'Free energy' machine on display in Dublin - The Steorn is gathering

The_Minister · 16-12-2009 02:55AM #1

Controversial technology which allegedly defies the laws of physics to create free power has gone on public display - two years after a much-heralded demonstration ended in failure.

Irish company Steorn insisted the Orbo device was now more robust and reliable as it welcomed potential investors to a Dublin viewing.

But chief executive Sean McCarthy admitted the clean, constant energy-producing device could still end up malfunctioning.

"The systems are up, they're running and I'm sure some of them will break - it's a prototype technology," he said.

"We have lots of spare systems and they'll be replaced. People may be critical of that and I can understand that, but the fundamental point is that we're demonstrating this system working. We want people to understand where it is, but weigh that with what it could mean for us and what the opportunity is, not just for this little company in Dublin but for everybody."

Orbo technology harnesses magnetic effects to multiply energy. Its inventors claim it can be used to power anything from a mobile phone to a car.

Worldwide cynicism surrounding the product was heightened after the failure of its high profile London launch in July 2007.

Mr McCarthy described the unsuccessful demonstration as history but said he could appreciate people's suspicions. "It shouldn't be possible, it's something for nothing and from a physics standpoint the principle of the conservation of energy says you cannot do this, it's an absolute no-no.

"But the bottom line is it does what it does and we're more focused on the impact of that and getting it into the real world than the scientific controversy around it."

The product is on show in the Waterways Visitor Centre at the Grand Canal Basin until January 31. Demonstrations are also being streamed live on the company's website.

They are back again.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/free-energy-machine-on-display-in-dublin-1976136.html

Agent Smith · 16-12-2009 02:57AM

"Sorry, but in this Forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

The_Minister · 16-12-2009 03:09AM

Their international scientific jury discredited the machine

They now sell USB powered divining rods.
For the 6th who has everything.

Sheeps · 16-12-2009 03:10AM

Considering that Ireland produced the people who discovered quaternions, boolean algebra and the splitting of the first atom, Steorn being Irish is embarrassing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-12-2009 03:22AM

This has hadron collider written all over it. Shan't end well.

Overheal · 16-12-2009 03:36AM

Will the Scientologists ever learn?

Intothesea · 16-12-2009 03:51AM

Wonder when they'll realise they haven't broken the law of diminishing returns :pac: I'd love to see what engineering companies can cook up with this wundermachine. Giant brushless motors producing 3 times the input power (according to their video) -- it would be laughable if they claimed 3%

zenno · 16-12-2009 03:59AM

at least they are trying. I bet it's only a matter of time before this technology is in perfect working form i have no doubt about that but as always it will take alot of time for perfection in it's workings. we damn well need it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr3is_3mLNA

starbelgrade · 16-12-2009 03:59AM

I don't understand any of this thread, but I'm glad all ye science geeks are havin' a laugh!

starbelgrade · 16-12-2009 04:06AM

Ok.. maybe this might be my opportunity to find out the answer to a question that has ALWAYS bugged me. Now laugh away, but remember.. there;s no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid person.

Here goes.. you are driving a car at whatever speed. A fly is travelling in your path at a lesser. You hit it. It dies on your windsheild.

You are travelling in a car at 5mph, with a fly in it. You increase your speed to 100mph. The fly is still just buzzing around unaffected - it does not hit the back window.

How the f*ck does that happen?

Please explaiin it to me, if you know the answer, in really basic terms. I'm a musician & a designer, so I'm not a f*ckwit, just specialised in my own areas. I could explain chord inflections in G Minor, but not the fly puzzle.

fergalr · 16-12-2009 04:07AM

Its at the stage where if they took that tree stump from Limerick, put it in a glass box, and insisted it was giving free energy, they'd have more scientific credibility.

zenno · 16-12-2009 04:12AM

The_Minister wrote: »

Their international scientific jury discredited the machine

They now sell USB powered divining rods.
For the 6th who has everything.

yeah scientists whinging as usual about this technology = typical.
the thing is you are not getting more out of "nothing" it might seem like enhancing power output from nothing but there is no such thing as nothing, it is, we just don't fully understand all forces electrical and such. electrons can be in two places at once. like i said it's only a matter of time before this works perfectly thats for sure.

researchers isolated a beryllium ion (an atom given an electrical charge by removing one of its two normal electrons) in an electromagnetic trap and pinpointed its position using a technique called laser cooling. Then, using two laser beams, each precisely tuned to a different frequency, they gently "smeared" the atom into a split condition called a superposition by measuring interference patterns in the laser beams, the scientists established that the atom occupied two locations. They determined it was separated by about 80 nanometers, or 800 times its original diameter. At human scale, it would be as if a person suddenly split into twins and appeared simultaneously a quarter mile apart. anything is possible.

fergalr · 16-12-2009 04:13AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Ok.. maybe this might be my opportunity to find out the answer to a question that has ALWAYS bugged me. Now laugh away, but remember.. there;s no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid person.

