Talk:Steorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-19. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steorn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Publicity stunt

I think the Publicity Stunt section needs to be looked, like does "Steorn" being an anagram of "no rest" have anything to do with Xbox? -Fineric 06:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Archeus and I have been discussing precisely this for sometime. See below under section "Hoax". His argument is that since some people have been talking about this (in various discussion forums he cites), it should be included. I argue that it's speculation with no reliable sources and that it doesn't make sense anyway since the company has more at stake by making such a preposterous claim than anything to gain by it. There is no other apparent motive (sale/offer of products or services) to attract people's attention that would justify the "publicity" claim. --Orangehues 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it's not a publicity stunt for the Xbox, as it was released nearly a year ago. I do so despise the fact that this hoax has made it to the Yahoo news frontpage this morning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.176.89 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim isnt that its an Xbox pitch, but a Halo 3 pitch, an upcoming game that runs on Xbox. The evidence is that one of the first news links to steorn was from the Xbox site (which is very odd), one of the pictures on the site looks like a rendered game image, one of the images is of a honeycomb which is reminicsent of the 'ilovebees' campaign for a previous halo, Steorn is an anagram of "no rest" which is a saying used by a Halo character, the sketch style graphics in the steorn video is very similar to the Halo 2 promo movie, and the Steorn logo is similar to the Xbox logo and a malestrom in the Halo3 video. Evidence to the contrary includes statements in the Steorn forums by User "Steorn" that it is not affiliated with Microsoft or the Xbox (also one denying association with Lost), and a statement by the CEO on an Irish radio station that they are not affiliated with Xbox. -- Simon

People, could you please sign your talk page posts? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Steorn have publically said that the XBox claim is totally false. There is a recording of thier interview on TodayFM (Irish radio Station) at this link. http://rapidshare.de/files/30265755/todayfm_steorn_interview_210806.mp3.html --Archeus 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


I've attempted to provide a non-biased source for some of this information. However, the "Publicity stunt" section currently reads like blatant original research. (It's always a bad sign when something starts out "It is believed by some". Whoever "some" is, he talks to everyone, but no one seems to know his name. ☺) I've added an {{unreferenced}} tag, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone just removes the whole section as OR. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the Xbox 360 out last Christmas? Selling on ebay for high$$$. That part needs to be removed 69.149.62.15 07:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) VE

That whole section reads like bull. The company has a history back to 2000 and never once XBox related. Also they are a year away from releasing this so called technology. (ref: Promotional Video) - Archeus.

Agreed. --seifip 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought this is an Encyclopedia, it should be neutral and not contain opinions about "free energy".

What, like opinions relating to its total impossibility in the face of the laws of thermodynamics?
re "Steorn" being an anagram of "no rest" - front page of the site explains it's an Irish word, which makes sense, being an Irish co. and all.... presumably this rumour angle has no merit? Hakluyt bean 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Such nonsene - a minimum of research reveals that this is a bona fide company and their web site states they have been awarding prizes to DIT students. I know a lecturer in DIT and he knows of them - I often used the DIT library as a student in Bolton St., where McCarthy graduated. So all this crap about a hoax or a publicity stunt is bloated out of all proportion here. A one liner should suffice. --hughey 12:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viral Marketing?

The videos they have produced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbla_AVt8CY) and the ad in the economist gives me the feeling that this is some kind of viral marketing campain. But for what? My best bet at the moment is on Lost Season 3. The lost producers have used viral campains before (the book by the fake author, the airline webpage, the webpage for the hanzo foundation, etc). Also lost features strange "EM fields" (that caused the plane crash, that makes the island invisible for outsiders, a strange experiment in the swan station, that went wrong, etc). Also these kinds of mysteries is quite typical for Lost. Well I guess only time will tell.

I think it unlikely that this is either a scam or a viral marketing campaign--the company has been up and running for years (see Age, below), and seems bone fide. Similarly, I don't see how a viral marketing campaign of this sort would benefit a company that otherwise appears to be a serious R&D outfit. And it's unlikely to be a viral campaign for someone else, unless they are blowing all their credibility for the sake of a few bucks. 135.196.62.53 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that the Company had not been filing its annual reports, and was about to do so. It would add some greater interest if the Lost marketing gurus found an existing company with an existing website for their campaign. Besides, isn't one of the recent shadowy Lost characters Irish? 1Winston 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly Demond is the character you are thinking of and he is Scottish, both the actor and the character.

Secondly this may not be too far off the mark. The Lost experience has been running the hansoexposed.com element for the past 6ish weeks. The goal to to collect 70 images from all over the internet. As of the 7th/8th September 69 have been found :

http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Hansoexposed.com

Which suggests this phase of the lost experience is wrapping up. It may be a coincidence but the deadline for interest on the steorn website is the 8th of september. My theory, and thats all it is, is that steorn was a legit company that fell on hard time and was bought out wholesale by ABC and the magnetic aspect of this whole thing is yet another phase of the lost experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Experience

As a paddy myself I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this is a hoax, but for viral marketing purposes. Douglas.kastle 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Such nonsense - a minimum of research reveals that this is a bona fide company and their web site states they have been awarding prizes to DIT students. I know a lecturer in DIT and he knows of them - I often used the DIT library as a student in Bolton St., where McCarthy graduated. So all this crap about a hoax or a publicity stunt is bloated out of all proportion here. A one liner should suffice. As a Paddy also I am ashamed at the usual back-stabbing of one's fellow countrymen - the Joyce syndrome. Get a life. --hughey 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While Ireland is renound for its begruger attitude, or call it the Joyce syndrome, and I will admit Colin Farrell gets up my nose especially when he is on American TV talking about masturbating on to a biscuit (a delightful Daily Show appearence). However these guys have stated that they believe they have violated the laws of thermodynamics, well as a qualified engineer I was thaught that energy can not be created or destroyed. So to their claim for finding free energy well without proof I just don't believe it and you hughey as someone with such a deep background in Physics at the very least appreciate that(with a PhD no less). So as an engineer (not a paddy) that makes me think that either this is a scam, hoax, viral marketing or they are just plain wrong (probably the last one) and I don't think that is a sympton of "The Joyce Syndrome". You should be familiar enough with the Fleischmann and Pons Cold Fusion claim way back in 1989 and the wild speculation that followed, which was never repeated. Just look at there website and their slick video and ask yourself why don't they point to a machine and say here this is a prototype or at least the experimenetal work that got us to this point, even if it is obscured, I'm sure that would have been possible with out giving up any secrets. My previous comment was merely following up the viral marketing thread, however that has not matured so I'm probably wrong on that one at the very least (however this doesn't then automatically make their claim true). Though that said maybe they accidentally harnessed the earth magnetic field, like where does the energy that turns a compass north come from, it does result in kenetic rotational energy and perhaps that will be a valuable discovery, but its no more free energy than solar or wind power is. Douglas.kastle 01:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should mention cold fusion as well. Amusing to see that you, as an engineer, have the tediously predictable knee jerk reaction when you hear cold fusion and would never have the scientific curiosity (leave that to the true scientists like me : ) tro look behind the innuendo at what really happened. I'm just thumbing through a marvelous book now, "Exces Heat - why cold fusion prevailed". I recommend you have a look before pontificating. The last year saw the rehabilitation of cold fusion research - see in cold fusion "The latest mainstream review of research in LENR occurred in 2004 when the US Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. When asked "Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources", the panelists were evenly split. When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced. The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field. Critics say that the DOE review had too limited a scope and inappropriate review process. [7][8][9] " . Critics on both sides - the pro-CF people say they didn't investigate deeply enough, or the percentage in favour would have increased. It's already astounding that the pariah of 'voodoo science' has survived the witch hunt described so well in "Excess Heat". So, he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone! Same for Steorn - they do NOT satisfy the '7 signs of Voodoo science". And energy could be coming from the vacuum, dark energy or other. So, jury is definitly still out!--hughey 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well it looks like I'm not the only one who has a knee jerk reaction. I would like to clarify though, I personally believe that cold fusion will be possible hopefully in my lifetime. However I was referring to the specfic "Fleischmann and Pons" case and how they handled their result and the media. They spoke too soon and they were unable to recreate the work that they claimed. They actually come in No 1 in the list of 7 signs of Voodoo science that you refer to. Here is the list :
  • 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
  • 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
  • 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
  • 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
  • 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
  • 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
  • 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Now only time will tell, but to my mind Steorn hits most of these, but as the guy, Robert L. Park. who wrote up the list states :
I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.
But I think I would add that not hitting every sign doesn't necessarily make you legitimate either. I'd like to reiterate Steorn have produced no proof yet only hype, even they say themselves they don't expect anybody to believe them until proof is delivered maybe you, hughey, should too.
Douglas.kastle 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


The energy released when a compass needle moves north was from the energy used to magnetize the needle when it didn't point north. It is like taking a horseshoe magnet and place a keeper bar across it. You will release energy because the bar is attracted to the magnet, and once it is in place almost all of the external magnetic field disappears. If it were possible to do this on the earth's magnetic field, it would be decreased and possibly let in more cosmic rays. Would you like to file an environmental impact report on something like that? Paul Studier 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, that sounds similar to an article on research into wind power, I can't find the link but the gist of it was that because the wind was being harnessed it was losing energy, obviously enough, but the regions that used to be affected by this wind to be kept cool are no longer getting the wind at the same energy and therefore the regions in question were actually getting hotter than normal as a result of the generation of wind power. Hence wind power is causing global warming, the end of the article said though that was ok because the net effect on global warming if the fossil fuel power plants that were been taken out of operation as a result of wind power were doing more damage than the damage done as a result of the wind farms, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Douglas.kastle 04:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit, not the original article I read but it covers some of the detail I mentioned Windmills to Change Local and Global Climates or Slashdot Discussion Douglas.kastle 05:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scam

I don't think it has anything to do with XBox at all. It is false informtion regarding breaking the laws of Thermodynamics. I suspect it is a way to harvest email addresses or try and remove investors from thier money. - Archeus 194.46.236.89 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • A full page ad in The Economist is likely about $100,000. Would that make sense economically as a email harvesting scheme?
    • Who says it's to do with e-mail? If anything they want more high dollar investors to take advantage of.--24.250.176.89 09:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is certainly a chance that the company will solicit funds in the future, but at this time I don't see that as a possibility. And who would invest before the panel of scientists gave some conclusions?

- 75.2.221.225 194.46.236.89 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A full page advert price I have seen is about 10,000 (unconfirmed). They have already gotten an investor who has funded them 3 million (see thepost.ie ). Incidently according to thier video interview they have already asked scientists to review the data. They said that 90% refused while 10% checked it and said it was working but refused to be named.

Needs it own section on the main part. Try to keep NPOV. - Archeus 194.46.236.89 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've sent a request to BBC News to look into this story, as I don't trust the credulous American press to look through the right end of a microscope, let alone evaluate press releases about seemingly impossible physics feats. (These are the same folks that presented a blob of chocolate that at best resembles a bird as a miraculous mini-statue of the Virgin Mary.) I have no idea how likely BBC is to pick up on this request, but it is in their neck of the woods, so to speak. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


The add price is variously quoted as 80,000 EURO or more. Then there are several tens of thousands paid to the PR firm. The investors funded the other activities of Steorn - i.e. the hi-tec security issues around ATMs and CCTVs - so successful had they been at building a reputation in this field that the investor gave a budget for a 3 or 4 year period of 'blue sky research' where Steron were to come up with innovations in the security area. Listen to the interviews and read up a bit and you will hear that for yourself. --hughey 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One glaring omission in all the scam discussions and media is: if they have a free energy device, why dont they sell the energy ? I mean, just hook it up to a generator and pump power to grid. They dont lose anything as its "free" and Ireland wins and can shut down the power stations ...82.131.29.50 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have not done any major homework. The 'media' produced the Sky News interview etc. where this point was made repeatedly and always answered by McCarthy in the same way: they are not a manufacturer - just a new technology development company and have no plant for product manufacture - they want to farm that out to others. And their magneto-mechanical system needs to have a lot of extras hooked up to generate power. That again they are leaving to licencees, once verification is over. --hughey 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"have no plant for product manufacture " The product, in this case is obviously "energy". They claim free energy after all. If they have no "plant"(device) to manufacture a "product"(energy) this in short means they have no device of producing free energy. "magneto-mechanical system needs to have a lot of extras to generate power" The "extra" needed to convert kinetic energy to electric is called a "generator" and has been used for more than century.195.50.194.24 10:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Note I have added something to the AIAS section below which materially adds to the discussion, and which may transform the whole debate about whether Steorn is a scam or hoax. While many will continue to claim this, there is now a (still controversial) scientific theory, ECE Theory, that predicts precisely the kind of technology Steorn claim to have developed. --David Saunders 22.18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research

I added the informational video on google as they make a lot of thier claims in that video. --Dark archeus 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


The only real connection to the XBOX I could find is that xBoxNews posted the story.

Here is the information I found.

  • They have claimed they have broken the laws of thermodynamics.
  • Founded in 2000 this is thier initial description (taken from google cache of Steorn.com not Steorn.net).

"Steorn is a leading Intellectual Property (IP) research and development organisation. Founded in 2000, Steorn has developed cutting-edge technology solutions in areas such as optical disc analysis and plastic card fraud prevention. The company is currently engaged in the development of its own proprietary battery substitution technology."

- Archeus (dont have login here).

