which they are free to do.

The basic principle for an over unity device is something that can produce power at greater than 100% effiency.
Show us some experiments on that. What? They haven't done a single thing? Well I guess they don't have it then.
Why should anyone else do it for them? The burden of proof is on them.

If someone said they travelled through time, but eh, it stopped working, but they really did! What no proof? Eh I forgot to place that bet on the Cubs winning the World Series that would make me a millionare, but I was there HONEST! They had Alf on TV.
No-one would believe them, because they don't have any proof.

Now they have one hooked up to a battery. A battery that could run that machine for months. Hell, even if it did charge, there would be diminishing returns until it fails. Just like you would expect it to.

You seem to have no grasp of basic Science beyond "Hey, that's just like, your opinion man".

Don't go expecting people to trip themselves up trying to explain something to you if you don't really seem to grasp the basics.

ei.sdraob

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

It was the other way around my friend, they approached the scientific community with the intention of peer review, once the subject matter came up, it was them who were shunned, and probably you couldn't blame the scientific community, with the history of OU to date. SO that was the reason they went the way they went. All this info is out there if people took the time to check it out.

peer review what

where are the papers?

why not post it on their site??


what happened to the 300 scientists they had 3 years ago reviewing them??

Podge_irl

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what happened to the 300 scientists they had 3 years ago reviewing them??

They agreed that it was a pile of nonsense, so Steorn don't like to bring it up.

Gurgle

Over Unity?
No problem, here you go:
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=96897

You don't even need a rechargable battery to keep a motor spinning.:eek:

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

I'll dig them up. They came up when we were discussing Tesla in one of the forums.

Here's one of them: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Howard_Johnson

Professor_Fink

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So I have to believe YOUR claims on blind faith, oh well, does that sound familiar.

I don't are whether you believe me or not. I'm not trying to make an argument from authority, that's not how science works. The two experiments I have been involved in are no more relevant to the Steorn situation than thousands of other papers. The only reason I mentioned them is because you asked. All that matters is that I am making a point based on physical laws. If you doubt my ability to do so, go read through my previous posts on the forum and decide for yourself whether to believe I know what I'm talking about.

With that in mind, what would be the point of me sending you those particular papers? You likely won't understand them, since generally you need to be a physicist to actually parse physics papers.

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So your just dismissing it out of hand, refusing to even look at it theoretically, not very scientific. But that has been the attitude of the scientific community over the last 3 years, at least ye are consistant. And from the general publics stand point thats consistantly very poor.

Since it violates conservation of energy, quantum mechanics, QED and Maxwell's equations? And since it supposedly works by a clever arrangement of magnets? Yes. It can't possibly do this. This is the area of physics we know more about than any other.

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So is it a closed book subject? Nothing new to learn here?

The electromagnetic interaction is the best understood of all physical interactions. We know what magnets are, and how they work. There are plenty of bulk phenomenon that are scientifically interesting, and lots of interesting things with molecular magnets, but do we understand the fundamental building blocks which give rise to these interactions? Yes.

Can we prove you can't extract energy from a clever arrangement of magnets? Yes.

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

So somebodys opinion is definitive proof, so in other words Sean Mc Carthy's claim is as equally valid. Without test data there is no proof. Come on your the scientist here.

Not so. I merely pointed you to Orac's post as it dealt directly with Steorn's claims. If you want definitive proof, I suggest you read up on Noether's theorem and the second law of thermodynamics.

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#Noether.27s_theorem

But for a detailed proof I suggest you take a look at any thermodynamics text book.

gpjordanf1

I have nothing further to add to this thread, since it's contributers have brought it to the level of repeated personal insults.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and your entitled to yours. I've insulted no one!

Goodluck.

Professor_Fink

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

I have nothing further to add to this thread, since it's contributers have brought it to the level of repeated personal insults.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and your entitled to yours. I've insulted no one!

