<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>steorn — boards.ie - Now Ye&#039;re Talkin&#039;</title>
        <link>https://www.boards.ie/</link>
        <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 06:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
        <language>en</language>
            <description>steorn — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'</description>
    <atom:link href="https://www.boards.ie/discussions/tagged/steorn/feed.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
        <title>Remember Steorn? What was the real motives behind that escapade?</title>
        <link>https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056074159/remember-steorn-what-was-the-real-motives-behind-that-escapade</link>
        <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:30:28 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Mathematics, Physics &amp; Chemistry</category>
        <dc:creator>deckstunt</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">2056074159@/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[That old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn" rel="nofollow">Steorn</a> perpetual motion thing came to mind. I know it failed all the credible independent tests to validate their 'invention'... so disregard the invention.<br /><br />
But what I'd like to know is what were the real motives of the people involved? What was it all about?<br /><br />
Bearing in mind the cost and effort involved, it wasn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill practical joke. So has any one come up with a reasonable theory as to what it was really all about?<br /><br />
(a) Publicity:  but for what? Along the lines that Steron was really a marketing company or some other PR type company in disguise: 'Look we're able to get the entire world looking at us!'?  It's gone on a bit too long for that. They just look like con men. Not really great PR.<br /><br />
(b) Utterly incompetent inventors: Did they actually, truly believe it worked but at the very, very, very last minute (just as the independent validation attempt was taking place) realize that it didn't actually work and are too embarrassed to admit it?<br /><br />
(c) A hoax: But for what? I can't see any benefit for the 'hoaxers' they just look like fools.<br /><br />
Why take out an expensive add in the Economist etc for …. nothing?<img src="https://www.boards.ie/resources/emoji/confused.png" title=":confused:" alt=":confused:" height="20" />]]>
        </description>
    </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