Here is another link, sounds like the credit card fraud prevention tech: Commercial anticounterfeit products using machine vision Patrick J. Smith, Phelim O'Doherty, Carlos Luna, Fraudhalt Ltd. (Ireland); Sean McCarthy, Steorn Ltd. (Ireland); pages 237-243. http://www.imaging.org/store/physpub.cfm?seriesid=24&pubid=62269.149.62.15 07:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)VE

Abstract of that is here.. http://www.imaging.org/store/epub.cfm?abstrid=31863 - Archeus.

steorn.com registered in 2000 according to Network Solutions whois search. Sean McCarthy is the administrative contact. There is an address listed for him.69.149.62.15 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)VE

I agree with Archeus above, this is not a perpetual motion machine. If you read the patent it is clear that they do input a little energy to get much more energy as output. Perpetual motion would not use any energy at all. Here's an excerpt from their patent description:

Electromagnets are commonly used where there is a requirement for a magnetic field to be actuated (turned on/off) [...] The use of electromagnets to effectuate magnetic fields suffers from one major drawback - the electromagnet requires a relatively large amount of electrical energy to operate. [They have deveoped] A low energy magnet actuator [that] allows magnetic fields to be turned on and off using a small amount of energy.

Clearly, not perpetual motion. I suggest the reference to perpetual motion be removed. --Orangehues 09:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Read here [1] "Perpetual motion machines are a class of hypothetical machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - that is, without requiring additional energy input."

And in this article - "The energy isn't being converted from any other source such as the energy within the magnet. It's literally created." --24.250.176.89 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you take some of the excess energy produced and feed it back into the machine so that it provides the initial energy input, then use the remainder of the excess so that you spin a wheel, say, then you have perpetual motion. So yes, this is a perpetual motion machine. --bokononist 22:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines are in continuous motion. The makers of this machine clearly state that the metal piece revolving around the magnets continually starts AND STOPS at a certain point in order to gain energy. For a perpetual motion machine to be perpetually in motion, they cannot stop motion. 71.50.236.210 17:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Dmar198
It is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind because it violates the 1st thermodynamic law. There are perpetual motion machines of the second kind that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A ship that takes in water and puts it back into the sea as ice cubes and transformes this energy in motion would be allowed by the 1st law but it would violated the 2nd. Such a ship can not be build.
The machine that makes the energy can be in motion, stop-start as you describe, or it can even be solid-state. But if the device produces energy from nowhere it can run a moving part in perpetuity. As I say above, if they simply link the device to a moving part, or to a battery then a moving part, that's done. This final part is trivial, so they are claiming a perpetual motion machine alright. --bokononist 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Then it would be a perpetual motion generator, not a perpetual motion machine. Since the part stops and starts, it isn't in perpetual motion. It could be used to power a perpetual motion machine, but when you think about it so could anything. Their claim is that it is a mechanical machine; but this machine can supposedly create energy, so it could theoretically power an electrical machine. Either way, its an insanely crazy (pun intended) claim. I believe it, though. I came up with a similar design (though mine probably wouldn't have worked). I mean "similar" in that I had an idea and an outline and an explanation for a perpetual motion machine, essentially a magnet motor, that had magnet placement directing the motion of a magnetically attracted apparatus, and that is what they show on their website's video. Mine, though, may have been disproven by my school teacher, who pointed out that with a magnetic ring (mine was for a magnet in the shape of a ring, with the positive field on the outside and the negative field on the inside, Steorn's is a triangle shaped thing of 3 magnets, each at a different point [if the video proves true] and the apparatus travels around the three and starts and stops at a certain one.) the negative field on the inner part of the ring would be facing itself, by the very property of the ring, and thus would cancel itself out at the very center, and from there outward. I don't know if this would apply to Steorn's, though, as their magnets are in a triangle, not a circle. 71.50.236.210 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Dmar198
A few paragraphs above somebody wrote, "The makers of this machine clearly state that the metal piece revolving around the magnets continually starts AND STOPS at a certain point in order to gain energy." What Steorn itself said is, "What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy." For what it's worth, the Steorn sentence isn't necessarily saying some metal piece actually starts and stops. It may well be saying that in one complete revolution (in an unbroken series of revolutions), energy is gained when you measure between the start of the revolution and the end of the revolution. In other words, for the immediate purpose of conveying some idea of what the machine does, "starting" and "stopping" in the sentence were probably intended to refer to the points at which a hypothetical measuring is started and stopped, not to mechanical starts and stops. Kkett 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe somebody might find this link usefull, http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Steorn_Free_Energy Kr0n 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a wiki article, so it's not a reliable source. It may, however, contain links to potentially reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The pictures in that wiki refer to a patent that Stoern have said has nothing to do with the device in question. All patents related to the device are still private. It's mentioned on the link regarding breaking up the device into individual patents link. So I am not sure how reliable that page is. --Archeus 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Allright, I thought maybe the bits about Magnetic Power, Inc. (MPI) saying “Our own laboratory results confirm what Steorn is saying,” said MPI’s Mark Goldes, Chairman and CEO of the Sebastopol California based company" sounded interesting. But not if its not reliable. Kr0n 13:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
MPI's "laboratory" isn't exactly known to be reliable ;-) See e.g. http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/03/UltraConductorsMagneticPower for a 2004 article where Goldes says "Laboratory results are encouraging. Systems capable of producing replacements for batteries, as well as kilowatt, and eventually megawatt, modules of electric power from Zero Point Energy, are now on the horizon. Prototype drive systems for vehicles may be possible within two years.".
I have removed the peswiki link as the article is just not good enough and has a number of inaccuracies. The story itself is also covered in other links and it offers nothing new. --Archeus 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The NPOV policy means Wikipedia can't take a position as to whether this is genuine, mistaken, a hoax, or whatever. We should only report the opinions of others. We've got a cite for Steorn's claims, now we need cites for criticism and/or support. -- The Anome 10:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't say that Steorn is a scam; that's against Wikipedia's original research and verifiability policies; instead, please find someone else who is saying that, and report their views. -- The Anome 10:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
=== Wikipedia is not a soapbox ===

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.
  2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and Wikipedia:Notability.
  3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.

Jason Hommel 11:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or advertising, what is this article doing here? It's serving as legitimization of what is clearly a ruse. --24.250.176.89 00:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Even the advertisement in the Economist is linked at the bottom of the page. In what way is the article, in its current form, NOT serving as a platform for Steorn's agenda? --24.250.176.89 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It is described as a perpetual motion machine which is sufficient to debunk it and is about as far as we can probably go in Wikipedia. If you delete it, then the conspiracy nuts can claim that you are suppressing it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steorn. Paul Studier 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The promotional video they made an exclamation that they had given information to the technology for scientists to prove it in the advert. However the advert in question just tells you to go back to thier website. In light of that there is no reason for the advert link to be there. It has already been documented they spent an insane amount of money for something that for all purposes can't exist. Also a link to thier site would bring you to the ad as well. I agre document what they are doing but don't turn the page into a platform/advert. --Archeus 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Company logo for Infobox

Anyone care to get the image for the infobox of the company's logo. I really don't know how to go about getting it. Niall123 12:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age?

Steorn.com goes back to 2000. If you go to that web address it now routes you to steorn.net. I was actually able to find details of thier companies address at 2000, but didn't seem any point to add it to the story. --Dark archeus 07:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This company claims, and this wikipedia article asserts, that the company is six years old. I would like some proof of that fact if wikipedia is going to continue to claim that. Their web page says "© 2000–2006 Steorn Ltd" but their press releases section goes back no further than August 17. Looking on google I see pretty much NOTHING in the way of news articles before 2006 ANYWHERE which give any indication this company really existed before this year. There appear to have been a couple companies named "Steorn" in Dublin at various times but I don't see any signs any of them were in the business of preventing "credit card fraud", as steorn.net's history page claims.

Goofy perpetual motion / infinite bandwidth / infinite energy scams crop up all the time, but I don't think I've ever seen one appear to be this well-funded and well-connected out of the gate. I'm frankly seeing a lot of attractiveness in the theory that this is an ARG rabbithole, the logo similarity to the XBox 360 logo is not coincidental, and wikipedia is being trolled.

If this *is* a real company, of course, Wikipedia's readers would be well served if we could post proof of such, or at least ANY indication or citations on what this supposed technology company was doing before 2006. That shouldn't be too hard; between this slick promotional video and the cost of these ads they're buying they seem to have rather a lot of money. Surely they got it from somewhere?

Awk 20:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So someone has pointed out Steorn.com has archive.org records going back to 2001, and looking I find the person listed as CEO in the video (Sean McCarthy) is listed on the early archive.org pages as CEO as well. I think there's still valid question as to whether it's the same company though, and would still like to see some evidence that anything exists of this company at all except press releases-- especially since there is no section in the current article for questions about whether this is a publicity stunt.

Awk 20:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A google search will show you that there have been news articles from 2002 talking about Steorn's work with batteries, so I doubt the age is that much of a problem here. Smartaalec 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Irish Companies Registration Office provides information on all companies registered in the Republic of Ireland. The information listed there for Steorn substantiates the assertion that Steorn was incorporated in 2000. 135.196.62.53 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of past content of Steorn's web page can be found at Internet Archive. Their WayBack Machine has made apparently first usable snapshot on Mar 03, 2001. You can see history of changes here. 195.210.226.224 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical details

Does anyone have any technical details? Has anyone here given them their email? Paul Studier 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The company hasn't released any technical details. On thier forums there is a person claiming to be from a scientist group in the UK that knew of the tests. They claim there was an anolmaly in the testing. But nothing has been proven to the public yet. --Dark archeus 07:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Rummaging around. This is alledgely the actual device. http://www.steorn.net/images/sean5_small.jpg --Dark archeus 08:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the metal disks in the device are intended as flywheels, or homopolar generators, both of which have featured in previous claimed "free energy" devices? -- The Anome 14:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Although it is not entirely clear from the picture, I think it is not a homopolar generator. It appears that the disks are held by "C" shaped pieces of aluminum with no coils or magnets close enough to do anything, and no wipers to remove the charge. Therefore, the disks are probably just flywheels. Paul Studier 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually free energy I think... I believe the closest you can get is by using magnetics... but you need to magnetize the magnets in the first place...

In my opinion, that is not a perpetual motion device, but a prolonged motion device. As all magnets eventually lose their magnetism, and even if after years they've only lost less than 1%, they have still lost energy. (source: http://www.magnetshop.com/choosing_power.php)... but this assumes that they are using magnets, which is what I gleaned from their marketing video. 70.66.55.227 08:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I not only gave them my e-mail address, but also registered to become one of the 12 scientists on the jury. 2 days ago was the first e-mail I got from them, and no, sorry to disappoint those sour, cynical nay-sayers - it was not begging for money, as Mc Carthy made it plane he would not seek investment until the Jury's verdict was published. The mail simply asked for more details of my academic career, as I seemed to pass the first hurdle. These I prompty returned. Scientific curiousity is better than a closed mind, in my view. And of course it need not be a perpetual motion machine - those using that term show their out-dated knowledge of physics, as we now know of several normally hidden reserves of energy besides ambient temperature. There is the famous quantum vacuum, with possibly unlimited energy, not to mention possibly dark matter or energy. Assuming the machine works of course. --hughey 17:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Event?

With all the media attention it has been getting, is it almost worth giving this article a "current event" tag, or do you think that the process will go on for long enough (or not result at all) and this short media attention will just die down... Smartaalec 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. If this story gets popular enough, whether the claims are real or not, then making this a current event would IMO invalidate it from being considered for deletion. KittensOnToast 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptors/Deletion

I believe this article no longer qualifies as either a "Organization-related" stub or an "Energy" stub and those should be removed. Additionally I think the overwhelming amount of Keeps on the deletion page means it no longer qualifies as a candidate and the box should therefore be removed. Imlepid 05:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we're out of stub territory, so I've removed the tags. (Whether the content is sufficiently broad, accurate, or properly sourced is a different issue.) Only an admin should remove the AfD tag, as part of the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steorn. We'll just have to wait for this to happen. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The deletion process states that the deletion tag remains there for 5 days, and a decision is made at the end - we still have to bare with it for three or four days guys... Smartaalec 10:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, an admin may decide that such an overwhelming "keep" vote would warrant a "speedy keep". But they have to make the call, and I suspect it's usually only done if the nomination was in bad faith. (The improbability of the company's claims, combined with the initial 2 obscure news reports and the potential for a staged commercial promotion, supports a good-faith nomination, regardless of the outcome.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Economist

Has anyone actually seen this advert in the Economist or know when it is air to run? The only reference I can see to this happening is from Steorn itself. Would like to be sure. --Archeus 10:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Steorn have a link to a PDF of the ad on their website, but as for an actual hard copy of the ad in the economist, no - i haven't seen one. Its certainly an interesting prospect that the ad may have been completely fabricated as well, but for it to get this much attention over an ad that never existed would make the world seem just a bit too gullible in my eyes. Smartaalec 14:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the ad: it's in this month's Economist. -- The Anome 14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's on page 5. I have it in front of me. I love this bit in the ad:

Imagine
A world with an infinte supply of pure energy.
Never having to recharge your phone.
Never having to refuel your car.

Is that the best result they can imagine? What about not having to pander to the middle east any more? How's about everyones income in the world increasing dramatically as a result of not paying for heat or light or a/c? What about an instant end to global warming? No, no, no, the main thing is that you don't have the inconvenience of having to recharge your mobile phone. Curtains99 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Energy that's "free to create" doesn't automatically lead to "free for everyone." Steorn plans to profit from the technology by licensing it. That said, I think three of the biggest areas of impact of "free energy", if it does indeed work and can be easily engineered to work in different industries, will be end of global warming, interplanetary travel and desalinization of sea-water. --Orangehues 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It will be the end of all three of them? I'll definitely miss interplanetary travel. (but seriously, if we'll be able to pull infinite amounts of free energy out of thin air, wouldn't that increase global warming rather than decrease it ;-)

For those of you with a copy of the relevant Economist, could you cite a specific date and/or issue, so we can properly cite it? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's this week's (19-25 August) issue. I've added the date to the reference. Beest 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of redundancies sake, I have verified this. It is just a page or two past the table of contents. Paul Studier 02:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "invention" section copied from news article?

