• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Steorn

James Bond

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2005
6,025
0
0
I had heard about the public backfire that Steorn endured recently, but knew little about the technology and exactly what they had claimed.

I just read a (lengthy) interview with the CEO of the company on Engadget--pretty interesting stuff. Is it probably a hoax? Sure... but this guy seems to truly believe in the technology (either that, or he's a great actor).

If anyone is interested:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/0...ccarthy-ceo-of-steorn/

What do you guys think?

Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.
The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
 

James Bond

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2005
6,025
0
0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Demonstration failed. End of discussion.
Things can go wrong. Are you saying that you wouldn't believe it, even after they have another demonstration, or after the scientists come back and can say it 100% works (if that actually did happen)?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,354
703
126
Originally posted by: Tizyler
Things can go wrong. Are you saying that you wouldn't believe it, even after they have another demonstration, or after the scientists come back and can say it 100% works (if that actually did happen)?
I'm in the R&D prototype business myself. If the product fails for a potential customer, we are done. Finished. Story over. You make CERTAIN it works, or you don't let your customers or the world see it when you are a small company.

It supposedly violates laws that cannot be violated, and it failed the demonstraion. No one should believe a word they say until they can come up with a working model, until they can get peer reviewed publications printed in reputable journals, etc. Then and only then can we come back and consider believing it.

Most likely, they aren't violating the laws of thermodynamics. Usually when this type of thing pops up, they are making a mistake along the way. The math appears to be violating it, but in reality, they did the math wrong.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,551
4
81
Originally posted by: Tizyler
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Demonstration failed. End of discussion.
Things can go wrong. Are you saying that you wouldn't believe it, even after they have another demonstration, or after the scientists come back and can say it 100% works (if that actually did happen)?
So if I tell you I invented a time machine, and invite folks to come watch it work. Then when they do...oops, malfunction! I'll get it working some other time, just believe me!

But fact is, it doesn't work. This is the sort of stuff that would change fundamental theories on how the universe works. You can't do like my time machine example. This guy is just Alex Chu in a suit.
 

James Bond

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2005
6,025
0
0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Tizyler
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Demonstration failed. End of discussion.
Things can go wrong. Are you saying that you wouldn't believe it, even after they have another demonstration, or after the scientists come back and can say it 100% works (if that actually did happen)?
So if I tell you I invented a time machine, and invite folks to come watch it work. Then when they do...oops, malfunction! I'll get it working some other time, just believe me!

But fact is, it doesn't work. This is the sort of stuff that would change fundamental theories on how the universe works. You can't do like my time machine example. This guy is just Alex Chu in a suit.
I'm not saying that I think it works, I don't. I'm just being hypothetical.

Yes, it failed, but if they continue doing demonstrations, and they aren't failing, wouldn't you be at least partially persuaded?
 

paulney

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2003
6,916
1
0
They brought three prototypes, and when one didn't work, they allegedly disassembled the other two to make that one work.
And of course, mysteriously, friction quadrupled. Must be the bearings!
Buffoons.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,619
160
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Tizyler
I'm not saying that I think it works, I don't. I'm just being hypothetical.

Yes, it failed, but if they continue doing demonstrations, and they aren't failing, wouldn't you be at least partially persuaded?
No. I wouldn't be partially persuaded. I'm already convinced that it's a fraud and a hoax. The company has all the tell-tale signs of such. i.e. We'll let an independent panel of 15 scientists investigate our incredible invention for peer review, but we're going to hand pick which scientists get to participate.

It's not peer review when you pick the peers. Is called rigging the jury. And they couldn't even get THAT right! The laws of physics that they're violating are some of the best understood and most accurate laws we have; more accurate than our understanding of gravity. Do you mean to tell me that they're working at a level where they're violating those laws, yet they can't figure out the proper room temperature for their demonstration??

Of course, they're making fistfuls of money in the process from "investors."
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,104
0
0
I actually give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he's just self-deluded. Not all that different from that girl who talks to God, thinks God has given her special powers, thinks she has performed miracles before, but fails miserably infront of others. Not necessarily trying to trick anyone, but very confused.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Tizyler
I'm not saying that I think it works, I don't. I'm just being hypothetical.

Yes, it failed, but if they continue doing demonstrations, and they aren't failing, wouldn't you be at least partially persuaded?
No. I wouldn't be partially persuaded. I'm already convinced that it's a fraud and a hoax. The company has all the tell-tale signs of such. i.e. We'll let an independent panel of 15 scientists investigate our incredible invention for peer review, but we're going to hand pick which scientists get to participate.

It's not peer review when you pick the peers. Is called rigging the jury. And they couldn't even get THAT right! The laws of physics that they're violating are some of the best understood and most accurate laws we have; more accurate than our understanding of gravity. Do you mean to tell me that they're working at a level where they're violating those laws, yet they can't figure out the proper room temperature for their demonstration??

Of course, they're making fistfuls of money in the process from "investors."
Peer review doesn't have a track record of good results anyway. Just for an example, who actually picks the 15 people who will review it? You'd better believe that those 15 are hand picked by someone who is biased already.
 

KillerCharlie

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,655
52
91
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Tizyler
I'm not saying that I think it works, I don't. I'm just being hypothetical.

Yes, it failed, but if they continue doing demonstrations, and they aren't failing, wouldn't you be at least partially persuaded?
No. I wouldn't be partially persuaded. I'm already convinced that it's a fraud and a hoax. The company has all the tell-tale signs of such. i.e. We'll let an independent panel of 15 scientists investigate our incredible invention for peer review, but we're going to hand pick which scientists get to participate.

It's not peer review when you pick the peers. Is called rigging the jury. And they couldn't even get THAT right! The laws of physics that they're violating are some of the best understood and most accurate laws we have; more accurate than our understanding of gravity. Do you mean to tell me that they're working at a level where they're violating those laws, yet they can't figure out the proper room temperature for their demonstration??

Of course, they're making fistfuls of money in the process from "investors."
Peer review doesn't have a track record of good results anyway. Just for an example, who actually picks the 15 people who will review it? You'd better believe that those 15 are hand picked by someone who is biased already.
That's not how it works with [well respected] scientific journals.

 

Tiamat

Lifer
Nov 25, 2003
14,079
4
71
Originally posted by: dullard


Most likely, they aren't violating the laws of thermodynamics. Usually when this type of thing pops up, they are making a mistake along the way. The math appears to be violating it, but in reality, they did the math wrong.
Yeah, most likely they are making typical assumptions that cannot be made given their specific system.

Make macroscopic assumptions on nanoscopic material, and you "break" laws of physics/thermodynamics as well -- that is until you learn more about the phenomina at the level and relax those assumptions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY