GameBanshee Forums

Well, fell over this article Our Technology | Steorn


Not that I belive it, but it could be fun

Bah!

Too good to be true. And becuase of that, I'm smelling dead, rotting fish there.

Seriously, the Principle of the Conservation of Energy has been one of the basics laws, and before this there hasn't been anything which could even remotely prove otherwise. And it's true what they claim, why haven't I nor anybody else who I know ever heard of this? Surely something like that would have been in media already...

But if what they claim is true, the what great potential and problem solver they have invented...

I'm inclined to think it may be possible. I had a friend who was an engineering major who told me that there are alternatives which are old for generating energy which aren't used. These alternatives function on a much higher efficiency rating than say, our gas engines for cars. Why aren't they used? Expensive to manufacture, set up, and they are impractical for anything but a stationary, warehouse type set up.

Any sort of breakthrough technology can happen, at any time. Learning is always happening. To believe that something new cannot happen because it isn't in a book already is insane. Not to mention, if this IS true, it probably will be shut down by those taking pay-offs from the natural fuel industries. Tossing aside all of those cars, gas stations, oil refineries, etc for a new energy generator or something along those lines is just not going to happen. Not until the oil runs out anyhow.

@Mag: Oil IS running out pretty fast and will propably become very expensive luxury. Then we have to toss all of those cars, gas stations, oil refineries.

Inventions like these are crucial at a time like this. Still before I see it I don't believe.

Bah. The only thing that has ever-renewable, self-charging energy is a five-year-old child.

I didn't read the details since I'm at work, but the fact that they chose to publish the scientific challenge in The Economist rather that a scientific journal, indicates that publicity is a far higher priority than optimal scientific quality, which is a fishy attitude.

I know at least 4 people with a PhD i physics, so I'll try to remember to ask them what they think.

I know I want one for my computer..... it would be cheaper in the long run

But I strongly doubt - being logical and all that - that these people have struck something suddenly now. And yes - as CE states - it looks much more like they want PR then they actually have invented something (accidently).

Xandax wrote:I know I want one for my computer..... it would be cheaper in the long run

But I strongly doubt - being logical and all that - that these people have struck something suddenly now. And yes - as CE states - it looks much more like they want PR then they actually have invented something (accidently).

I can imagine that next they publish an article where they say that to actually be able to develop the sytem and methods to the usable level (read: invent the whole sytem they claim they already have) someone must sponsor them...

And, when someone finally does that, these scientist suprisingly just disappear.

Kipi wrote:I can imagine that next they publish an article where they say that to actually be able to develop the sytem and methods to the usable level (read: invent the whole sytem they claim they already have) someone must sponsor them...

And, when someone finally does that, these scientist suprisingly just disappear.

Let's raise funds for them and see what happens.
You can deposit it all on my account and I'll make sure it gets transfered .... when we have collected enough :laugh:

Xandax wrote:Let's raise funds for them and see what happens.
You can deposit it all on my account and I'll make sure it gets transfered .... when we have collected enough :laugh:

Sure!!!

*donates 10€*
Is that enough?

Xandax wrote:Let's raise funds for them and see what happens.
You can deposit it all on my account and I'll make sure it gets transfered .... when we have collected enough :laugh:

Will one D.kr do?

fable wrote:Bah. The only thing that has ever-renewable, self-charging energy is a five-year-old child.

Maybe that's the clue. The have miniaturized several five-year-old children. They reside inside a small device that can absorb sound and vibration energy.

Seriously though, when someone claims they have new interesting findings and wishes to "get them out to the public" it's time to be sceptical, on the other hand, when they claim to have made something that would invalidate 200 years of research as well as 10 000 years of human experience it is time for scorn and mockery. I wonder what they are after? Email addresses?

Edit: [url="http://www.physikfuerkids.de/historie/permet/bilder/magnet.gif"]http://www.physikfuerkids.de/historie/permet/bilder/magnet.gif[/url]

Dottie wrote:Maybe that's the clue. The have miniaturized several five-year-old children. They reside inside a small device that can absorb sound and vibration energy.

Seriously though, when someone claims they have new interesting findings and wishes to "get them out to the public" it's time to be sceptical, on the other hand, when they claim to have made something that would invalidate 200 years of research as well as 10 000 years of human experience it is time for scorn and mockery. I wonder what they are after? Email addresses?

Money and publicity.

That's what most of such persons are.

Well it is interesting that's for sure. I for one do not want to keep my mind closed in the sense of saying out right that something is impossible etc. I believe we as scientists should avoid this for these sort of claims (something is impossible) have been disproved many times.

Now I am sceptical but will keep an open mind. Their call for that panel, plus the explanation why publish it there and not in some scientific mag sounds reasonable enough. But I too think it is possible they start pushing for funding etc, and then we see nothing, we've seen it enough times by now.

