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.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as b-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[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)

I have no doubt that this a viral marketing campaign..,

My reasons:

1: It is a privately held company, not publicly traded, therefore only those shareholder need to know what is really going on.

2: It is making an extraordinary claim, there for requires extraordinary proof, of which they have provided none.

3: It's not science, it is not open to public review, empirical evidence is not being applied.

4: Sean McCarthy looks so much like Sean "Michael" McCarthy I believe they are the same person.

5: Dot com companies do not become science communities.

6: They are following the same pattern as many scams, but without ripping off public money, therefore I think they are just using the format as a publicity stunt.

---Wolfe 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it looks and smells like a big scam, but that doesn't prove it is. People can think for themselves and all we need is a working model to either prove or disprove the whole thing. A true skeptic always has at least a particle of doubt and knows there's nothing to gain from outright dismissal. Landroo (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


They would have to be insane to market in such a way. Once the study results came out, they could be charged with fraud if they used conscious deception to make money off of the public. What they did was so out in the open that there would be no escape for them as they are now world famous. If on the other hand it was self deception, they would still have to pay a lot of money back. Consequently I doubt that this is any sort of viral marketing. It's very clear that they sincerely believe what they are saying.

Old paradigms have fallen away many times throughout history. We'll have to see, but it's possible we are on the brink of a new energy technology.

161.98.13.100 19:07, 3 December 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 [[1]],

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[2] or Bob Park[3], 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)

There is no point of view problem with this article at all. The article never says that Steorns claims are true. The article is about Steorn as a media phenomenon-- resulting from Steorn as a company making scientific claims to the public in a very dramatic way that has seized international attention. This is a legitimate story by any journalistic standard.

Wikipedia is not a science journal-- it's a public input encyclopedia describing the entire known world-- including history, culture, current events, media phenomenon etc-- not only hard science.

Sean7phil 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting claim and deadline to note...

http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/

"Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007."

Perhaps it is important to file that away, perhaps.--Remi0o 07:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for significant paring?

It's coming up on nine months after their original 18 August 2006 advert in The Economist, and the amount of publicly verifiable information on Steorn's magic "Orbo" has not increased one iota. Considering the continued public interest we can hardly hope to eliminate this article (yet), but maybe we should consider paring it down to just a couple of paragraphs, or even a single paragraph. The current bloat consisting of suppositions, speculations, and quotes from Steorn and their forum just add to the fog and are hardly encyclopedic.

I'm not anti-Steorn, I'm just anti-nonsense in Wikipedia. I realize a lot of people have worked hard to try to make this article into something, but so far there's nothing there. If Steorn ever delivers, that would be the time for a real article. --Wfaxon 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

At least wait until July when Steorn claim they'll make their announcement. It's not that long in the scheme of things. Then the article and what goes into the article can be reassessed. At least the Orbo article has now been merged with this one to keep the info in a single place until such time as the cards are all on the table. GDallimore (Talk) 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, the July demo date came, the demo experienced "technical difficulties" and got "deferred". So what's left? PerpetuumMobile 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at some of my recent edits. I've been pruning the last few days myself. I'll also probably remove any speculation about "why" the demo was cancelled that gets added to keep it short until such time as there's another demonstration GDallimore (Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now edited this article to remove anything which isn't arguably related to their claim. Their financial history could be paired down, perhaps, but some of the arguments against rely upon the fact that Steorn is clearly a company in financial difficulty. Even with the financial history, I've got it to less than 30kb, so there aren't any warning messages on editing the article. GDallimore (Talk) 12:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me suggest that we now make a Date Certain for the paring of this article. More than a year has passed since the Economist advert and the astounding Steorn claim has yet to be supported by a single fact. Again, I'm not saying anything against the people who've worked on the article. --Wfaxon 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The pairing is done as far as I'm concerned. Steorn obtained notoriety and are therefore notable indefinitely - notability is not lost with time. This article tells you what you need to know about them and their claim, is well referenced and avoids speculation. It no longer breaks any size limits. I don't believe any more can or should be removed. GDallimore (Talk) 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


What is this obsession with paring down the article before the claims are verified or refuted at the end of the year 2007? I am starting to believe that many people are not nearly as rational as they think they are. The logic for suppressing the article in advance of the claims being proven true or false............? No logic, just another glitch in someones thought process. I've got a great idea for another article-- the breakdown of logical thought process in otherwise intelligent people-- How this happens and why this happens, that would be interesting...

Sean7phil 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


I am with GDallimore - this article is indefinitely notable. They have received significant media coverage. The media coverage may have been initiated by their own actions, but none the less they they are notable. They are so notable that they are mentioned in articles that have nothing directly to do with them - to wit "http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/300042". I'd strongly suggest that the article not be pared down any further. CraigWyllie (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that even hoaxes should be documented. The category perpetual motion machine is sufficient debunking. Paul Studier (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lame quote

This is considered by Dr Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park, to be an important indicator that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse.