The section titled "The invention" appears to be an exact copy of a news article from playfuls.com: "Free, Clean Energy: an Elaborate Prank or the Fundamental Breakthrough?", by Dan Nicolae Alexa. (http://www.playfuls.com/news_001959_Free_Clean_Energy_an_Elaborate_Prank_or_the_Fundamental_Breakthrough.html) I would just blank that section, except that I'm not sure whether the playfuls.com article is the original source; for all I know, playfuls.com got the article from Wikipedia. But it seems likely that that section of the Wikipedia article is a copyright violation and should be removed. --Elysdir 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted it to an earlier version. --Dark archeus 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to answer the question, the timestamp on Alexa's article is 20 August, 11:44. As this site is registered in Cyprus, and Alexa's name looks Greek, it's not a great stretch to deduce this is GMT+3 time, making it 08:44 UTC. User:69.174.2.88 replaced the contents of "The invention" with Alexa's text 20 August, 18:25 UTC, so it's almost certainly a copyvio. Thanks to Elysdir for catching this and Dark archeus for fixing it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist is a weekly publication.

[edit] filed accounts

I did a search on that information. There appear to be two companies at the same address. One is "STEORN LIMITED" and the other is "STEORN NOMINEES LIMITED". The latter was registered in 2005 and has filed in 2006. It used to be a scam years ago in Ireland that if the company was in trouble you move all the assets to the sister company and basically you where immune from people getting at the cash. (Worked for a company 20 years ago that did this twice). I don't know if this is still the case though. --Archeus 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Credit report details here http://www.ukdata.com/numbers/E0406754.html --Archeus 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

They are holding themselves out as Steorn Ltd., however, so it's more likely that Steorn Nominees Ltd. is being used for structuring/tax purposes. If they have done their tax homework correctly, their IP assets should be held by a seperate legal entity, possibly the Nominees entity.

Also, Steorn Nominees Ltd. hasn't actually filed accounts yet--what they have filed is an annual return which contains info such as directors etc. but no figures.

135.196.62.53 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts over major sections of article.

Just a few points:

you can read the forums but there seems to be no way to register and contribute to them indicating perhaps automation or pre-scripted discussions.

I can't find any hard evidence of the advert appearing in the economist and furthermore we can't say how much they paid for it when we can't even be sure it exists, the article should read "the usual rate for such an advert is" Baxter001 18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The forums can be signed into (and signed up for) using the 'Sign In' link at the top right of the page Steorn forums page. The advert was published in the current issue of the Economist on a page facing the contents. Sony-youth 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the existence of the ad, it's not an issue. See "The Economist" section above. 135.196.62.53 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Edits

I'd like to add the following news item to References (numbered bullets area) but I don't see the numbered bullets when I try to edit references. (I'm new to wikipedia)

16. ""Perpetual Motion Claim Probed"", Wired News, August 21, 2006. Retrieved on August 21, 2006.

The above is to be done to add the following sentences in the last para of section "The Invention":

However, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office adds, "A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices."[13] Steorn have claimed to have completely functional model/s to which the probing scientists will have complete access. "They will be given full access to the company's work, will be able to take the technology home to test in their own laboratories, or recreate the process themselves."[16] --Orangehues 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. See WP:CITE as a starting point to learning how to do this on your own, and welcome. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Another important page for understanding this somewhat odd referencing system is Wikipedia:Footnotes (WP:FOOT). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Challenge to scientists section has become a blow-by-blow sequence of press releases from Steorn about the progress of the Jury process. Could the people monitoring this please condense it into a summary of the position? It looks like a list of news items as it stands. PerpetuumMobile 11:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax?

I have seen on another forum that someone pointed out that the press releases page the first story which details thier announcement (of last Friday) is as follows. http://www.steorn.net/en/coverage.html

Steorn Announce "Free Energy" Technology Irish company Steorn have announced a revoloutionary free energy technology. More The Guardian | 1 April 2006

As I recall that was there on the day of the announcement 18th August but the only story I can find on the guardian is the 20th of August (google says it's the 19th). Also thier press links don't go anywhere. --Archeus 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Checked back on the site and they have removed this reference although there are numerous comments on it in the sites forum. Appeared to have removed all press clippings and the page in question just has photos --Archeus 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This makes absolutely no sense. If this were to turn out to be a hoax, they'd be liable to pay damages for mis-representation. They are signing up scientists!! They cannot claim a world changing discovery unless they really believe so. I vote for removing the "Possible Hoax" section etirely.--Orangehues 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Pay damages to who exactly? Regardless of what you believe there have been a number of stories in regards to what kind of hoax/publicity stunt this is and adding Steorns comments on it and pointing out these rather then saying it is a hoax or not helps maintain the NPOV (IMHO). --Archeus 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
To the scientists who signed up in good faith and to the media where Steorn gave interviews, if not others. This would fly in their (Steorn Management's) face and destroy their careers if it turned out to be untrue. If you're saying they're lying, please also demonstrate what they could possibly gain out of it. --Orangehues 08:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your misreading the piece. I am not saying they are lying at all. I am documenting the fact that other groups/news people took this to be something other then a free energy machine. I have added the links relating to where the rumour of the XBox marketing came from. Incidently while it may or may not destroy thier careers if not true they have done nothing to date that where they would be required to pay out damages. If you think otherwise please note the source and we will document that too. Thanks. --Archeus 09:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
And I'm saying that this is non-sensical. Sorry, I have no sources for common sense. And what are your sources - steorn's forum and a message board for a gaming site? The teambox story doesn't make any reference to this being what you are saying it is. I call again to remove this section entirely. --Orangehues 09:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually if you check the sources while some relate to where the rumour first came from you can actually listen to the CEO detailing some of the hoaxes that have been claimed and refuting them. So I believe them to be relevent. I think your contention may be more to do with the title of the section "possible hoax" when it is more detailing what others thought where publicity stunts. Lets see what others think. --Archeus 09:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, lets see what others think. Here's what Archeus is calling his "sources":
  • Post on Steorn's discussion forum
  • Google Cache of a Press page
  • Story on Xbox news site making no reference to this being related to Xbox.
  • Post on a forum of gaming site.
  • Audio file on Rapidshare claimed to be recorded from Today FM in which Steorn CEO denies it being a hoax.
This clearly breaks Wikipedia guidelines for citing Reliable sources. I suggest that unless a reliable source is added, this section be deleted. We can debate whether a statement regarding this speculation can be added under section "The Company".--Orangehues 10:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me make it quite clear that what you are quoting as "my sources" I didn't post them all.
  • Post on Steorn's discussion forum / Google Cache of a Press page
If this is in reference to the April 1st then they are quite relevent. I can find numerous references to this page existing and people commenting on it by googling "Steorn April 1st". I also checked the Guardian site for the news story it was supposed to mention and it did not exist.
  • Story on Xbox / forum of gaming site.
If you check the forum in question and the comments section of the news story you would see that numerous people believed this to be a Halo 3 publicity stunt and if you check the initial wiki entry this is also mentioned and the "publicity stunt" section of the discussion refers to this. Add to this the CEO on radio and other interviews mentioning how some people believed it to be an Halo3/Xbox publicity Stunt.
  • Audio file on Rapidshare claimed to be recorded from Today FM in which Steorn CEO denies it being a hoax.
Your wrong. in which Steorn CEO claims that thier machine is not a hoax and that the XBOX/TV Shows, etc are stories they have heard of in relation to thier announcement If you want further links in relation to the MP3 I had pulled it from a discussion boards.ie science forum however your right its probably not a great link. However it was a copy of the radio interview prior to TodayFM posting it to thier website. I will update the link to TodayFMs site. --Archeus 10:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Archeus, I think you need a trip to the Reliable Sources Wikipedia guidelines I linked above. "Numerous people" speculating on various discussion forums do not make a reliable source.--Orangehues 11:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
True, however in the case of the Xbox rumour I am not posting them as a reliable source but instead pointing out where this speculation may of come from and I do point to a reliable source of where this rumour was quashed. You have already claimed I am lying about some parts of it and I have found the TodayFM news link for you and I have found the original April 1st Page on thier website for you. Is there anything else in particular you wish to comment on please do so. However please refer to NPOV when doing so. --Archeus 11:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made no claims that you lied about anything. I only said that your sources aren't reliable. There's been a lot of speculation about it at a lot of different places. We certainly can't include all of that in the article or be selective about including only some of it. Speculation can be included however, if it represents view of a large majority of people, for which multiple sources would need to be cited. Also, such speculation must be accompanied by a disclaimer identifying it as a speculation. For example, see this note. Otherwise, speculation has no place in a Wikipedia article based on facts. --Orangehues 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I refer you back to your earlier bullet points where you try to imply they are incorrect (and cite me as posting all of them). I have corrected them. I have also posted "Factual" information dismissing the rumours circulating the internet in relation to this. The fact that the company in question and a number of media outlets reported them would make the section relevent to this. Now if there is one in particular you have a problem that is not based on "Fact" please post it and I will see how best to address your issue. However your original comment of "08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)" was asking for the section to be removed based on a POV. Please keep it NPOV. --Archeus 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the section. I've made some edits myself to keep it NPOV. --Orangehues 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What you have put in isn't NPOV. Its speculation and also incorrect. While thier site says that now the rest of the article points out that they do in fact do or have done other work which is not related to this. Also your second "fact" isn't a fact its speculation. As I mentioned earlier you need to cite someone who will detail what serious setback they will get or its no better then claims its an Xbox stunt. Your piece on not accepting any money until verified would be better suited in Challange to scientists. --Archeus 14:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that they aren't accepting any money clearly relates with gains from the claim therefore it's more appropriate in the Publicity section. It's got nothing to do with the challenge itself. And as I said earlier it's commonsense that when a company makes a preposterous claim and then fails to deliver on it, it is more likely to become a laughing stock than gain anything from the exercise.--Orangehues 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the comment more relates to that money isn't being taken until the scientists verify the device so its more apt there. Or do you mean that this is part of the publicity stunt? Also I've removed the sentance referring to the future. Its speculation. We have no idea at this time if they will be setback or not if this is a fake or not. Unless you have proof otherwise? --Archeus 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This discussion isn't productive anymore. I withhold further comments until others participate in it.--Orangehues 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Archeus "We have no idea at this time if they will be setback or not if this is a fake or not. Unless you have proof otherwise?" Well, here's a precedent: Pons-Fleischmann experiment - two scientists who also made a Free Energy Claim but "the subsequent controversy resulted in the scientists being pilloried", according to a story on Steorn citing how big a risk they have taken. It also cites Steorn CEO admitting that failing validation "could have a very adverse effect on our business", something I called commonsense previously.--Orangehues 22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe rename the section to "Speculation" rather the "Possible Hoax", or another title which would detail the other rumours as to what some people believe this to be? --Archeus 08:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I just did some basic cleanup and restructuring of the new "Possible hoax" section that discusses this information. But I'm troubled that the only source for this idea so far is a discussion forum, which is not a reliable source. Unless we replace it with something more reliable, this entire section is well into original research territory. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a reasonable article on if it is a hoax or marketing ploy http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/rupertgoodwins/0,39020691,39281444,00.htm. Also this link http://rapidshare.de/files/30265755/todayfm_steorn_interview_210806.mp3.html is an mp3 of an Irish radio show where the CEO lists some of the hoaxes they have heard about themselves and refute.

Tided up the possible hoax section a little and added the other possibles listed. The TV program is supposed to be Lost but the article doesn't mention it so I haven't. --Archeus 07:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I found that while they updated the main page of the press coverage the localised version still exists on thier website. I have linked to that as well. Hope that helps with the reliable sources. I left in the google reference as well for now in case they nuke that too. --Archeus 11:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Note I have added something to the AIAS section below which materially adds to the discussion, and which may transform the whole debate about whether Steorn is a scam or hoax. While many will continue to claim this, there is now a (still controversial) scientific theory, ECE Theory, that predicts precisely the kind of technology Steorn claim to have developed. --David Saunders 22.18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letters sent out.

Here is a copy of the form letter they sent out to Scientists. I'm not overly inclined to respond to it (too much information I don't want to give), but appears they are contacting people.

23 August 2006

Dear Applicant,

Re: The Steorn Challenge

Thank you for expressing an interest in joining the panel of 12 jurors that will be selected to test Steorn’s technology.

Based on the initial registration details that you have provided we would be grateful if you could forward, by return email only, a synopsis of your academic career, including the following details:

Education/ Degrees (Name of University);
Current position (e.g. University/Institute);
Research areas (On whose behalf it was conducted);
Published papers;
Honours/Awards; and
Contact details (e.g. University/Institute department - email address and telephone number).

We will contact you again once we have had an opportunity to review all the synopses that we are expecting to receive over the next few weeks.

Thank you again for your interest.

Yours faithfully,

Sean McCarthy

Please note that we will treat your information under the strictest confidence and that we are bound, in any event, by our obligations under the Data Protection Acts 1988-2003 in respect of same.