Here goes.. you are driving a car at whatever speed. A fly is travelling in your path at a lesser. You hit it. It dies on your windsheild.

You are travelling in a car at 5mph, with a fly in it. You increase your speed to 100mph. The fly is still just buzzing around unaffected - it does not hit the back window.

How the f*ck does that happen?

Please explaiin it to me, if you know the answer, in really basic terms. I'm a musician & a designer, so I'm not a f*ckwit, just specialised in my own areas. I could explain chord inflections in G Minor, but not the fly puzzle.

Not sure if you are trolling...
but its the same for the fly as for the driver in the car.

If the car hit you standing on the road at 100mph, you'd be dead.
But you can sit in it while it accelerates to 100mph and be fine.
But you do perceive a force on you from the back of your seat.
The fly isn't in vacuum. Its flying in the air. Its pushing against the air, and the air is pushing against it.
As the car accelerates, the air inside it moves forward, and that air pushes against the fly - in much the same way the drivers seat pushes against the driver - as you accelerate up to 100mph.

That's the main reason for the confusion, you aren't thinking about the 'back window' pushing the air and the air pushing the fly, as the car accelerates up to 100mph.

(A second thing to bear in mind is that the acceleration is gradual - it happens gradually enough - if the car accelerated fast enough to 100mph both the driver and the fly would die, as the car would be pushing 'too hard' against them). But the main source of the confusion is the point above.

starbelgrade · 16-12-2009 04:20AM

fergalr wrote: »

Not sure if you are trolling...
but its the same for the fly as for the driver in the car.

If the car hit you standing on the road at 100mph, you'd be dead.
But you can sit in it while it accelerates to 100mph and be fine.
But you do perceive a force on you from the back of your seat.
The fly isn't in vacuum. Its flying in the air. Its pushing against the air, and the air is pushing against it.
As the car accelerates, the air inside it moves forward, and that air pushes against the fly - in much the same way the drivers seat pushes against the driver - as you accelerate up to 100mph.

That's the main reason for the confusion, you aren't thinking about the 'back window' pushing the air and the air pushing the fly, as the car accelerates up to 100mph.

(A second thing to bear in mind is that the acceleration is gradual - it happens gradually enough - if the car accelerated fast enough to 100mph both the driver and the fly would die, as the car would be pushing 'too hard' against them). But the main source of the confusion is the point above.

I'm not trolling dude - but I am trying to digest this information. I understand it up to the point where you say "that's the main reason for confusion.."

Ironically, that is the point where I get confused!

DanGerMus · 16-12-2009 04:20AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Ok.. maybe this might be my opportunity to find out the answer to a question that has ALWAYS bugged me. Now laugh away, but remember.. there;s no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid person.

Here goes.. you are driving a car at whatever speed. A fly is travelling in your path at a lesser. You hit it. It dies on your windsheild.

You are travelling in a car at 5mph, with a fly in it. You increase your speed to 100mph. The fly is still just buzzing around unaffected - it does not hit the back window.

How the f*ck does that happen?

Please explaiin it to me, if you know the answer, in really basic terms. I'm a musician & a designer, so I'm not a f*ckwit, just specialised in my own areas. I could explain chord inflections in G Minor, but not the fly puzzle.

Well you know the way the chair keeps you from flying back, well the air pocket inside the car is enough keep the fly from flying back and hitting the back window.
Air is dense enough to create enough friction to hold the fly in position because he's so light.
Although i'll bet he does go back a bit depending on how fast you accelerate. Just like you'll feel your self be pushed against the chair the more quickly you accelerate.

fergalr · 16-12-2009 04:23AM

I wish people wouldn't keep giving these guys attention.

Initially, we might have being sceptical, but thought, 'well, maybe these guys have found some sort of physical effect that they don't really understand. Maybe there's something worth investigating going on'.

But they are now asking us to believe they found a free energy machine 3 years ago, with killer new science. And then sat around (scratching themselves?) for several years, not getting rich, not sharing any info, not letting anyone see they machine. All the time losing credibility.

They say they want the world to understand what they've found, but they've provided no science, and have being pretty much discredited by anyone serious that's had contact with them.

For the people here that say 'anything is possible', and think that breaking the principle of conservation of energy is no big deal, lets ignore the science stuff, and look at it another way - if these guys were anything other than windup merchants, don't you think someone respectable would gotten on board with this, to make their career - or even that a big oil company would have bought them out? Or some James Bond esque villian (or simply halliburton) would have stolen it from them?

Having a way to make free energy would be worth more than all the oil in Iraq, right? Do you see anybody trying to invade Dublin to take this box, and the energy security it implies?

No, the demo is in the Waterways Ireland Visitor Center. Its not surrounded by razor wire and the army, because no one wants to steal it, because it doesn't do anything.

And the guys who made it, instead of becoming giga-billionaires off their free energy machine have been spending their time making simple electronics.

These discussion doesn't need any science to make it obvious that their invention does not do exactly what it says on the tin.

DanGerMus · 16-12-2009 04:24AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'm not trolling dude - but I am trying to digest this information. I understand it up to the point where you say "that's the main reason for confusion.."

Ironically, that is the point where I get confused!

Well imagine the car was filled with concrete. You wouldn't move at all if it accelerated.

Well air is enough to have somewhat the same effect on the fly because he's relatively very light.

It's a loose analogy but apt i hope.

zenno · 16-12-2009 04:32AM

quote: Having a way to make free energy would be worth more than all the oil in Iraq, right? Do you see anybody trying to invade Dublin to take this box, and the energy security it implies.

well all i was saying is this. it is possible and it will be a standard energy when it is perfected in the near future. like they said many years ago man will never fly , man will never walk on the moon, the earth is flat. burn me at the stake if you want or if anyone else wants but i can assure you this will come to fruition soon.

gnxx · 16-12-2009 04:34AM

In the first instance I was willing to accept that they had discovered something interesting ( an anomaly in measurement for example ). Even without true "energy for nothing", the technology such as efficient motors etc could be succesfully commercialised.

At this point though, they have no credibilty. The jury of scientists ( that they selected ) has clearly stated the device doesn't work.

I note that they have filed a patent for a device measuring the transfer of electricity. Maybe they need to check that this actually works :-) This could be the secret to free energy :-)

Hopefully none of the state boards such as Enterprise Ireland etc have invested in this scam. It would be very embarrasing after the FAS fiasco.

zenno · 16-12-2009 04:37AM

the oil companies will not like it thats for sure if this new free energy comes out. they will make sure it doesn't.

starbelgrade · 16-12-2009 04:42AM

DanGerMus wrote: »

Well imagine the car was filled with concrete. You wouldn't move at all if it accelerated.

Well air is enough to have somewhat the same effect on the fly because he's relatively very light.

It's a loose analogy but apt i hope.

I still don't get it, but that's my bad. Cheers anyhow.

fergalr · 16-12-2009 04:44AM

zenno wrote: »

quote: Having a way to make free energy would be worth more than all the oil in Iraq, right? Do you see anybody trying to invade Dublin to take this box, and the energy security it implies.

well all i was saying is this. it is possible and it will be a standard energy when it is perfected in the near future. like they said many years ago man will never fly , man will never walk on the moon, the earth is flat. burn me at the stake if you want or if anyone else wants but i can assure you this will come to fruition soon.

It is true that some things people widely believed in the past later turned out to be wrong.
That does not mean all things people believe later turned out to be wrong.

The best way of trying to separate out what to believe from what not to believe is true argument and evidence.

Steorn have offered no argument, or evidence for their claims, which go against the current understanding (you can't make free energy), which there is a lot of argument and evidence for.

If I told you I was made of raisins, and typing away here, you would not believe me. It goes against your current understanding of the world, and the stuff you've seen with your own eyes. This doesn't prove I am not made of raisins. It just means you would be gullible and stupid to believe me, just because I said so, without me offering some evidence or argument to show its at least possible I could be.

So it is with Steorn. I can't prove their claims are not accurate. Its just that because they have no evidence, and no argument, and no credibility, and because there is a great deal of evidence against them, the correct conclusion is that their claims are not accurate. Especially when we consider their past actions, and that it seems in their interests to have us believe them.
I have to put Steorns claims in the same general category as you would have to put my claims that I'm made of raisins.

I might be, but you don't believe that I am, and you shouldn't.

To do otherwise would be unraisinable.