Why is this even mentioned? Wouldn't ANYONE think this? It's also completely POV, Dr. Park's POV in this case. This statement is completely worthless. The reader should evaluate Steorn's PR handling on his own, not have some opinion shoved down his throat by an "encyclopedia."

You make two objections here, first that the quote is POV, second that the quote is useless in the article. I think you're wrong on both counts.
First, Wikipedia has a policy against editors pushing a POV, not against incorporating POV's from exterior, reliable sources. If a reliable source says something that is relevant to an article, it has a place in the article, regardless of their POV. If you can find a reliable source that says the opposite, then that can be included to to ensure there is no systematic bias within the article, but I've searched and have been unable to find anyone except Steorn and a few bloggers saying anything positive about Orbo. See here, for example - not a reliable source!
Second, it is relevant to the article. Steorn have claimed that the reason for their chosen approach to releasing information about their product is to avoid people dismissing them out of hand. Someone else has said that, actually, the way they've chosen to release information is actually a sign that they're talking bollocks. To ensure that the article has the necessary independent quality, such comments about Steorn's actions from exterior sources are vital to ensure balance in the article and that no one view is shoved down anyone's throat. GDallimore (Talk) 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed "several employees vowed to shave their heads" to "eleven employees shaved their heads..." Gandydancer 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

Reference number 1 is a dead link. (the Economist ad)--Xerces8 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it this one? If so, it's working.--Dali-Llama 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to mention here that I responded to this comment by linking to that new source for the advert. It's not a great copy, so a better source would be useful. GDallimore (Talk) 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive this talk?

I am wondering if it was time for much of this talk to be archived? Steorn are due to publicly demo their technology next week, (they said they will show their device but exact details of the tech will not be revealed. This is a demo and not validation/proof), and if it happens then there will be a renewed interest in Steorn. Given that this talk page is huge now it might be good to start it afresh. KittensOnToast 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - archived through the end of 2006 (~165 Kb). -- MarcoTolo 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetism is a conservative force ?

Is stated in the article. This however is not true according to Ampère's Circuital law. This law states that the curl of the magnetic field is in general not always zero, which is requered for a conservative field. It also follows from Ampère's Circuitual law that the magnetic field is conservative iff there is no current density and no change in the electric field, which on the other hand could be the case. The obvious question would be: is the EM field conservative ? This I do not know.

Although it's been a while since I did it, I seem to recall that curl H = J and J would be zero in an isolated system. If J > 0, then there is energy entering (or leaving) the system, so it is not isolated and one would not be surprised if a system of magents kept on moving forever... Of course, this is a vague memory from 10 years ago, so I could be wrong. GDallimore (Talk) 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It is according to the page on Ampère's Circuital law:
\mathbf{\nabla} \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}}{\partial t}
So not only `real' current but also change in the electric field can produce curl in the magnetic field. This changing electric field on its turn can be produced by an changing magnetic field according to Faraday's law of induction:
\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}
I should note that this last effect may often be neglectible. 80.100.30.125 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
( This and the original post where made by me: Bram Westerbaan 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) )
Thanks. I remember now. I fixed this a while back, but forgot to come back and mention it. GDallimore (Talk) 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
np. You could note that according to Poynting's theorem electromagnetic energy is conserved and if I am not mistaken this implies that the lorentz force is conservative. -- Bram Westerbaan 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American or British/Irish

There have been quite a few edits recently changing American spelling to British spelling and vice versa, so the article is now a hodge-podge of the two. Which is it to be? I can't work it out from the initial article (as suggested in various guidelines) since there are no distinguishing words. Shall we say British spelling since this is an article about an Irish company? GDallimore (Talk) 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would make sense. --sony-youthpléigh 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
English does seem logical Craig Mayhew 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I say don't sort it out at all-- Let Brits spell like Brits and Irish spell like Irish and Americans spell like Americans.

This would be no different from a Brit and an American speaking with each other-- no attempt is made to force one or the other to change the style of English that they use. Why force such change then in a written conversation? Let the article flow between styles depending on the contributor. We'll all be the richer for it.

Sean7phil 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three distinct possibilities

1. They misunderstand the functioning of their own technology, and the energy is from some non-obvious source they can't trace. 2. They blatantly claim it violates the principles of physics, so they're promoting some meta-physical worldview that they claim powers it. (such as ley lines, magic, alchemy, etc.) 3. It's an alternate reality game.

With their page, and the blog that seems to be set up specifically to document their pending failure (http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/), it most closely resembles an ARG of some sort. --205.201.141.146 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


This (above) is like asking someone "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a trick supposition.

The only fair and logical supposition would be to include a 4th possibility-- that they are right about their claims. The world used to be flat, and the people who said that it wasn't were called crazy as well...