--Archeus 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that Steorn is going to select 12 scientists to form an academic 'jury'. It might be more credible if an independent body selected the scientists. It would be more credible still if they published their method and allowed the entire scientific community the chance to try to reproduce their findings. I understand they are citing trade secret concerns for their refusal to follow this route. Curtains99 13:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That's correct - an independent body would have been more reliable. But it's also concievable that a) no one would have taken them seriously to setup an independent body. and b) with such huge capital at stake (entire industries, oil and auto for example, stand to lose if this claim is proven) the selection of an "independent body" itself might have been rigged. --Orangehues 19:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Letter mentions they are registered by the Data protection act. Thats reasonably easy to check in Ireland. Will check when I get a chance. No point documenting it unless it is not the case though. --Archeus 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Publicity Stunt" - Please Participate

Archeus and I (Orangehues) have been arguing above (#16 Hoax?) whether the section "Publicity Stunt" (previously "Possible Hoax?") is justified in the main article. Please read all comments by both of us. To sum up my views:

  • The Publicity argument doesn't makse sense. Publicity for what? Steorn isn't actively selling anything or explicitly offering any services. What would they do with all the attention. Their entire site is centred around their claim to this discovery. They have also said they won't accept any money until the claim is verified.
  • They have obviously taken a huge risk by making a preposterous claim and their reputation is at stake. If they lose (fail to prove the claim), they risk being laughed at and having to create their business from scratch. If this is a hoax, they are also liable to pay damages for mis-representation to a wide variety of parties. They have nothing to gain and a lot to lose in the long run if it is indeed a hoax.
  • There is no reliable evidence that this is a publicity stunt. Discussion in forums shouldn't be permissable here. Plus, there's not enough evidence that this is being speculated at all.

Archeus may add a summary of his views here for your consideration. Please leave a comment about whether the section "Publicity Stunt" is justified. --Orangehues 19:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some sites who are considering theis a possible Alternate Reality Game, such as this discussion at Unfiction
I believe you misunderstand the section. It is not to prove/disprove that this is a publicity stunt at all. There has been a large amount of internet and real life rumour that this annoucement has an alterior motive. The section points out some of these accusations and refutes them by the companies CEO. The CEO also goes into these a lot in his interviews. So I believe they are relevent. regardless if they have taken a huge risk or not (we don't know at this time) it doesn't take away from this section. My only contention is if they are taking a huge risk I'd like to see some proof of it (I have found nothing that would suggest they have beyond speculation). --Archeus 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just want to add that there is a lot more stuff then what is posted in the publicity section however I have only been dealing with actual stuff that could be confirmed. For example thier connection to a marketing firm. --Archeus 06:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no reliable evidence that this is a publicity stunt." - This is not true. Even a brief google will find numerous stories in relation to this. Google for "Steorn PR Stunt" or "Steorn Publicity stunt". ZDNet even confirm that the company itself has said this is a PR stunt. I think the contention you are having is where people believed it to be something other then the actual machine. Which is documented and covered by the CEOs interview. --Archeus 09:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Steorn → 2006 Steorn advertisment in the Economist – The article has little to do with Steorn as a company. The article was created in responce to, and is substantially about, the controversy arising from Steorn's advertisment in the Economist magazine seeking a jury of 12 international scientists to judge their claim to have invented "a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy." Sony-youth 22:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose - Steorn's claim of free energy is far bigger than the ad itself; for most people, the name of the company represents that claim and not the ad. --Orangehues 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The simpler title is much more likely to be found. LWizard @ 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per LizardWizard's statement; wikipedia is very userfriendly as of now, and I think this usability should stay rather than the technicality of the article being misnamed. 71.50.236.210 00:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Dmar198
  • Oppose. This article reaches beyond just the ad. Paul Studier 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See my comments below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Pstudier, Steorn is more than just an ad.--203.59.166.123 02:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a convenient title for the article, and there is more to the article than just the advertisement.Moldrat 04:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - For the "The Steorn Challange" --Archeus 09:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same reason as Orangehues as well.--Dali-Llama 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Theres no need for the article to be moved, and doing so would have a negative impact on the article itself. Smartaalec 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • It would be odd to have an article about a news event whose subject doesn't have an article, implying a lack of notability. Even if Steorn is eventually best known for this event, and even if it proves to be a hoax, this is what makes it worth including in Wikipedia. (This is perhaps the most attention-getting attempt at demonstrating a free-energy device since Wikipedia became a significant web presence, so it would be natural for this to be sort of a "flagship" article that represents our effort to document this ongoing controversy and its players.) Of course, we still need to work to dig up reliable sources for other information on the company, and attempt to round the article out with a broader view of the subject, not just its notoriety. But that will come in time. This is much too new a situation to expect a complete working set of sources, and it will probably take months (at least) for the scientific testing to be performed (or reported on as not performed). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"It would be odd to have an article about a news event whose subject doesn't have an article, implying a lack of notability." - If doing so would imply a lack of notability then it must already lack notability. This kind of argument is like one person saying to another in an argument, "I can't agree with you because doing so would imply that I am wrong." It sounds like you are supporting my request to move rationale: that the current article has little to do with Steron as a company, despite bearing the company name and the Wiki company template. Are there any other examples of a company name being the title of a "flagship" article? Sony-youth 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Orangehues above who ways that most people who come to the article are looking for an article on the claim, not Steorn - but does this not further support my rationale for moving the article: that it is not about Steorn, it is about the claim? WizardLizard is right, though, that the proposed title is awkard. Sony-youth 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My opposing is more for the rewording of the renaming. It has very little to do about the advert itself and more with the claims of thier device. As they don't actually have a name for the device maybe rename to "Steorn Device". However the companies history is somewhat tied into this device as well. --Archeus 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Suggestons for a better name would be welcome, the "Steorn Device" sounds a little too SciFi - maybe "The Steorn Challange" since that is what they used in their mail-out (see above)? I don't think its possible to say that the company's history is "tied to the device" though since it was founded in 2000 and has not always been about this device (see the results for steorn.com on the Internet Archive). Sony-youth 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Steorn Challange" sounds better approve in this instance. :) --Archeus 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article devolves

This article devolves into a giant heap of press clippings. Newspapers are not reliable sources for scientific topics. It is of no encyclopedic value, to add more and more press stories, and CEO says this, CEO says that stuff. --Pjacobi 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying; I removed a bunch of references in one of my edits to limit them to one. But this does come under Current Event and it's hardly a scientific topic yet. The science doesn't enter the picture until the "Jury" publishes its findings.--Orangehues 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This is turning into a press release for Steorn. We don't need so much quoted text. people can use links. --Archeus 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Steorn → The Steorn Challenge – The article has little to do with Steorn as a company. It was created following the announcement of, is substantially about, and serves a public interests in the "The Steorn Challenge". Sony-youth 08:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I also propose that "Steorn" redirect to "The Steorn Challenge" until a more substantial article is written on Steorn as a company. Sony-youth 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support - A better title for document. --Archeus 09:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The company and the claim are synonymous at this point. Jim Douglas 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with the previous statement: "The company and the claim are synonymous at this point." Steorn is now widely known only because of its claim. Kkett 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No publication is calling this "The Steorn Challenge"; Wikipedia does not invent proper nouns; there is no reason to decide the fate of a reasonably titled company article after less than 2 weeks of activity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The page should be as much about the company as the challenge itself. Smartaalec 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

@Jeffq: "The Steorn Challenge" is the official name used by the company. See the letter mailed out by the company above. Sony-youth 09:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand humbly corrected. But I still prefer to have the article at "Steorn" and focus efforts on rounding out the article over time, even if the most notable aspect of the company remains the challenge. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed request to move. Pretty clear concensus in light of previous move request. Sony-youth 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Device.

As I understand it the picture shown is the device on a testing rig. The update to the comment suggests it is not the device at all. If this is the case then the picture should be removed. --Archeus 09:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A device image: For the analysis of this image go here [2] the comments about the analysis go here Steorn Forum User:Trade2tradewell 23:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That picture is not the device at all. Its a test rig which doesn't even have the device on it. --Archeus 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Where does Steorn state that the item on this picture is NOT related to the device?Trade2tradewell 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent

As I understand it the only patent released by the company has nothing to do with the device. So I have removed its references. There are patents for the device but none of them are public at this time. --Archeus 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The linked reference was for Steorn's patent application. They have not been awarded any patent yet. The patent application describes part of the mechanism behind the claimed device. Steorn have filed several patent applications and continues to file them (which is one of the reasons they can't make schematics of the device public) of which the one is public and others will go public. This is an important reference and should be kept. --Orangehues 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Restored.--Orangehues 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it if it refers to the magnets going through a shield to block the signal then it has nothing what-so-ever to do with the device and Stoern have mentioned this. If its a new patent just released then its fine but last I heard there was nothing public. --Archeus 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I double checked the contents of the patent and it has in fact nothing to do with the device at all. They have stated this themselves on thier website. See reference 17: http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=41&page=1#Item_0 . Removed reference --Archeus 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Restored again with altered description. First, the article makes a reference to "LEMA" so it's relevant here. Second, Steorn has said in various interviews that they have been working on this invention for the past three years and six months ago decided to go public. This application was filed on 6th April, 2006 so it's obviously related though Steorn might like to deny it. Third, if you read the patent, it's clearly related with gaining energy around magnetic fields. --Orangehues 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"so it's obviously related though Steorn might like to deny it". This is speculation and you are not putting forward a NPOV. Secondly I have read the patent it has absolutly nothing to do with gaining energy around magnetic fields. If anything its trying to point out how to save energy but at no point mentions that it is creating/gaining energy. I think with Steorn also saying that this has nothing to do with the device should be enough to not include it. Which brings us back to what the title of the page is about. Is it about the company or the device? --Archeus 10:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Corrected repeated error of misrepresenting a patent application as a patent.--Orangehues 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding whether the patent application is related, The Guardian certainly seems to think it is. They have an entire article on Steorn's application for "LEMA" patent but I guess that's just speculation rather than cold hard commonsense. --Orangehues 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I can find numerous people/sites that claim its part of the device but the simple fact is Steorn themselves have said it is not part of the device. Could Steorn be lying? Possibly, but until thats proven saying it is part of the device is incorrect. --Archeus 07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I remember incorrectly, the US patent office does not prohibit patent applications for perpetual motion machines, they merely require that the application be accompanied by a working prototype... So if these guys had a working prototype, they could have filed a US patent application for the whole thing. --mglg(talk) 23:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

This article is complete nonsense. The laws of Thermodynamics and of conservation of energy make it quite clear that a 100% efficiant or better machine is impossible. Additionally the page smacks of advertising. I'd like to nominate this article for deletion. G. McVey 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Been and done, and the consencus was a clear "Keep" vote. See Here. Smartaalec 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
as mentioned, already been nominated. Incidently 100% efficient or better is not impossible (according to the laws) just so incredibly improbable to be impossible. ;) --Archeus 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article only documents real events, it does not pass any judgement on the authenticity of the Steorn claims. --203.59.166.123 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If this device is real it need not break the law of Conservation of Energy. That law only applies to isolated systems and we do not know for sure that the known physical universe is an isolated system. If the device drew energy from an unknown source then it would seem as if it were creating energy. KittensOnToast 14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Carlos Luna Phd candidate and expert on magnets and nanotechnology part of it

I found the following on here [3] follow the link for references to his work.

Carlos Luna has been a leading researcher at Steorn and the related company Fraudhalt for several years. His name is on several Steorn patents fron 2004. Carlos Luna did PhD research at the Group of Magnetism and Magnetic Nanomaterials Institute for Materials Science of Madrid, CSIC
Trade2tradewell 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you post a link to one of Steorn's earlier patents in which his name is included? --Orangehues 13:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Quoted at Steorn Forum:Carlos Luna is without a doubt a serious scientist with many published papers on the cutting edge of magnetism reserch in Madrid, this gives a huge level of credence to the story that you really found something.

Trade2tradewell 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Steorn Ltd

I see someone has a page up at Steorn Ltd. Anyone care to duscuss merging the two? Or putting up a suggested merge banner? Or even redirect Steorn Ltd to Steorn.

For those that don't know, Ltd after a company name means limited liability, and I think the American Equivalent is LLC. It's not necessary to include the Ltd after a company name under Irish law 80.169.139.106 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Waltzer

Deleted that one as copyvio (it is not OK to make Wikipedia articles by copy'n'paste) and re-created as redirect. Anyway, there wasn't anything not yet in Steorn. --Pjacobi 16:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Validation edits

Hello. I have made some minor changes to the validation section, replacing statements that are predi ctive ("results will be published") with statements that are facts-based("steorn state that results will be published"). I think it's the right move, but it now feels a little clumsy, some one may want to re-write but avoid ridiculously empirical statements about future events. 84.12.164.237 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peswiki

We need better citations then Peswiki. Its just a wiki and a lot of what is mentioned in the links wouldn't even be acceptable here as facts. --Archeus 08:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YAPMH

Yet Another Perpetual Motion Hoax. I suspect that the free energy device is a hoax. I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. If so, the article needs to be edited to document the hoax rather than perpetrate it further. --Kjoonlee 08:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the article itself is not a hoax, if it describes a potential hoax without pointing out the danger, then it's as bad as a hoax. It matches the description of {{hoax}} very neatly. --Kjoonlee 08:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Quote: The truthfulness of this article has been questioned.
It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax.

From WP:HOAX:

The burden is on the article author to prove the claims in the article.

In order to claim that no part of the article is a hoax, people who think so need to prove it. That hasn't been done yet. --Kjoonlee 08:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't make claims about the device. It reports who has said what about it, and that's well-documented. Please read Wikipedia:Hoaxes#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. LWizard @ 09:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying it's being done in a sloppy way. --Kjoonlee 09:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Steorn's making of the claims is verifiable and not a hoax. However, the content of the claims are not verified, and thus very possible of being a hoax. That makes it eligible to be labeled as a potential hoax through the {{hoax}} tag.
If it turns out that it isn't a hoax, the tag can be removed. If it turns out that it is a hoax, it will be categorized as Category:Hoaxes or something similar.
But until then, we do need a label. --Kjoonlee 09:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's standard (or correct) usage of the Hoax template. I'll give you two example articles and explain how to tag them, as I see it:
Shingles, Inc. is a small Illinois-based roofing company.