Intothesea · 16-12-2009 04:55AM

fergalr wrote: »

No, the demo is in the Waterways Ireland Visitor Center. Its not surrounded by razor wire and the army, because no one wants to steal it, because it doesn't do anything.

When I grow up I'm going to run my car and my house and my hair-drier off one of these machines *and* I'm going to make a tidy profit selling the other third of the created power. \o/

zenno · 16-12-2009 04:57AM

fergalr wrote: »

It is true that some things people widely believed in the past later turned out to be wrong.
That does not mean all things people believe later turned out to be wrong.

The best way of trying to separate out what to believe from what not to believe is true argument and evidence.

Steorn have offered no argument, or evidence for their claims, which go against the current understanding (you can't make free energy), which there is a lot of argument and evidence for.

If I told you I was made of raisins, and typing away here, you would not believe me. It goes against your current understanding of the world, and the stuff you've seen with your own eyes. This doesn't prove I am not made of raisins. It just means you would be gullible and stupid to believe me, just because I said so, without me offering some evidence or argument to show its at least possible I could be.

So it is with Steorn. I can't prove their claims are not accurate. Its just that because they have no evidence, and no argument, and no credibility, and because there is a great deal of evidence against them, the correct conclusion is that their claims are not accurate. Especially when we consider their past actions, and that it seems in their interests to have us believe them.
I have to put Steorns claims in the same general category as you would have to put my claims that I'm made of raisins.

I might be, but you don't believe that I am, and you shouldn't.

To do otherwise would be unraisinable.

why would they make fools out of themselves if they had nothing to back it up with. and people see with their brains not their eyes this is the same thinking people in the early 1800's had it's just not possible but hey it is a fact that free energy will be introduced whether it be 10 years or 100 it is the geniuses on this planet that will figure it out. at this moment in time they are trying and thats good. i'm an optimist and i can see this happening but the greed from the oil industries and such will not like an aparatus that can create free energy think about it. anyway who wants to give free energy when they can keep screwing you with fossil fuels.

DanGerMus · 16-12-2009 04:59AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I still don't get it, but that's my bad. Cheers anyhow.

Ok last try.

Think of a fish bowl filled with water. Slowly push the fish bowl along the counter and the fish will stay in roughly the same place not squished against the back of it.
If you do it fast enough though the fish along with the water will hit the back of the bowl. Also you'll get very wet.

Well the fly is suspended in the air in the car just like the fish is suspended in the water in the bowl.
The air at normal acceleration for a car is enough to hold the fly in place.

It is possible for the fly to be squished against the back window but the car would have to accelerate extremely quickly in order to overcome the friction between the air and the fly. You don't want to be in a car that can do that.

TomCo · 16-12-2009 05:02AM

zenno wrote: »

...think about it.

You first.

zenno · 16-12-2009 05:18AM

TomCo wrote: »

You first.

simple really. if something like this free energy was going to be sold to the public number one thing that would happen is there will be serious opposition from the big oil/coal companies as a technology like free energy will make them extinct = millions of job loses in these sectors and upheavel.

JoseJones · 16-12-2009 05:19AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I still don't get it, but that's my bad. Cheers anyhow.

Also, think about when you're driving along at 100mph in a car and you stick your hand out the window. What happens?

You're hand is shot backwards because of the outside air. The fly in the car doesn't have to contend with this air because of the windscreen of the car shielding him from it. I hope I'm not confusing the issue here (I probably am).

Now what about when you're standing on a train going along at 100mph and you jump as high as you can in the air, what happens? I don't think the air pressure behind you would be enough to keep you 'stationary' (relative to the train). I think a bigger factor would be the inertia or momentum you have because you also are moving at 100mph, but both are definitely factors. OK, now I've definitely confused you.

It's actually a really interesting question that I've thought about a lot (sad I know) and this is the best answer I can come up with.

TomCo · 16-12-2009 05:20AM

zenno wrote: »

simple really. if something like this free energy was going to be sold to the public number one thing that would happen is there will be serious opposition from the big oil/coal companies as a technology like free energy will make them extinct = millions of job loses in these sectors and upheavel.

That's not what I was referring to.

zenno · 16-12-2009 05:22AM

TomCo wrote: »

That's not what I was referring to.

i am not a mind reader

zenno · 16-12-2009 05:45AM

some interesting info here as usual orthodox science seems to have a problem with it. http://magistrala.cz/freeenergy/media/pdf/Roy_Rao_Kanzius-salt-water-burns.pdf

'Free energy' machine on display in Dublin - The Steorn is gathering

Comments