"Early into this project the company developed certain generator configurations that appeared to be over 100% efficient."

Well they either are or they aren't, and it's not that hard to tell ... meh.

I suppose time will tell us whether this will go somewhere. It would be great if it did but I doubt it.

EDIT: Well I've looked around, the company has been in business for some years now, that's certain. There are apparently some interviews about this as well. The head of research is named somewhere as well, but so far, no evidence at all to what they are claiming. Considering that I am going to remain a firm sceptic - no evidence, no claim. Just a scam.

Seeing as I'm around

The Steorn Corp wrote:This represents a significant challenge to our current understanding of the universe and clearly such claims require independent validation from credible third parties. During 2005 Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record.

This is from the first page. If you go to their forum you will find an interesting thread where a forum member insults a Melbourne acedemic for disagreeing and advocates mail (and Phone) box bombing!

Interestingly Barry Williams from the Australian Skeptic is also quoted and all the claims made by the actual acedemics seem reasonable and not one of them support the claims of the company (I am most surprised that the forum actually still had such damaging material still up).

Let me paraphrase the company:

a bunch of bozos wrote:I've got something for nothing.

Nobody will believe me when I say so.

When I showed someone exactly how I did it they agreed that I could get something for nothing, but won't let me tell you who they are or how I did it.

Because none of the people who beleive me work for a peer reviewed journal I'm advertising for experts in the economist (Curdis ! Scientific American would accept such an advertisment, as would Nature).

Now I've got as open a mind as anybody, but really this is just more junk and rubbish. When you read on the internet that you can "!!!1!!!Get richh quikk !!!1!!!" do you fall for it? This is just the same thing in a fancy web design.

The law of conservation of energy (while not final and still subject to the test of falsifiability) has stood since it was first framed and is as close to a statement of common sense as you will find in hard science.

Sorry but the claims are rot - Curdis !

You know, as soon as I saw the title of this thread, all I could think about was The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov. It was a lovely sci-fi story of a period where humanity has discovered and is living vicariously off of "free energy." Of course, the energy hardly turned out to be free; like everything else, it turned out that it came with a price. Were this absurdly science fiction-like article to be true, I'm sure we'll, in time, learn the price. After all, I wonder how many people thought that burning fossil fuels was worth the minor price of just having it dug up and refined (not counting what would then be considered the unforeseen costs of what the emission byproducts of such fuel usage did once released into the air).

C Elegans wrote:I didn't read the details since I'm at work, but the fact that they chose to publish the scientific challenge in The Economist rather that a scientific journal, indicates that publicity is a far higher priority than optimal scientific quality, which is a fishy attitude.

I thought much the same thing, although instead of thinking "The Economist rather than a scientific journal," I thought "this is on a .net site instead of a .edu or .org or even an accredited scientific website."

This provides a significant range of benefits, from the convenience of never having to refuel your car or recharge your mobile phone...

I've officially entered hell. Not only do you want people to drive cars, but you want them to never have to stop for gas, thus keeping them off the roads for at least a little while? May whatever god(s) exist(s) have mercy on us all. And as for not having to recharge one's mobile phone... I can't say, seeing as what I typed for that was nothing but an extremely long anti-mobile phone rant.

Curdis wrote:The law of conservation of energy (while not final and still subject to the test of falsifiability) has stood since it was first framed and is as close to a statement of common sense as you will find in hard science.

All laws of science are "generally" (must emphasize) universal, but science is always an ongoing study where even certifiable facts are tested time and again. Science is constantly evolving. So yes, I agree fully that the Law of Conservation of Energy is not genuinely infallible. Usually, the less-proven "laws" are known as Theories; this one survived the test of time and is Law. But as is always the case, just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right.

And what's this better than 100% crap? There is no such thing; if something surpasses one's previous standards of 0-100%, then a new scale is devised for that case, in which it's optimum output is 100%. More than 100% efficient; they can kiss the fattest part of my bum.

Well, I think I've proven I'm more than just moderately skeptical of the piece in question, but I'd like to say I have an open mind. I look forward to the notion that we can have limitless energy generators; those will work wonders in tanks, bombers, warships, missiles, because you know that's where they'll wind up eventually.

Ashen wrote: I for one do not want to keep my mind closed in the sense of saying out right that something is impossible etc. I believe we as scientists should avoid this for these sort of claims (something is impossible) have been disproved many times.

As scientists we also know that claims that something is impossible, or any claims for that matter, can only be falsified by controlled, empirical evidence.

I wouldn't say it's "impossible" that human beings may grow wings on their backs - who knows what weird happen could happen in the future if there is let's say a closeby supernova and our species still exist. However, this does not mean that it is "close minded" not to believe that humans will develop wings. Many people who do not understand the scientific method, does not realise that "open-minded" does not "uncritially believing in anything".