Fake rolex watches can often be found on Canal Street (Manhattan).  Their vendors typically assure customers that they are genuine rolex watches.
Of those two example articles, the first should have a Hoax tag put on it, and not the second. The Hoax tag is to note that someone(s) deliberately and maliciously inserted information they know to be wrong into Wikipedia. It is not for things that belong on the List of hoaxes.
Now, since it seems quite clear that Steorn does (at least in some way) exist, the hoax tag seems inappropriate.
The claim that you are making, I think, is that the article is too sympathetic towards Steorn's claims (using words like "technology"). That's an issue of NPOV. LWizard @ 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The citations above from WP:HOAX are misleadingly selective. The entire section titled "Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes" makes clear that this article is not subject to being tagged under that guidelines:
Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man. This is completely different from an article presenting a hoax as factual, or from relaying a hoaxer's claims and claiming that the hoax is being described. Hoaxes must be notable to be included in Wikipedia – for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.
Even though the Steorn "invention" is almost certainly either a hoax or a mistaken understanding of what they're claiming (a la Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion), it is not a Wikipedia prank. Citations from reliable sources makes this abundantly clear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
But doesn't WP:HOAX say that "relaying a hoaxer's claims and claiming that the hoax is being described" is not a good example of documenting a hoax? --Kjoonlee 12:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And isn't it true that "It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax"? --Kjoonlee 12:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, neither point should apply to this article, assuming it is written correctly. WP:HOAX is specifically talking about WP-editor hoaxers who are trying to pass off their material as factual, not widely-reported accounts of events that are hoaxes. And the content referred to in the {{hoax}} template is the article, not the subject of the article. You must understand the distinction. Try looking at Piltdown Man, a well-documented historical hoax, and imagine that a 1953 version of Wikipedia was building an article on it from the early days of its revelation as a hoax. The press citations, both pro- and con-, would be legitimate material to support statements in the article. At that early stage, it would not be clear whether the hoax case would be proven, even if (as in this case) the weight of scientific evidence would be favor "hoax". Wikipedia editors are supposed to summarize material published by other, reliable sources, not argue the subject themselves. Use of the {{hoax}} template is designed to help weed out hoaxes created by prankster WP editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And the current NPOV tag is also incorrect, and I'm removing it. The article is very carefully NPOV -- every statement about what the 'technology' does is phrased as "Steorn claims" or "Steorn says". When this exact set of facts was reported in many mainstream newspapers and magazines, those articles were similar to this: The following claims have been made; they have not been substantiated. -- Jim Douglas 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just changed The invention to The claim and added a final sentence to the section reiterating that nothing has been independently verified. -- Jim Douglas 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't [[Category:Perpetual motion machines]] say it all? If that does not convince a person that Steorn is a hoax or a mistake, then nothing will and denouncing it in the article will achieve no purpose. Paul Studier 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Note I have added something to the AIAS section below which materially adds to the discussion, and which may transform the whole debate about whether Steorn is a scam or hoax, or YAPM. While many will continue to claim this, there is now a (still controversial) scientific theory, ECE Theory, that predicts precisely the kind of technology Steorn claim to have developed. -- David Saunders 22.18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skepticism

I was tempted to yank this entire section, but for now, I've just deleted the summary sentence: "So let's just say I am... skeptical." The entire section is analysis and opinion. I'm not sure if there's much that really should stay in the article; perhaps it belongs here on the talk page? One comment...I'm not a lawyer, but it is my impression that if you release detailed information about a product into the public domain prior to patenting it, you are endangering your patent claim. -- Jim Douglas 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim, if you are not a patent lawyer, doesn't that statement then simply reflect YOUR own opinion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.70.127 (talk • contribs).
Sean McCarthy's comment was not about endangering a patent application per se, it was about establishing "prior art". His statement was factually incorrect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.70.127 (talk • contribs).
The Skepticism section editorializes no more than some of the other sections on the same page. Pulling it seems to be a rather vindictive and opinionated act —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.70.127 (talk • contribs).
Please sign your comments with ~~~~.
I don't disagree with deleting the section, but I didn't do it; I merely started a discussion about its merits here...where discussions belong. The editor who deleted the section (quite correctly, BTW) signed his comment on your talk page.
I said that I am not a lawyer and the comment about patent law is my personal understanding. On a talk page, not on an article page. Critical distinction.
Feel free to start a discussion here about the merits of the section. -- Jim Douglas 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the original poster, but a discussion of the contents as posted is moot now, since someone pulled the section just as I was forming my first replies to you. I thought that you had done it because of the timing.

I have since decided that you may have been correct -- to a certain extent, anyway -- about the editorializing. However, I strongly feel that some of that "neutral" tone that is so highly touted here has been missing in the article. Some mention should still be made that claiming Steorn's device to be fakery, merely because it appears to contradict current doctrine, is not a scientifically or logically valid stance. It is possible that people who claim it is fake are correct, but that is not a valid reason for making such a claim, and nobody has yet demonstrated any fakery. Unless and until they do, those critics are engaging in precisely the kind of pseudoscience that they so loudly decry.

Not all readers of Wikipedia are well-grounded in science or logic. Many of those readers may be tempted to accept the oft-repeated statements by "authorities" that such claims are impossible on their face because they represent "perpetual motion" or violate "known laws", without realizing that such statements are based on opinion and flawed logic, not science. Those readers may well thus form opinions of their own based on a very one-sided presentation. Promoting such a one-sided view without evidence to support it (and so far there is none), is not the function of an encyclopedia.

67.185.70.127 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Jane Q. Public

Hi Jane. Ok, one useful way to determine if an article about a controvertial subject is approximating NPOV is if readers who hold opposing views are both equally offended. Specifically, take a look at the YAPMH section above, which argues that the entire article amounts to an advertisement for Steorn. Steorn is fully aware of the scientific principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", and everyone agrees that such proof has not been forthcoming to date. All we can do today is report the known facts, and what science says -- which contradicts Steorn's claims -- and wait for further facts. What part of the article do you think unfairly disparages Steorn? Or more generally, what parts of the article do you believe violate WP:NPOV? (I'll also note in passing that MPI is not a disinterested third party.) -- Jim Douglas 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jim, I will admit that after having read more, including this discussion forum, I am prepared to relax my stand on that position somewhat. Frankly, I was not even aware that this discussion forum existed, despite the fact that there are tabs at the top of the page. But my issue is, in part, that the act of trying to present a NPOV can itself sometimes leave a false impression, if unintentionally. For example:

   "Given the long history of hoaxes involving such perpetual motion devices, claims
   of this sort have hitherto met with skepticism (usually flat-out denial) from the
   scientific community."

This statement is true enough, and appears at first glance to be fair, but it is not actually neutral. It presents only one side of the issue, lending a false aura of legitimacy to statements by "authorities" that the claimed phenomenon "could not" be true, when they really do not know that. To avoid giving such false impressions, a statement like this should be balanced with a qualifier such as:

   "However, that does not constitute evidence that the claims are false. Only a thorough
   study of the phenomenon can truly establish or discredit its validity."


By the way, I agree that MPI is not a disinterested third party. Are you? Am I? I claim to be, but such claims are easy enough to make.

In any case, I have evidence that people can indeed come off with the false impression mentioned, because you have demonstrated it yourself: "... what science says -- which contradicts Steorn's claims..."

Except that science really does NOT contradict their claims. At least not yet. Nothing in modern science states that what they claim must be false. Yes, there are potential thermodynamic issues... but nobody has shown that Steorn's device has run into them. Even Steorn is not claiming to be getting free energy, only that there appears to be energy gain from an unknown source. There are a multitude of potential sources, such as heat transfer or even "zero point" energy. If their device were somehow tapping into that, then the device could actually work and no "known laws" need be broken. I am not suggesting that is actually what is happening here. Personally, I believe that to be unlikely. But despite my personal opinion I shall defend a truly neutral -- which is to say scientific -- stand on the matter until more information is known, for the simple reason that there are theoretically valid ways that it could work.

The real reason why the vanes move in an old-style, glass-bulb radiometer (look it up in Wikipedia) was not understood for a full 50 years... but that did not prevent them from moving.

Modern science does not proactively contradict Steorn's claims. In fact science is not capable of contradicting any claim, UNTIL IT IS STUDIED.

That is my point and I believe I have made it.

67.185.70.127 00:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC) -- Jane Q. Public

[edit] Inconsistencies

I'm pulling this sentence, as it strikes me as a clear violation of WP:WEASEL:

"Several people have pointed out what they claim to be inconsistencies in Steorn's story and the background surrounding its claim. Many people on the Internet are speculating that this is all some kind of marketing publicity stunt, partly because Steorn has not followed the conventional way of releasing such technology for peer review."

Is there a useful thought in there that anyone wants to retain in the article? I've been skeptical of the 'publicity stunt' theory all along; it seems absurd that you would spend £75,000 or £85,000 on a "publicity stunt" that leaves you looking either incompetent or fraudulent. -- Jim Douglas 02:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence does not match the rest of the paragraph, so I would question its reason for being there. As for the rest, what is being stated is true ("many people claim"...). My feeling is really that personal skepticism is not itself reason to pull a statement, though I will admit that this entry does appear to be weaseling its point.
How about balancing it with another true statment: "On the other hand, Steorn has claimed that historically, the normal peer review process has taken too long and thus would endanger their profitability."
Both are true statements, and no judgment is made. (I offer none of my own.) 67.185.70.127 02:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC) -- Jane Q. Public
I've gone through the article and changed a few words here and there to be as neutral as possible, but overall the article strikes me as NPOV. If someone wants to dig up a direct quote from Steorn about why they didn't follow the peer review process (I remember the gist, but we need a direct quote), then it would be fair to include that. -- Jim Douglas 03:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides the April 1st controversy there are other inconsistencies that have come up in the Steorn message forums. A subtle one is how Steorn initially made well known that they were releasing a multitude of patents to cover various aspects of their technology, yet their first patent doesn't even apply. The detail left out of the article is that to a certain extent they led people to believe the LEMA was an aspect of their technology. Later, after the Aug. 24th chat when they revealed it wasn't related to their core technology they backpeddled yet again in a new direction when they said that there were many configurations or forward paths that gain energy, with reverse directions that lose energy. Along with the message forum post that contained that statement was the implication that due to the variety of configurations the possibility of using the LEMA wasn't being ruled out. Please search for it tomorrow and respond with your own impression of it.

Another item is how their marketing about free energy along with the 3 Phases that are described at steorn.net leave the impression to the average person that this is an overunity device, with a requirement of having a greater than 100% coefficient figure. However that claim of theirs in Phase II doesn't mean overunity, it just means the unit is doing some work!

Steorn is a company that deals with concepts of Fraud, and Trust, and so ultimately that is where additional attention in this article should be put. It would be useful to summarize some of the message forum activity in a section here, or expand out the Inconsistencies further. Then this current event article at Wikipedia would be a far more useful resource to get up to date on Steorn happennings, versus spending time on the forums during times when they are actually active. So far, the bulk of info released is Steorn advertising/marketting, + message forum discussion. That includes he official message posts from Steorn, which a close look will likely reveal additional inconsistencies to you. 68.175.117.12 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, putting special effort into finding inconsistencies in Steorn's statements could be construed as a witch-hunt and an invitation to take comments out of context. That does not exactly reflect NPOV. Has anybody heard anything from the "jury"? If so, will there be similar effort to find inconsistencies in their statements? Or the statemens of critics?
I most definitely do not want to convey the impression that I am defending Steorn. However, there has been a tendency for the arguments I have seen here to be one-sided, even if only subtly. That is what prompted me to get involved in the first place. This latest comment is one of those.

67.185.70.127 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC) -- Jane Q. Public

[edit] FAQs posted

http://www.steorn.net/forum/index.php

Suggest referencing the separate FAQ categories as individual message threads. Steorn intends to have a reliable forum from here on out, however the index page itself will likely change as the Closed/Sticky threads are modified or removed. It does seem reasonable to expect that a FAQ thread will always be visible at the top of the main forum however its better to be safe and thorough with more specific threads, or an archive of them. 68.175.117.12 06:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apsden

OK, it seems a longer explanation is needed.

  • Harold Aspden doesn't claim to give the theoretical base for Steorn's technology.
  • Steorn doesn't claim that their technology is based on Harold Aspden's theory.
  • No third party reliable source claims a connection

Therefore, it is original research to link these two

Pjacobi 18:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PJacobi. A google search for steorn & aspden together, eliminating wikis and speculation on the Steorn forum, shows no reputable source linking them. Steorn, in fact, has asserted so far that it has no theoretical explanation for the effect. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that I could agree with your arguments, but aren't you overreacting? We are talking about a link under See also section. WP:NOR rules apply mainly to the content of the article itself. I see See also as a section where links exist to the articles which editors have found interesting. If I were to link Aspden with Steorn it would be because of his research and very much because of his critique of science today. Putting Aspden under See also makes absouletely no claim about Aspden giving an explanation to Steorn findings (which we do not yet know if are true), it's rather pointing to another notable scientist with similiar outsider's reputation (what could be considered as WP:OR, but.. it's only See also). And he is often put forward on discussion forums about Steorn. My decision would be to put a link to "Harold Aspden" (not "Aspden Effect"). Just to make it clear: I won't insist much on this addition, I don't find it so important - you can change your mind about this or not. SalvNaut 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
How about adding a section such as Possible Explanations where you could reference a See Also of Aspden. Another one would be a citation for the About section of the Steorn site that speaks exclusively of their anti-fraud expertise: Together with their 3-4 year timeline, a reasonable interpretation is that they are in a data gathering phase to ultimately show the willingness of the public to trust. 68.175.117.12 03:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Assume for the sake of this discussion that Steorn actually has something. They have released no technical information and they have declined to speculate about what might be responsible for the effect. Any speculation here about a theoretical explanation for the Steorn effect -- if any -- falls 100% in the category of original research. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But I repeat it again - having "Harold Aspden" under "See also" makes no connection with possible explanation. For me it is like pointing: "Look, this guy made controversional claims about fundations of physics, too". To emphasise: I am very glad that someone has put Aspden here, as I am very happy to have read about him. For me it was very relevant and informative (about variety of views in today's physics) and I've never jumped to conclusion that his theory explains Steorn. SalvNaut 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] HELLOOOOO? ANYONE HOME?

Can we just take a raincheck here?

Leave aside the questions about peer review, credibility, whether they really did stump up for an ad in the economist, whether the company's been listed for five year or one. This isn't just a case of some clever entrepeneurs inventing a breakthrough new technology, and this isn't a minor claim about tweaking the margins of ur understanding in some new and arcane developmental field: THIS COMPANY IS CLAIMING TO HAVE FALSIFIED THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. If they've really managed that, then EVERYTHING but EVERYTHING we understand about science and therefore the universe - the sum total of all human understanding over the last five millennia - is utterly undermined. [[User:Jane Q. Pub Don't we think that's just a teensy weensy bit improbable that a bunch of IT specialists from Dublin have pulled that one off?

It could not get more significant than that - this would dwarf the combined effects of the theory of relativity, the Russian Revolution, the Great Wall of China, Plato's Republic, the Kennedy Assassination, and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon

There is only one conceivable explanation: this is a wind-up, put together by someone who would like to show how credulous and gullible people in a seemly intellectually advanced civilisation can be. Given that the advertisement has only (apparently) run in the Economist, I would say it's a good bet that the Economist is somehow complicit.

Isn't that an ever so slightly more credible explanation? ElectricRay 21:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are undoubtably right that this is not for real, but according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the standard is verifiability, not truth. Can we find any reputable published criticisms? Paul Studier 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If we can't, it's likely for the same reason no one bothers anymore to write criticisms of flat earth theory. It's literally a fool's game. The charlatans of the world have a well-honed system for duping the credulous: they make splashy announcements of absurd notions, then crow about the failure of serious researchers to debunk their claims. Many serious researchers probably have an inherent bias against making the world safer for damn fools who will believe anything they're told as long as it's spoken loudly and often. The few who tirelessly work to explain the often complex reasons why these notions are absurd are basically little Dutch boys with their fingers in the dike of the cracking dam of rationality. Science holds out the possibility that any physical law may be overturned, just as it is physically possible within our current understanding of physics for all the air molecules in a room to suddenly move to a corner and asphyxiate its occupants. But only a fool would worry much about the latter possibility, given the astronomical odds against it. Likewise, only an idiot would bet their life (or their investment funds) on the likelihood that thermodynamics has been suddenly invalidated. Unfortunately, there is no lack of wealthy fools. Millions have been lost to similar scams in the past, and millions will be lost long after this latest instance has been forgotten. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There ARE no "reputable" criticisms, because THIS HAS NOT BEEN STUDIED YET!!!
Have you even read the above comments? From your statements here, you appear to know nothing about the scientific method. One of the fundamental principles of said method is that it is invalid to assume something is false! Proof is required before you cry fraud!
This is supposed to be "neutral point of view". Speculation is exactly what Wikipedia is trying to avoid, but that is all you offer here. Whether you believe them or not, you have no argument until study is done. So unless you have something serious and intelligent to add, will you please not bother us with further nonsensical blather? -- Jane Q. Public 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Jane… (Oh, I must resist a very tempting American cultural joke about rebutting an argument from someone named Jane. But it's stupid, mean, and quite irrelevant. Besides, I'm no Dan Ackroyd.) You are exactly right about not assuming falsity, or truth for that matter. (I'll also pass on the stupid English joke about "assume".) You don't make clear who you are criticizing above (there are, after all, several participants in the above conversation showing little patience with Steorn and its supporters), but I will assume it was me and my rather withering post.
I said nothing about assumptions; I'm talking about expectations. We cannot assume that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow, but we certainly expect it, based on an utter lack of evidence of anything massive and close enough either to knock Earth off its axis or destroy either it or the Sun. However, a better point is that science does not attempt to explain phenomena that aren't shown to exist. There's no point in testing, let alone analyzing, something that cannot be observed. So far, all we have from Steorn is personal testimony, which doesn't even work well in a courtroom, let alone a scientific evaluation.
I must admit that my "blather" is not particularly germane, given the lack of any demonstrated phenomena to test. I apologize for my rant, which was an unnecessary incitement. We really should wait for developments. But my expectations (not assumptions), based on experience with human nature, are that Steorn will carefully select a team of gullible scientific professionals (of which there are many, as indeed scientists are as fallible as any other humans), and execute a "study" that will "prove" something, yet they will still refuse to allow truly independent observers to perform public examinations of the equipment and processes involved. It is possible I am totally wrong, and that Steorn has hit on an amazing discovery that will indeed overturn science as we know it. But I don't buy lottery tickets, so I certainly wouldn't bet a dime on this billion-to-one possibility. You are right, however, that none of this belongs in the article, as it is just speculation and conjecture.
Back to the original question: we must find reliably sourced criticisms, if they exist, and if they don't, we just have to wait for them. If they are generated without an actual observation of the equipment or process, which seems quite likely in the short term, that should be noted as well, just as we must note that Steorn has yet to publicly demonstrate anything. As I said much earlier on this page, it will probably be months before we have hard information that will improve this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
From the indentation it should have been clear that my comment was aimed at ElectricRay, but I quoted Studier in my reply, causing some confusion about the party to whom my reply was directed. Mea culpa. There was a misunderstanding. Actually, your arguments are similar to mine.
The whole thing might not be likely, but it is at least theoretically possible. It is not valid to claim that THIS case is not so, just because so many others have not been, which is an argument I have seen here often. Holding the view that a claim like this is false, based on statistical probability, might be correct more often than not but it is still not a valid scientific argument. There are quite good statistical reasons why such "profiling" is a bad idea. Occam's Razor does not say that the simpler explanation *IS* the answer, only that it is more likely. The truly interesting cases -- there have been many -- have been those for which Occam's Razor was wrong. -- Jane Q. Public 09:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jane, I understand very well the principals of scientific methodology from Popper, Lakatosh, Kuhn and Feyerabend and, as it happens, I am writing book at the moment which defends Thomas Kuhn's the structure of scientific revolutions against charlatans in the scientific community (like Dawkins, Sokal, Bricmont etc) who would claim some greater epistemic status for scientific knowledge that can be rationally supported. I am one of a dying breed of people who are not embarrased to publicly defend cognitive relativism as a philosophical position. NEVERTHELESS, just because we cannot know that something is true, it doesn't mean we should proceed on the basis that it is until proven to the contrary: Before a theory can hold any water it needs to be supported by some evidence - without evidence, it cannot be falsified (per Popper) because there's literally nothing to falsify. In terms of truth, whilst we may not know that the first law of thermodynamics is true (the idea of it being true, technically, is meaningless for a relativist), there is so much evidence for it working, and it is a fundamental assumption of so many other useful predictors of the behaviour of the world, that for a new theory claiming to subvert it to be even considered, there would need to be huge quantities of completely incontrovertible data, simply because the stakes are so high. If Steorn is right, then everything we know about the universe is wrong.

Steorn has provided no data whatsoever - it hasn't even pretended it has any data. It can run as many advertisements in the Economist as it likes, but on the evidence we have, QED, we can say say that Steorn must be either the product of astounding idiocy or a hoax. Since to be that stupid, you'd have trouble tying your shoes let alone incorporating a company, simply affording the promoters of Steorn the benefit of the doubt means this is, conclusively, a hoax.

The fact that people are prepared to take claims of this sort at face value without any evidence kind of proves the point of the hoax, though, doesn't it. ElectricRay 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not even close. I would be flabbergasted at the lack of intellectual rigor if I had not seen it many times before.
First, aside from other logical errors you have made yet another assumption: you mistake a Neutral Point Of View for acceptance. Nobody I know here is proceeding on the basis that Steorn's claimes are true until proven otherwise. In fact, most here seem to have assumed otherwise, even though they have no rational basis -- yet -- for doing so. Others, like me, are simply keeping open minds and waiting for some real evidence to come in. That is not at all the same as "acceptance".
Second, in order for you to claim fraud, you must demonstrate it. It does NOT work the other way around. Steorn need prove nothing. It is not acceptable to assume fraud without presenting any evidence, and so far there is none. The burden of proof lies with the accusers, regardless of whether we are referring to legal or scientific processes. You actually raised that issue yourself. You mentioned that without enough information, something may not be disproved. Yet even given the utter lack of information in this case (which you also mentioned), somehow you managed to assume falsehood anyway. That is a clear contradiction of your own earlier statement.
Third, this talk of proving or disproving theories is really rather a side issue, since there is no theory behind Steorn's claim. They claim to have made an OBSERVATION, without offering any theories to explain it. That is a more responsible approach than others I have seen. Do you have ANY real (as opposed to rhetorical or wholly speculative) basis for disputing that they have observed what they claim? Perhaps they did not... but that pesky evidence is still not there yet, is it? I have made this point before: the real reason that the vanes in a glass-bulb radiometer move was not understood for a full 50 years, but that did not stop them from moving. Adequate theory is not necessary in order for something to happen.
Fourth, your mention of the first law of thermodynamics is interesting but irrelevant. I have made this point before, too, but some people have seemed resistant to getting it: Guess what? Newtonian mechanics "worked" perfectly fine, too... until somebody (Einstein) found a counterexample. Nothing is demonstrated by arguing that certain rules work thus they must always be true, because their general utility has no bearing on whether there can exist counterexamples or special cases.
Finally, you have freely admitted to a bias strong enough that it could even be a conflict of interest (authoring a book defending use of relativism in exposing charlatanism). All biases bear examination, not just those thought to be "correct", "popular", or "proper". I do not believe I need say any more, since you have completely disqualified yourself from any pretense to NPOV. -- Jane Q. Public 10:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Second, in order for you to claim fraud, you must demonstrate it. It does NOT work the other way around. Steorn need prove nothing.
We must? It doesn't? They don't? That looks like a very dangerous way of thinking, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 09:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have qualified that with: "If you want to be a responsible citizen." It may be dangerous thinking, but it is the kind that made America great. Calling independent thinking "dangerous" is what has made our current government administration anything but great. -- Jane Q. Public 10:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting more and more dangerous, I see! (FYI I am not American.) If you were an independent thinker you'd be more skeptical about dubious claims, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 10:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet another assumption. I am extremely skeptical about Steorn's claim. The difference is that I actually do have an open mind: I can doubt that it is valid, but still refuse to reject the possibility out of hand, until I see some real evidence one way or the other. It is people who make up their minds without any evidence who are dangerous.-- Jane Q. Public 00:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, but I really think the burden of proof is on Steorn, not a third party. --Kjoonlee 09:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In my country -- and in the scientific world in general -- claims of fraud must be backed up by evidence. The accuser always bears the burden of proof. On the other hand, the burden of verifying Steorn's claims lies with Steorn. So rather than crying "foul" and assuming the burden of proving it, why not just wait for THEM to prove (or fail to prove) their claims? Why do you call my attitude of "Let's wait and see" dangerous? Because that is all I have been saying. -- Jane Q. Public 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
At Hydrogenaudio, a site that primarily deals with psychoacoustic compression (perceptiveperceptual coding), the burden of proof always lies on the person who makes a claim. People who don't provide proof risk getting banished from the forums.
If the US — and the scientific community in general — works as you described, I must say I'm very disappointed, as a responsible Wikipedian. --Kjoonlee 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll have to back up Kjoonlee here. Steorn have produced no evidence yet despite this claim been nearly 3 months old. Rather than assuming they are right there is plenty (centuries?) of recorded empirical evidence that they are in fact wrong. If Jane Q. Public I claimed to have found the way to transmute lead into gold would you believe me until I was proven wrong? Even though we know understand how to transmute from one element to another either through fusion or fission most if not all scientists would not believe it until actual proof was delivered as it is too much of a jump from todays technology. Very rarely does technology advance ahead so fast, like the tortoise slow and steady wins the race. What country as a matter of interest does claims of fraud have to be backed up by evidence?Douglas.kastle 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Credibility of a Wikipedia entry is offered up to Steorn when you continue to edit this page and listen to their claims, rather than nominate and follow through with deletion of this article. This may just be what Steorn is out to prove; look how easy it is to publish an ad and gain credibility, even a track record on Wikipedia. ``Beware of fraudalent vendors wouldn't be too far fetched to hear them say, followed by ``use our threat avoidance tools, etc, to gain immunity. 70.105.163.126 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going back to my indentation from above because this was getting quite ridiculous. But then, so have the arguments. This point has been made many times before but you all still seemed to have missed it, via some mechanism that is a mystery to me: nobody here has been assuming, or even asserting, that Steorn's claims are true! I have to wonder how many times that must be repeated. Skepticism does not mean unquestioning acceptance, true... but neither does it mean wholesale denial without evidence, and none of you yet have that evidence. Credibility has little to do with the issue. Proof, or at least evidence, does. This is not about the credibility of someone on a discussion group, or "belief" about anything. My personal belief is that Steorn's claims are probably nonsense. But the key word here is "probably". I am not going to make the claim that they are nonsense, until I have some evidence. -- Jane Q. Public 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You claim that Newton's laws are wrong. In the strictest sense you are right. If one travels near the speed of light, one must use the Special Theory of Relativity. If one travels near a black hole, one needs the General Theory of Relativity. If one deals with the atomic level, one needs quantum mechanics. But one can be an engineer in the fields of mechanics, electricity, heat, etc. and never have occasion to use any of these theories instead of Newton. Similarly, conservation of energy is probably the most throughly verified of scientific theories. Einstein said that he though thermodynamics is the only theory that would never be overthrown. Perhaps it might be violated in the first fraction of a second of the history of the universe, or in a super high energy accelerator. But for both conservation of energy and Maxwell's equations it to be violated with a bunch of magnets and wheels is not credible. People have studied magnets and wheels almost forever. People have spent billions on motors and generators since electricity became widespread a hundred years ago. It is not credible that Steorm has discover a violation of both conservation of energy and Maxwell's equations with just magnets and wheels. Paul Studier 07:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
WHERE do you get this stuff?? If you read carefully, what I stated was not that Newton was "wrong", but that -- exactly as you stated here -- there are certain very important exceptions. So where is the argument?? I see... the argument is that you have explicitly stated that you reject the possibility out of hand, in the complete absence of any evidence.
I have news for you: people studied Newton's laws longer than they have been studying electricity, and yet Einstein still found exceptions. And the FACT is, those exceptions were just as "not credible" to people of the time as your claim of "non-credibility" is here. You have brought exactly nothing new to the table. This has all been done before, and nay-sayers have been made to look like idiots in the process. Is that likely to happen in this case? No. Is it possible? Damn straight.
By the way: when confronted with principles of quantum theory that by today are well-established and even the basis for commericial applications, Einstein called them "spooky action at a distance" and rejected them as not being credible. Even so, your CPU and DVD burner work just fine. He was a brilliant man, but he was very wrong about some things, and progress continues regardless. Citing an old opinion of his is an example of the logical argument fallacy known as "appeal to authority".
So once again, you make a non-argument, with questionable motivation. Why not just wait for some evidence? What possible problem could you have with that? Is it perhaps some kind of ego thing??
Since it appears that some people have not read and understood what else I have written on this page, I will state yet again that I do NOT take the position that Steorn's claims are true. I am simply refusing to deny the possibility until I see some evidence. Personally, I think it is pretty obvious which is the more responsible position. -- Jane Q. Public 09:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's no evidence, you should be skeptic about the truth value, and not using weasel words or rhetoric to defend your stance. Right now your way of thinking seems to be really really dangerous and irresponsible. --Kjoonlee 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Jane Q. Public, you've done pretty much nothing at Wikipedia except for aguing here. If you've got anything useful to add to the article, please feel free to do so. If not, Wikipedia is not a place for your opinions. WP:NOT --Kjoonlee 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read your own words and take them to heart. YOU are the one who is arguing. I have not stated one personal opinion here. (Correction: I did state that I believe it is unlikely that Steorn's claims are valid.) I have taken a completely neutral stand here, and yet others have argued WITH ME seemingly incessantly about it. I have already stated that I am extremely skeptical; you do not seem to have read those words. Others have tried to argue that Steorn's claims could not be true, but all of those arguments have been conjecture, based on theory that -- in some cases at least -- was only half-understood. I will state, yet again, that I am not the party here making empty arguments. I have not tried to argue one "side" of the issue with absolutely no evidence to back me up... you have. (WP:NOT)   I have not asserted that Steorn's claims must be fraudulent with no supporting facts... others have. (WP:NOT)   I have no idea why you object to my defense of an NPOV, but I reject your assertion that I have done anything improper. For example, I have not been making personal comments about others, but you have. (WP:NOT)   Please go back and look at some of your own statements (e.g., "That looks like a very dangerous way of thinking, IMHO."), and re-consider who is actually giving personal opinions here, and who is not. I admit that I am curious and a bit puzzled: if you believe a neutral point of view to be "dangerous", then why are you here at all? -- Jane Q. Public 11:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
4You're using straw-man attacks now. --Kjoonlee 13:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Not at all! The facts are clear from the written words right on this page. The ONLY position I have taken here is that of keeping a neutral view until some evidence arrives that actually points one way or the other. You clearly stated that you feel this position to be "dangerous" and "irresponsible". Those are yours words, not mine, and very much in context. If you meant something else, please clarify.
Others have taken the view that Steorn's claims must be false, based on their understanding of physics. My sole response (in different words but always the same point) has been that "known laws" of physics have been broken many, many times before. Therefore, stating that Steorn's claims are not true because known physical "laws" would be broken is not a valid argument, except in the very narrow sense that statistics support that probability. But "probably" is not a fact. This is very clear and straightforward... no "weasel words" are necessary. Science itself demands evidence... and so does wikipedia! At this time none exists. So all these pseudo-scientific arguments against Steorn are completely pointless until we know more. Those who argue otherwise have been arguing against NPOV, quite pointlessly. It is they who are wasting space and time. -- Jane Q. Public 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A little bit of "gedanken" thought experiment proves it's a hoax. Suppose there was a way to violate conservation of energy. Then we could have points in space which are sinks and sources of energy. A sink would eventually suck everything to absolute zero, and everything that touched it would be at absolute zero temperature. Conversely, a source would be at infinite temperature - it could pump GeV strange quarks all the way across the universe. We don't see either sinks or sources, we see a nice uniform background temperature of 2.3K. Drmike8888 13:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Again not even close. Wow. There are so many assumptions here that I hardly know where to begin.
Why do you assume that any such process must continue unchecked to an extreme? When your turn on your stove, does it get as hot as the sun, or more? Does the cooling system of a nuclear reactor keep on cooling until the rods are at absolute zero? There are multitudes of counterexamples to your assumptions in that regard.
Further, you assume that energy must be coming from a source that is time-and-space-limited in some intuitive way. Trying to re-invent the concept of "aether", are we?
Further yet, the very existence of matter (according to ALL cosmological theories of which I am aware) was due to a process that was inherently one-way: somehow virtual particles that were created did not then interact with one another and vanish back to oblivion as they "should" have. Also, in any given volume of space, particles (more precisely, complementary particles) are being created all the time, even in vacuum. Complementary particles also interact and destroy themselves in the same volume. In most cases (for example, when not near a black hole event horizon) the net result of this "zero point energy" over time is approximately zero, but at any precise point of time the net can be non-zero. So there are "sources" and "sinks" literally everywhere. Even so, and even though there is no known law stating that the net at any instant could not be something extremely far from zero, that does not seem to happen under normal circumstances. I am not aware of any evidence that any of the processes described have ever created infinite heat or cold. There appears to be some kind of moderating influence. (Important Note: The fact that matter and energy are always in flux has an inescapable corollary. Thermodynamic "laws" can only be considered valid as averages over time! In quantum space and time scales they are constantly being violated!)
My point is that we already have examples of quantum processes very like what you describe (perhaps even exactly what you describe) that do NOT continue to infinity... and in fact we have never observed any that do. All known similar processes have been self-limiting. Because we have good counterexamples, your "reductio ad absurdum" argument has no reasonable foundation.
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." - Niels Bohr
-- Jane Q. Public 09:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


