Steorn free energy

right, but when did it begin and how did it beginm and what was there before it began and before that and so on ad infinitum.

DaveMcG wrote:

Well it would f*ck up the American economy as well as alot of Middle Eastern countries'.

Theres that old chestnut again...

Why do people concentrate on oil just giving us fuel/energy ?

If this was real (and it isn't) and it solved the worlds "ENERGY" problems then you think the people producing oil are screwed ??

People tend to forget oil is responsible for a hell of a lot more than fuel/energy... hmm plastic ?

Which makes the whole thing of us running out of oil a hell of a lot more scary than "gee what will we power our cars with...." at least there is some alternatives coming there... but to be honest we wont be able to build cars anyway before long.... chinas gonna use up all the steel and oil and plastics etc are gonna be used up by all of us....

goldilocked wrote:

It always makes me smile when someone says that the universe had to begin somewhere...there must have something to create it. Then they suggest God, and when you ask where did he come from, they say that he was always there!

and?

Thirdfox wrote:

...Do terrorists have that capability... do you? Everyone having a mini/massive-nuke = not good.
Of course you can argue otherwise... I'd love to hear it

They won't 'cos it won't bloody work. social commentaries and effects are all well and good but it's hardly good use of your time trying to score points when the issue at hand has little or no bearing on reality as it:
a. hasn't been proven and
b. flies in the face of a very integrated and almost thoroughly understood series of theories (electromagnetism)
c. comes from a company that has, hitherto shown no scientific innovation whatsoever. A technology like this would require extensive research and trial and error and would hardly involve just building some sort of rig and being instantly successful. It would take years, and as the company is only a couple of years old and hasn't a solitary publication to its name I think its claims are optimistic at best

Thirdfox wrote:

And looking at past history nearly all recent energy exploitation has been used for destructive purposes: nuclear fission - originally for nuclear bombs rather than power plants,

It's a lot easier to make a bomb than to make a safe controlled energy source

Thirdfox wrote:

fusion for bombs too (we don't even have a fusion powerplant yet).

It's a hell of a lot easier to create an uncontrolled fusion reaction than a controlled 'un, hence why it's been used in bombs and is not currently a mainstream source of energy and won't be at least for the next forty years (actually it's been "fifty years away" since the seventies.

Thirdfox wrote:

And now some people claim that they have a technology that surpasses the power of nuclear fusion (due to unlimited energy potential), can you not see how this may turn out badly for everyone (at this point in time)?

Unlimited energy and unlimited power are very different things. A thing moving in a magnetic field (or whatever these jokers are at) is never ever ever going to come close to the power output obtained from a fusion reaction exploiting the strong interaction at 100 million celsius without being of colossal size. Ever. Suppose these guys are successful and manage to pull energy out of their asses, it's probably only going to be enough to run a generator. Unless the terrorists plan on electrocuting people...

Thirdfox wrote:

I believe it seems hypocritical to ask for proof for scientific theories when you ask for faith when it comes to your explaination of the universe...

You are intitled to your belief, as am I.

However, unlike you, I am quite willing to incorporate both faith and science into my beliefs. In the absence of any reasonable and accepted scientific theory explaining what went on before the universe was created, my faith answers any questions that remain for me.

If, as is claimed, our current understanding of the universal "truths" of physics are turned upside down, and the 1st law of thermodynamics is proved wrong, then this will still not shake my faith. For me the two, science and faith, are mutually exclusive because I consider everything - from the macro to the micro universe, and what I see as the truly intangible consepts of time, space and infinity to be a construct of God.

As for your accusation that I am somehow beinng hypocritical, well, I have explored the possibility of God existing, and I have come to a conclusion that there is, in fact, a God. On the other hand, I have not examined the claimes of Steorn, and so I reserve the right to be skcepical.

None of what I say is a personal attack on you, Thirdfox, nor do I fancy getting into a theological discussion. I wish only to clarify my position.

Streorn will be out of business soon enough - you cant make money from free energy, everyone knows that to make money you have to charge something for your product!

Thirdfox wrote:

Your second point - justifies my belief that this "safe" power source can easily be retrofitted into a weapon. You state that uncontrolled reactions are easier to produce then controlled ones. My example with nuclear weapons was to demonstrate the thinking behind new technology "how can we turn this into a weapon?" Einstein himself said that if he knew that the theories that helped build the atomic bomb would be used for non-peaceful purposes then he would not have agreed to participate.

Well, maybe a tangent branching off from a consequence of any new effects might lead to something like that mentioned. But anything assumed at this point is pure speculation. Fair enough, it's prudent to assume the worst case might occur and some mad mullah gets his hands on this and holds us all to ransom unless we promise to cover up our women and grow beards, but at face value, from what the company have said, it's just something moving as a consequence of, amongst other things, the presence of a magnetic field. It does sound kinda like the method of propelling a mag-lev train, only tarted up. I'm struggling a bit here 'cos I honestly don't have a clue what other consequences of such an effect might lead to, so what the whole thing really comes down to is a question of outlook. If you can get a whole bunch of energy to come from somewhere in very little time , then yes, you could make some sort of weapon but the company has given no indication as to whether such a thing is possible. Anything anyone says about it at this point is a possibility so nobody's getting anywhere and everyone's wasting their time!

Thirdfox wrote:

Third point - from my admittedly limited understanding it seems that EMP weapons (which do not necessarily need a nuclear explosion) would be highly crippling to a developed country such as the USA or Ireland. A device generating energy and storing it before releasing the energy in an EMP pulse would do nearly the same damage (financially) as a nuclear device.

Even if EMP weapons cannot be used in conjunction with this unproven device the promise of free electricity/energy will entice most extremists to think of a novel way of using it for destructive purposes.

Can't say anything on that as I know nothing about EMP pulse weapons aside from what I saw on TV and computer games. Neither do I know how hard such a thing is to come by, but seeing as my computer and car are still running, it's pretty difficult for such a device and the methods of its construction to fall into the wrong hands! Would such an invention make the construction and transport of such a device easier? Again no idea, but I'm assuming a highly organised worldwide network of academic and military scientists would get a hold on the idea and take measures that ensure the materials and construction blueprints don't fall into the wrong hands.

Thirdfox wrote:

Lastly, if the thing does work (which I doubt) then don't say never... thermodynamics will have been turned on its head, why would something else be "impossible" too?

Everything's possible, it's just that some things have a vanishingly small probability of occurring! So small they can be "effectively" zero. The problem is that some folk see the "effectively" and just jump through the resultant loophole (that's your job though, isn't it? ). Thermodynamics has been derived from statistical calculations, empirical observation and rigourously verified by experiment. That's the black and white, one and zero reality of that. It's there and cannot be changed. Any new effects, should they occur, will be incorporated into the accepted theories but will exist so far outside regular experimental and everyday conditions as to be irrelevant and near impossible to achieve.
Right, I'm waffling. The invention's bollocks, won't work and it doesn't matter **** what's said about it because everyone's tight lipped about the science (if any) involved, and I don't do philisophical stuff!

mmm I wonder if their shares are listed...
buy them now at 100 dollars a pop and when they are proved correct sell them for millions.

Or the other case is by there shares now at 100 dollars a pop and they turn out to be muppets..you loose all your money they retire very rich men and women...

which seems more likely

Whatever perpetual motion machine they have, I cam almost assure you someone, somewhere has already made it and been debunked.

Until we have a much greater understanding of quantum mechanics, "free" energy will remain science fiction.

I know that this story sounds so bizarre that its just about certain to be nonsense... but i'm having a hard time wondering what Steorn have to gain from this? In the Guardian article today, Steorn say that they have freezed all investment in the company pending verification. So clearly they are not looking to make a killing from naive investors.

Some people have speculated that they are trying to pull a hoax so that theyy can prove how skillful their advertising skills are. I just don`t buy that. I know the old adage says that all publicity is good publicity, but I think that this would be an exception to that rule. According to the company, they are already subject to ridicule and threats and I just think that if you wanted to prove how good you are at advertising then there are better ways to do it.

The only thing that really explains it to me is that perhaps their technology has some flaw that they have missed. But they claim that independent scientists have (off the record) verified their thesis. OK we don`t know the validity of these claims, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt that ,however qualified they were, some scientists have looked at this theory and backed it well then that doesn`t make sense either. Especially since they claimed to have invested 2.7m and three years in it...

So I am at least going to wait and see before making up my mind.