Their call for that panel, plus the explanation why publish it there and not in some scientific mag sounds reasonable enough.

I know your conclusion was that this is a scam, but still I don't understand this particular statement. If they look for an expert physicist panel, why don't advertise in the scientific press? There aren't more physicits reading "The Economist" than "Physics Letters" or "Nature".

What is your field? Do you publish in peer-reviewed journals?

C Elegans wrote:As scientists we also know that claims that something is impossible, or any claims for that matter, can only be falsified by controlled, empirical evidence.

I wouldn't say it's "impossible" that human beings may grow wings on their backs - who knows what weird happen could happen in the future if there is let's say a closeby supernova and our species still exist. However, this does not mean that it is "close minded" not to believe that humans will develop wings. Many people who do not understand the scientific method, does not realise that "open-minded" does not "uncritially believing in anything".

Oh I meant that there was a possibility that they actually stumbled upon something that they could not identify and falsely labled it as they did - many times we arrive at something by accident and then the 'art' is figuring out what it is that we have on our hands. Some new form of production, the way to do it - in propulsion systems we are actually well pretty much on the verge of crying, looking for something new. I am always ready to look at what someone claims to have, no matter how outlandish and then see what they actually have and if they have something.

I know your conclusion was that this is a scam, but still I don't understand this particular statement. If they look for an expert physicist panel, why don't advertise in the scientific press? There aren't more physicits reading "The Economist" than "Physics Letters" or "Nature".

What is your field? Do you publish in peer-reviewed journals?

I'm an aeronautical and aerospace engineer and yes of course the entire university staff publishes in peer-reviewed journals, it is a requirement for us. But they are not scientists per se, they are a company and well to be honest, I can see a business pulling a stunt like that. After all they do need the money for their research and in my experience it is never the scientists who work for companies that decide these things, it's the money counters. If and I say if, they managed to hit upon something they cannot identify, it is possible they went this way, looking for money and publicity, hoping to draw in someone to help them out figure it out before they publish in a respectable scientific journal and explain what it is they actually have on their hands. I mean I doubt any real sci. jour. would allow publishing without some sort of concrete evidence and they obviously do not have it which leads me to two probabilities - either they don't know what they have or aren't certain or it's a scam but the scam variant is much more probable IMO. I won't say I'm certain because I lack enough evidence, but it is my opinion.

Dottie wrote:Seriously though, when someone claims they have new interesting findings and wishes to "get them out to the public" it's time to be sceptical, on the other hand, when they claim to have made something that would invalidate 200 years of research as well as 10 000 years of human experience it is time for scorn and mockery. I wonder what they are after? Email addresses?

Exactly so. If it sounds too good to be true, then it invariably is.

Ashen wrote:Oh I meant that there was a possibility that they actually stumbled upon something that they could not identify and falsely labled it as they did - many times we arrive at something by accident and then the 'art' is figuring out what it is that we have on our hands.

Ah, I see, yes that happens all the time, and in physics I believe it's happened several times that people have stumbled upon something unexpected but been far to swift with interpreting it as major, world changing findings.

Sometimes it's difficult to judge whether it's that or whether it's just a scam: I remember some years ago when an Australian group proclaimed to the popular media that they'd found something related to "instant teleportation" of materia, and then they claimed they would reveal everything at an upcoming physics conference in Russia, but they never did and after that nobody heard from this group again and they never published anything relelated to their initial claims.

I'm an aeronautical and aerospace engineer and yes of course the entire university staff publishes in peer-reviewed journals, it is a requirement for us. But they are not scientists per se, they are a company and well to be honest, I can see a business pulling a stunt like that. After all they do need the money for their research and in my experience it is never the scientists who work for companies that decide these things, it's the money counters. it is possible they went this way, looking for money and publicity, hoping to draw in someone to help them out figure it out before they publish in a respectable scientific journal and explain what it is they actually have on their hands.

I can see this may be more of a problem in physics, since it usually demands very expensive lab equipment at the same time as there is a lack of independent funding. Not that we swim in money in the life sciences either, but if I compare our lab to my physics's friends labs, I think neuroscience, my field, has considerably less problems with funding.

In any case, the reason why I commented about the concept of an "open mind", is because I have developed an allergia to that particular word. This is because I've always heard this word used as part of psedo-scientific or mystical rhethorics. It's similar to what you see in ads: "Dare to be yourself - use this product", ie nobody wants to be a coward, so using the word "dare" implicates that it's positive to use this product and cowardly not to. In the same way "You have to be open minded" is often used to implicate that not believing in Santa Claus, wonder-cures or Creationism/Intelligent Design is close-minded. Like:

A: "A friend of mine is telepathic, so I know telepathy exists"
B: "I don't believe telepathy exists, there have been hundreds of controlled studies of telepathy, with only negative results"
A: "It's only because science is so close minded"