THERE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT THEME HERE

I would like to ask one question of the person who started this section, and just about everyone else who has made comments within it: WHY are you straining so hard to try to prove something wrong, without bothering to wait for any evidence? In contrast, I have not been trying to convince anyone that the claims are true. My own point is that most of these arguments are actually rather silly, because falsity simply can not be demonstrated unless we get that evidence. This issue will be settled by itself soon enough; there is no point in manufacturing even more arguments against it since ultimately they will carry no weight... unless your purpose is to spread FUD. -- Jane Q. Public 00:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jane does make a very good point about waiting, not just for evidence, but for sourced publications. We editors are not supposed to be arguing about the subject, only the article content. That content should be backed up by reliable sources that make the points we're talking about. We are not supposed to piece together factual information, even sourced, to make our own arguments. We are required by Wikipedia policy to allow professional publications to hash this matter out. Let's trust the world to come up with the arguments and counterarguments over time; our job is to assemble them as they are made. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  :-)

Just check this [6]. Anyone from Budapest here?

If you look under Confirmation Tests [7], there are names of real professors there (checked with Google, Google Scholar). What interesting times we live in, indeed. :) SalvNaut 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

In the Inconsistencies section we have this Quote "Steorn maintains that its invention has already been validated by no fewer than eight unnamed independent scientists and engineers "with multiple PhDs from world-class universities", and found to work, but that none of them were willing to publish their results. The company has declined to name them, citing mutually binding non-disclosure agreements.[10]"

And we have this

Quote Sean McCarthy has said: "Before we went public, we realised that if we're wrong it could have a very adverse effect on our business, so we're not doing this lightly."

I don't see anything inconsistent with either of these, they are simply things that have been said by the company and can't be validated. There is a major difference between this and something that is inconsistent, indeed judging on some of the reactions about the claims it appears quite reasonable that certain institutions would refuse to go public. Furthermore the non-disclosure agreement is standard practice for unpatented IP. The second alleged Inconsistency is even more baffling, it is simply stating the obvious and there is nothing inconsistent in the slightest here. So you mods please move these statements to a more appropriate heading as this looks like it is going against your neutral point of view rule by claiming something is inconsistent when it isn’t.81.76.84.124 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIAS Link

I'll move this discussion here from my talk page. This is in response to my deletion of an external link:

This is an entirely relevant link as it explains the physics behind the invention. It has nothing to do with me and it is certainly not advertising or any similar form of abuse. Not understanding the subject is no reason to delete my link, please put it back. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.84.124 (talk • contribs) .
The external link in question might (or might not) purport to explain something about Steorn's claims. However, it falls firmly under the category of speculation and/or original research, so I reverted it. The link is, of course, still in the page history, and it's always possible that someone will disagree with me. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

MORE ON STEORN AND AIAS

This is my first ever contribution to Wikipedia, because it's the first time I've had the chance to speak from a position of knowledge about the subject. I will limit myself to adding to this sub-discussion and see if I can get help and / or encouragement from the more experienced people who may read this.

I was fascinated by Steorn's announcement. Whilst sceptical, as a businessman I was intrigued by their approach and felt 'there is method in their madness'. Eventually in November I took time out to visit Steorn on November 8 2006 and talk with their CEO Sean McCarthy and marketing manager Richard Walshe. What they described was having discovered their technology by accident while attempting to improve the efficiency of small wind turbine generators, and developed it over thre years before going public with their challenge to scientists. To me they described a very rational development of a business plan to bring their products to market, and a passionate certainty that if they did not have acceptance from the scientific community they would face stiff opposition introducing their devices. As they explained it they have devices in preparation, and will launch products at the same time as the results of the scientific jury assessment are announced. What they will not do is unduly hurry the jury. Agreements with the jury were in place at the start of December. The announcement of Stage 1 of the results is scheduled for the end of the first quarter of 2007 (April 1st!).

Still greatly concerned about discussing Steorn's claims and anticipated technology, I left Ireland wondering how their devices could possibly work. Two days later on their own website I found a reference on Steorn's Forum to AIAS and Myron Evans. I checked out his website and the Wikipedia entry which is in sharp contrast and appears to brand Evans a fake. However his website and papers thereon predict precisely the kind of technology Steorn claims to have developed, and says that the widespread development and acceptance of such technologies will vindicate Myron Evans' ECE Theory. Again, I was facinated, and went to visit Myron Evans myself, November 26. Having met him, I would say that the current Wikipedia entry is grossly unfair, and it certainly makes no mention of his being on the Civil List, a unique honour. He appears to have assembled a large group of competent scientists around him, and his site is being visited and work being downloaded in large and rapidly increasing quantities by academic institutions, leading businesses, and individuals round the world. Introductory and advanced articles on ECE Theory are being written by independent members of his group, and seminars given.

Yet Evans still continues to be attacked by mainstream scientists, and articles are refused publication in mainstream journals. This is no surprise as ECE Theory dismisses many things currently accepted as fact in science. Black holes, quarks, string theory, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and more. You have to read the science on his site before you dismiss his claims as fantastical. Because his science is very rigorous, uniting Einstein' general relativity and Quantum Mechanics with the most rigorous of mathematcis, which has AS ITS BASE, the principle of Conservation of Energy. Thus, Evans is very unhappy with the phrase 'free energy' because it makes people jump to conclusions and positions. He prefers that we say 'electromagnetic energy from space-time'. So, according to Evans, Steorn are wrong in asseting that their device may violate CoE.

My point of mentioning Evans and ECE Theory in detail is that, bless them, Steorn must be forgiven for they do not know what they are doing. They do not fully understand the new, if controversial theory behind their own new, if controversial technology. This was confirmed by members of their own documentary crew who had not heard some of the things I said. This was when I went straight from meeting Myron Evans to meeting Steorn again at a party held for their staff to which they invited Forum members, on November 27, and met again with Sean McCarthy next morning December 28th for coffee and a chat. The party was great and I can highly recommend the Irish band 'The Camembert Quartet'. Over coffee with Sean (and on camera to their documentary crew) I urged Steorn to check out ECE Theory and meet with Myron Evans, as ECE Theory could only help improve their products, and the existence of a viable theory explaining them would only smooth their introduction. I have since contributed quite a lot to a thread about ECE Theory on Steorn's own forum. http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=28672

That's enough for now. I see that Steorn is getting far more action than Myron Evans on Wikipedia and thought to put something here. To my mind, Steorns announcement and Myron Evans' theory could well be the pincer movement that cuts out the old paradigm and ushers in a new age in science. The implications of this technology are of course amazing, and do indeed go beyond the convenience of never having to recharge your phone, as Richard Walshe, Steorn marketing manager, puts it, tongue very characteristically in cheek. I will add this that I find Steorn intensly down to earth and very likeable, and if this is a con, they are having a lot of fun before they go to jail. Myron Evans on the other hand is the real thing, a quiet, deep thinking scientist, who has convinced thousands of others of a revolutionary 'twist' to general relativity, which is, indeed the addition of torsion to Einstein's curvature of space-time. If this man doesn't eventually get a Nobel Prize I'll eat anyone's hat (I don't have one myself). His theory transforms physics more than anyone since Einstein, and potentially digs us right out of the Peak Oil and Global warming holes we've dug for ourselves. It will put us in space too, without rocket science, as well as eliminating the need for road elaborate systems. This sounds extreme, but his theory is that groundbreaking, and gaining momentum and support fast. And the current article about him on Wikipedia is downright shameful.