I've just reread my previous post, and the only thing I can see that might have offended you personally is where I said that you probably wouldn't understand the papers. I didn't mean that as an insult. It's simply that scientific papers tend to be opaque even if you are an expert in the field. I certainly have no hope of parsing a modern chemistry paper, or for that matter many physics papers that are outside my field of expertise.

sink

Professor_Fink wrote: »

I've just reread my previous post, and the only thing I can see that might have offended you personally is where I said that you probably wouldn't understand the papers. I didn't mean that as an insult. It's simply that scientific papers tend to be opaque even if you are an expert in the field. I certainly have no hope of parsing a modern chemistry paper, or for that matter many physics papers that are outside my field of expertise.

It's a fairly common and disingenuous tactic to feign insult after loosing an argument. No one here used any personal insults, gpjordanf1s ego may have taken a little damage but that was purely due to the flaws in his argument and not any factor of his personality. Playing the hurt feelings card does however reflect poorly on his character.

tbh

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

I have nothing further to add to this thread, since it's contributers have brought it to the level of repeated personal insults.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and your entitled to yours. I've insulted no one!

Goodluck.

As one of the mods of the forum is involved in this debate, we felt it was better if someone impartial (ie. me) reviewed the thread. I've done this, and I don't really see any personal insults. You are entitled to your opinion, and you set out your opinion in your opening post - that people were rejecting this idea simply because it was an irish company. I think that's unfair, particularly on a Science thread.

Steorn are making the claim that they've introduced a revolutionary new technology that will shift our perceptions of the laws of physics forever. It's not unusual for people to doubt that it's true. If you claim that the posters on this thread are expressing doubt because of a close minded parochialism, you must accept that they will refute that vigorously.

I would suggest that if you are getting upset by the posts on the thread, that you step away from it, at least for a while. I don't see the need to any action to be taken.

cheers,
tbh
cMod

Akrasia

Azelfafage wrote: »

You cannot defeat the Second Law of Thermodynamics unless you re-write all the textbooks of physics.

Richard Tolman pointed that out as long ago as 1934 in his classic book "Cosmology".

For instance:

Those who say that the universe can "bounce" forever do no understand the Second Law.

Even a bouncing universe.....(Big Bang..Big Crunch etc.)

The bounces MUST run down, by all the laws of physics,as known at present.


.

.

really? I thought energy cannot be created or destroyed, so if the universe is expanding and contracting, unless there was somewhere else for the energy to leak out to, then it there would be no reduction in overall energy/mass content

swampgas

zod wrote: »

They claim to *not understand* where the energy comes from. If you add up the energy from KNOWN energy sources then it breaks laws. ...

This can only mean that they have empirical evidence of free energy that cannot be explained by known theory.

As in: *checks machine performance data* "Hmmm, that's weird - where's the extra power coming from?"

In which case they could simply describe publicly the apparatus they are using that gives this evidence so that others can attempt to replicate it. If nobody can replicate it, then we have to conclude that there is an error in their data.

If the "over unity" phenomenon can be replicated independently as described, then people will sit up and take notice - even if it's just to find the flaw in the analysis.

Stark

Akrasia wrote: »

really? I thought energy cannot be created or destroyed, so if the universe is expanding and contracting, unless there was somewhere else for the energy to leak out to, then it there would be no reduction in overall energy/mass content

He might be thinking of entropy, which is always increasing in a closed system.

swampgas

Akrasia wrote: »

really? I thought energy cannot be created or destroyed, so if the universe is expanding and contracting, unless there was somewhere else for the energy to leak out to, then it there would be no reduction in overall energy/mass content

Entropy is not Energy. The idea behind the second law (as I understand it) is that eventually all the energy in the Universe will end up evenly distributed, so that there is no way to extract any further work from it (a.k.a. "Heat Death" - see Wikipedia).

As for whether the second law prohibits a "big bounce" - that depends on whether such an event is a singularity where the known laws of physics don't apply.

Professor_Fink

swampgas wrote: »

As for whether the second law prohibits a "big bounce" - that depends on whether such an event is a singularity where the known laws of physics don't apply.