-- David Saunders 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughtful and extremely interesting comments, David; I appreciate your taking the time to post this here. The core problem (and you touched on this yourself, although perhaps inadvertantly), is that this qualifies as original research, which can be fascinating on an article talk page, but can't be used directly as source material for an article. If you take a look at the footnotes in WP:OR, you'll see that the policy came about for precisely this reason -- the posting of new theories of physics that had not yet been vetted in peer-reviewed journals. In addition to the no original research policy, we are obliged to write articles using only verifiable information from reliable sources. I'm not familiar with the Myron Evans article, but from a quick glance, it appears to adhere to these policies. Regarding the Steorn article, do you see anything in it that violates our basic policies? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim -- Gosh that's quick. Your comments are precisely why I have not attempted to alter anything that's on the main pages. All I want to do is signal that Myron Evans' work is SO controversial that he was squeezed out of his post at Cornell quite shamefully, and has since ben refused publication by reputable peer review journals. Isn't that a little bit like the way Wikipedia has outflanked Encyclopedia Britanicca? (grin). So don't expect there to be peer review of ECE Theory just yet, but what about the 400,000+ hits a month on his website from reputable establishments. This is VASTLY more hits than any journal gets apart from perhaps Britney Spears' diary. So I expect that, when Steorn have gizmos on the market, and you have a laptop with a battery that never runs flat, people are going to look around for a theory and find ECE Theory. On that day, the science establishment is going to look a lot like jericho after Joshua blew his trumpet. And not a moment too soon.

So I believe you may be describing a fundamental flaw in the approach to discussing controversial theories. But hey, I ain't the guy to change Wikipedia, which I think is fantastic, and I appreciate all the good work you guys do. I would love to contribute more in any way I can, and I really do believe there are major issues surrounding the introduction of new paradigms in any field, and the way that peer review journals currently actively act as censorship mechanisms. The Internet was intended as a mechanism that "threats censorship as damage and routes round it." A neutral point of view would at least consider both sides. There is no mention in the Evans article of what his theory is badsed on (Einstein, Reimann algebra, Cartan algebra. Nor what he adds (torsion to space-time). Nor is there any mention of any of the experimental validadtion Well over 30 experiments including the rotation of polarised light as it passes through a gravitational field. Nor the scientific and human implications -- technologies for free energy. and so on.

All these SHOULD be there, even if they are controversial. So do I think the current article on Steorn is fair? Sure, no worries at all, they're big boys and are expecting to rock the boat. But the article on Myron Evans is off target by a million miles. But I think it's SO unfair that I'm not the man to right it. 'Evans the Energy' has people on his team who can contribute far more authoritatively, lucidly and accurately than I. I would be happy to put them in touch.-- David Saunders 22.37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "controversial" in this context betrays a total misunderstanding of what science is.
A scientific theory sets out to make predictions about the natural world that can be tested by experiment. The theory's validity hinges entirely on whether it is confirmed or refuted by experiment. A scientific theory is not simply are arbitrary debating point of the "one guy says one thing, another guy says something else, hey, it's controversial" variety where "both sides" have equal validity. Experimental validation is the sole criterion.
You say:
"Nor is there any mention of any of the experimental validadtion..."
Unfortunately, Evans' web site makes no mention of the experimental validation either, (at least not in any prominent place). His list of papers doesn't seem to include the experimental work (please point out which they are). Instead, the top items on his page include his biography in Marquis Who's Who, a vanity press publication (see the Forbes article), and some discussion about the misfortunes surrounding his pension.
The question is: What predictions does his theory make, that (a) differ from existing physics, and (b) that can be tested experimentally? What do these experiments show? He does not address this explicitly, and indeed seems oblivious to the need to do so. Science is about experimental confirmation. It is the quacks who seek to present it as an arbitrary opinion, with "two sides" to a "controversy". PerpetuumMobile 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other free energy companies

This recently-added topic seems questionable at best, considering the lead sentence is:

While no free energy device has ever been released as a product, claims of free energy have proven to be a successful means of obtaining investment in recent years.

The Steorn article isn't a dumping ground for random information about "free energy" claims; there are other places for that. Steorn has explicitly said they won't seek or accept investment -- so how is this section relevant to Steorn? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Steorn HAS accepted several rounds of investment, the most recent presumably/possibly on the perpetual motion claim. They did this before mounting the PR campaign. It's just that they aren't seeking further investment now. On your broader point, the section has been expanded into a sales pitch for Magnetic Power Inc., irrelevant to the Steorn entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PerpetuumMobile (talk • contribs) .

Apologies for not signing, know how now: PerpetuumMobile 13:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel the section provides relevant context: Irregular filing, magnetic technology, long-drawn-out external validation, small-scale private investors, are all common features of modern free energy companies. Steorn fits this mould, it's unexceptional in this broader context. PerpetuumMobile 13:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the information on Minato's generator? It seems very similar in concept to the Steorm device. Sparkzilla 02:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The final section is a conclusion to an article about Steorn, highlighting its differences and similarities to other free energy companies, thus providing a context and a summing up to the article. It's there to provide a conclusion and a context to an article about Steorn, it isn't there as a general list of "similar" free energy companies - there are articles about free energy where that information should go. PerpetuumMobile 09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The sections starts Claims based on magnet-based mechanisms have been among the most popular with investors Te Minato device is relevant as it is magnet-based. According to the sparse information in the Steorn "claim" section, the Steorn device sounds very simialr to the minato motor. Adding the information about Minato adds more context to the article. As long as other companies are mentioned in this section (as they should be), the relevancy of the Minato motor to this article cannot be denied. Please also note that the Minoto device has actually received a patent. I am happy to hear more opinion on your point from other Wikipedians.
I also feel that the While no free energy device has ever been released as a product, claims of free energy have proven to be a successful means of obtaining investment in recent years. text is unecessary POV and should be edited. Sparkzilla 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The Minato device is not notable and scores zero reliable, third-party, sources. --Pjacobi 11:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We are not here to prove whether the device works, but whether it is similar enough to the Steorn device to warrant mention. Trying to assess the device here would be contrary to Wikipedia's no original research policy. However, given that the Minato device exists and claims similar functionality to Steorn (an existance that can be shown on several websites and technology magazines, and even a patent application ), it is obviously notable. Sparkzilla 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Without notabiliy and reliable, third-party, sources nothing may be included in Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The device was profiled in a technology magazine in Japan. Please tell me what is not notable or reliable about that. Sparkzilla 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding science and engineering issues, a higher standard of sources is required. A publication in an IEEE journal would be a good start. --Pjacobi 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont think so. We are not testing the scientific validity of the Minato motor, but simply that it exists as a similar item to the Stern device.Sparkzilla 12:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Your version of the article claimed that it worked. Since that is equivalent to claiming a the existence of a perpetual motion machine, that needs an altogether higher level of proof. -- The Anome 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. I will change it to show that it is a claim Sparkzilla 12:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation: http://www.japaninc.com/article.php?articleID=1302&page=2 second paragraph

Also, why do you allow the other items to be part of the section? The claims of their devices are similar to that of Minato. If you remove Minato you should remove the entire section. Sparkzilla 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy now with it as is. Sparkzilla 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
"Also, why do you allow the other items to be part of the section? " The other items are there as part of a concluding narrative, for comparison and contrast. They are not there as a random list of "similar" companies. They are there solely to bring out points about Steorn in its wider industrial and financial context. The article is about Steorn, the references to other companies are there only to establish specific points of context with respect to Steorn. There are many magnet-based free energy companies, but the Steorn article is not the place to list them. You are certainly welcome to start such an article if you wish, but the Steorn article is not the place for a general list of magnetic technology free energy companies. PerpetuumMobile 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV intro removed

While no free energy device has ever been released as a product, claims of free energy have proven to be a successful means of obtaining investment in recent years. is unecessary POV. It implies that the reason for releasing a free energy device is simply as a means to get investment. I have replaced it with a simpler, and less biased, sentenceSparkzilla 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Financial history

Re: edit by 68.175.117.12 at 21:21, 22 October 2006: The cited reference makes no mention of the claimed free energy discovery, no mention of the PR stunt, and no mention of a fallback plan. The reference given provides no support for the statement that's been added. Could you please provide a correct reference or remove the statement. (Please don't use an incorrect reference as a "stub"). Cheers, PerpetuumMobile 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The incorrect reference has been replaced with "citation needed", a more suitable citation stub. I can't find the quote on the forum, could someone find it please? PerpetuumMobile 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for people with a POV

This is an article about a company, not about perpetual motion as such. I see that there is much discussion on hoaxes, violating the third law of thermodynamics, nomination for deletion and so on. I think it would help if people considered this as an article about a social phenomenon - STEORN the company, not the device they are selling. It may be a hoax; it may be true; they may be labouring under a misconception; we don't know. But the company does exist, these are real people, the ad in the Economist did happen, and lots of other things besides. This article should document the progress of STEORN as a company and as a phenomenon (obviously properly sourced). In future years - assuming it all turns out to be false, obviously - this sort of information will be very valuable to sociologists if nothing else. I hope I haven't given the impression here that I support STEORN's claims one way or the other. I don't (although I am fascinated by the whole thing). Ryancolm 17:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ryancolm, if you write about people not having a POV, please do not write such things as "assuming it all turns out to be false". Perhaps you are not aware of your own POV. In any case, that is exactly the assumption that has started so many "discussions" here. I do not see many arguments happening over the "assumption" that the claims are correct... for the simple reason that few if any have been making that assumption. At the same time, NPOV means you should not assume that they are false. This is an event unfolding; we should report about the events as they unfold, not attack them from ignorance as many have, and not "assuming". -- Jane Q. Public 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, JaneQPublic, I see your point. I would like to clarify: I, personally, neither know nor assume that Steorn's claims are true or false, nor do I have any agenda one way or the other. I agree with you, JaneQPublic, when you say that this is an event unfolding and we should report the events as they unfold. In fact, that was what I wanted to say. So, I should have said: "In future years - if it all turns out to be false - this sort of information will be very valuable to, for example, sociologists." I do believe that we are in agreement about documenting things, and not opining. Thank you for your measured response. Ryancolm 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Sean McCarthy the same person as Sean "Michael" McCarthy

Just a question...

Is the person in this youtube video |1 the same person in this bio? |2 -Wolfe 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes

--85.70.33.55 00:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then this whole articile is part of a media campaign and should be deleted. ---Wolfe 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless the photo or video followed a Hollywood-quality prosthetic makeup job, these are different guys. Different hairline, hair color, eyes, eye color, nose, mouth/lips, cheekbones... They do both have dimples.
I doubt Sean McCarthy is an unusual name in Ireland. Also, your responder, User 85.70.33.55 was blocked in January for vandalism, so I would be wary of relying on his/her authority to answer this question. --Wfaxon 06:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] change to references and notes?

I just noticed that entry number 8 ("Steorn Company Submissions". Companies Registration Office. Retrieved on 2007-02-12) references a date that has not occurred yet. What should the correct date be?

--70.92.245.137 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I believe that this article violates the NPOV policy, specifically, Undue weight and Pseudoscience

We should NOT give "equal validity" to Steorn's claims, as it contradicts what the majority of the scientific community thinks. From the relevant policy page [[8]],

the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

A claim to have invented technology which violates the first law of thermodynamics, without a single shred of evidence, is certainly pseudo scientific. 59.92.17.16 09:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It also violates WP:RS. Forum posts and newspapers which simply repeats what's being claimed, are not a reliable sources! 59.92.17.16 09:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From the introduction: This is, in essence, a claim that the company has developed free energy technology, or a perpetual motion machine. Such technology is considered to be an impossibility according to current scientific understanding, as it would contradict the first law of thermodynamics. To date no evidence to support the company's claim has been made public. What more can we add? Paul Studier 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We could remove most of "Details of the technology", as it seems to be completely unverifiable from a credible independent source. We could also remove "Arguments in favor", as it does not show any evidence which supports Steorn's claim (so, how is it an argument in favour??) We could also mention how the majority of scientists, such as Michio Kaku[9] or Bob Park[10], think that this is a hoax, and include what exactly they say in this article.
I think we could also add a paragraph on skepticism over this, including various commentaries outlining what the majority of the scientific community thinks.
In any case, IMO, most of the article is currently devoted to the minority viewpoint (ie, Steorns and McCarthy) and violates WP policies on undue weight and pseudoscience. 59.92.76.144 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I trimmed it a bit. Is this any better? Paul Studier 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage 59.92.76.144 to add material from Kaku and Park. But note that in the articles referenced, Kaku is first quoted as saying, "It's a fraud," but then he is later paraphrased as saying that Steorn may not have any idea that its machine is a fraud, which implies that he thinks it's a mistake. On the other hand, Park is too depressed to actually examine the Steorn claim and instead fakes a quote from Shaw. --Wfaxon 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
(i) What Kaku probably means is that, while the claim is a fraudulent one, the makers of the "technology" are not intelligent enough to realize so.
(ii)I believe that Park didn't want to waste time expounding on such an obvious crackpot claim. 59.92.93.81 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
(i) Two of the possibilities are that the Steorn claim is a deliberate deceit, or it is a blunder. Kaku seems to be leaving the door open to both. I was pointing out that we should avoid connecting the word "fraud" with the latter interpretation because "fraud" implies deceit.
(ii) If Park didn't want to waste his time in that column, we shouldn't waste the Wikipedia readers' time telling them so. I'm sure you can find a relevant quote from him elsewhere. --Wfaxon 00:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree on both points. By including the quotes as they were said, we are not 'wasting' readers time, but merely stating what well respected scientific authorities have to say. The meaning of "fraud", is then left to the readers interpretation. They could either think that Kaku implies that the steorn claim is a deliberate deceit, or otherwise. That's not the point. The important thing is adding what members of the scientific community have to say about this crackpot claim. 59.92.45.149 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7ESteorn_3c55.html"