Actually in a closed quantum system purity is conserved, and so entropy never changes. This is a little subtle, however, as the state will become delocalised outside of any particular event horizon, and so for any observer entropy will appear to increase, although this is only due to delocalization of the wavefunction. As a result, perpetual bouncing isn't really prohibited purely by thermodynamics, since the wave functions become relocalised.

Turtwig

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Actually in a closed quantum system purity is conserved, and so entropy never changes. This is a little subtle, however, as the state will become delocalised outside of any particular event horizon, and so for any observer entropy will appear to increase, although this is only due to delocalization of the wavefunction. As a result, perpetual bouncing isn't really prohibited purely by thermodynamics, since the wave functions become relocalised.

Class.:)

zod

swampgas wrote: »

In which case they could simply describe publicly the apparatus they are using that gives this evidence so that others can attempt to replicate it. If nobody can replicate it, then we have to conclude that there is an error in their data.

If the "over unity" phenomenon can be replicated independently as described, then people will sit up and take notice - even if it's just to find the flaw in the analysis.

Licenses : Typically for business entities
Commercialisation permitted
Access to the SKDB and its Orbo technology E-learning modules
Ability to create project teams for commercial development through the SKDB
Learn how Orbo technology works and how to build devices
Royalties payable based on the quantity and power output of products shipped
Commercialisation of automotive, transportation, aerospace and mobile consumer electronics applications are NOT permitted under this license*

swampgas

zod wrote: »

Licenses : Typically for business entities
Commercialisation permitted
Access to the SKDB and its Orbo technology E-learning modules
Ability to create project teams for commercial development through the SKDB
Learn how Orbo technology works and how to build devices
Royalties payable based on the quantity and power output of products shipped
Commercialisation of automotive, transportation, aerospace and mobile consumer electronics applications are NOT permitted under this license*

Is there a license fee??? I'll bet there is.

If they could show me a demo device that does not have a battery doing something useful like (say) charging a mobile phone, I might be more likely to take them seriously.

Or if they did something as simple as putting a voltmeter and ammeter on the battery on their demo device so that we can observe it charging rather than discharging, that would be very interesting indeed.

But no - they just stick a hefty battery into their demo device which is supposed to generate power rather than use it, and expect us to accept it.

Do you remember the Cold Fusion episode in the late 80's? Despite the results never being replicated, companies like Toyota invested over 10 million in research, before abandoning it completely. The cynic in me suspects that Steorn is looking for a Toyota to come along.

Kevster

On the note of funding, who did they get that €8,000,000 from back in 2006? I can't help but feel that these guys recognise how some companies can be easily duped into funding bogus projects; and that they are more orchestrating a shrewd business here (rather than a science experiment). They'll continue to aim towards their 'goal', but it's all a face for what is merely a business to make money.

Source: http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/aug/10/free-energy-firm-generated-8m-in-funding/

zod

On Saturday at 5pm GMT, Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy will present a live talk from the Waterways Centre Demo. Or watch it Live Stream View 1 on the website.

Gurgle

zod wrote: »

On Saturday at 5pm GMT, Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy will present a live talk from the Waterways Centre Demo. Or watch it Live Stream View 1 on the website.

As I couldn't be arsed watching it, will someone post a 4-word summary when its done please.

JTMan

I saw it in person in the Waterways center this evening.

They are an impressive group of people who seem to really believe in their product. They were willing to deal with lots of questions. The CEO comes across as someone who knows his stuff.

I saw them, in a small part, take apart the device as they prepared from the web broadcast, (which they had sound problems with).

It would seem to me highly improbable that they have gone to such lengths if they do not believe that they have a working product. It just needs more credible verification.

npc_100

Fungus wrote: »

It would seem to me highly improbable that they have gone to such lengths if they do not believe that they have a working product. It just needs more credible verification.

Grand, now that they have a device on display, let the independent team back in to examine it. Or is there a reason they won't?
Surely if they want to make a real impact, it would be better to have the device on display, with the same team there having examined it to say wether it works or not?

zod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl5ZxPkGxmQ