Sean7phil 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007 demonstration

After many delays the July 2007 demonstration was postponed indefinitely (news story on steorns website: http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001

I wasn't quite sure where to add that into the article, I'm sure someone else can find the right way to do it. Boldra 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh, I was guessing this was going to happen. It's not surprising they had a "technical failure"; they probably have nothing to really show (or got scared someone was going to bust them at the last moment). Move along children, nothing to see here... nneonneo 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And here I was looking foward to see them making fools of themselves in public, ah well, next time maybe. 82.229.207.75 09:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So what happens now? They said something earlier ago about the scientists/engineers under NDA releasing their findings eventually, do we have a date for that? W3bbo 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

wow, you can really tell people aren't open minded to new possibilities when they are willing something to fail and would love it if it did 86.155.63.91 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Steorn really privately held?

The summary of the article currently states that Steorn is privately held. However, in several interviews Sean McCarthy has mentioned his responsibility towards "the shareholders". See for example [4], minute 10:50, when he says "I've had a priority of issues (sic) that I've had to deal with: obviously there are shareholders, people in the company and there's the media..."

I don't know about Ireland, but in the US, a privately owned company can have several shareholders. Public just means a higher level of regulation and reporting and that the shares can be listed on an exchange. Paul Studier 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. Thanks for the clarification!

[edit] Kinetica

The Free-energy machine is on demo today in an ART GALERY. This is not an invention, it is ART.

This whole thing is a conceptual art exhibition at a conceptual art gallery; The machine is on show today at the Kenetica gallery in Spitalfields Market, Hoxton, London - a district of the city well known for avant-garde art. The whole thing is a spectacular stunt, most probably intended to illustrate how vacuous we Brits really are when it comes to an understanding of basic science.

There are no verified claims at all that support the notion that there is a real free-energy machine. There is plenty of verified evidence that suggests that this is a very interesting art exhibit in a famous London art gallery. --Salimfadhley 10:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kinetica is famous? Not really - It only opened at the end of last year. Also, it's a museum, not an ART GALERY [sic]. I'm sceptical like anyone else, but I'll sit on the fence until someone proves either way. Once/if they sort out their technical problems, I'll go to Kinetica have a look... EAi 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent news links

Energy-from-nothing demonstration delayed indefinitely

Perpetual Energy Demo Runs into Technical Difficulties

Perpetual commotion

Perpetual motion goes into reverse

Steorn shuts down its "free energy" demo

Infinite power machine demo postponed

Surprise: "Free energy" machine hits "technical difficulties"

Seven reasons why Steorn's perpetual machine will never work

---Wolfe 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note mechanism?

Can someone explain how the "notes" section was created, technically? I would love to use this in my articles! Maury 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

<_ref_>The note you want to put at the bottom<_/ref_> (without "_") Kromsson 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that's the references section. The Notes section uses the old, now superseded referencing templates {{ref}} and {{Note}}.
Basically, you put:
 {{Ref|A|[a]}}
in the article somewhere and then put:
 '''a.''' {{Note|A}} Note text
in a notes section at the end. The two template create internal links to one another. The capital A is the label that is used internally, while the lower case [a] in the Ref template is the symbol that is displayed. GDallimore (Talk) 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
{{HighDefMediaComparison}} uses it to interesting effect if you want another example. I first came across it at Four Stages of Cruelty. GDallimore (Talk) 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically if I use the ref template, the

mechanism doesn't see it? Ok, I can definitely use that. I just wish they would add a true <_note_> / Template:Notelist for this! Maury 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Edit of K-Toy Video

Having a B.S. in Physics and a J.D., let me say straight off I think Steorn IMHO opinion is bullcrap and my edit probably violated WP:RS. However for those that are interested.Here it is in abrdiged form. "This video <googlevideo>5235319714285439453</googlevideo> ( or http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/2007/08/k-toy-video-discovered.html ) features Thieu Knapen, founder of Kinetron (http://www.kinetron.nl/), referring to a gizmo he built to characterize Steorn's invention concept,...... See his website: http://www.kinetron.nl/ - Kinetron is a supplier to Swatch and other giants. It is well known in the industry." See K-Toy Video Discovered ( http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/2007/08/k-toy-video-discovered.html) - Background and comments. (FreeEnergyTracker; August 30, 2007)Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is should be clear to anyone who looks at this video that the video does not show the generation of energy! Mahjongg 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just cause some guy says his idea is based on Steorn's, doesn't make it the same as Steorn's or in any way related to them and doesn't mean he should get coverage here. GDallimore (Talk) 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This video is from the Steorn documentary. Leaked. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a physics layman, but it appears to me that this little device is simply converting "potential" energy. IE - before he triggers the device, he's "resetting" a magnet (on the left) by lifting it into place. Perhaps I don't understand the significance of this video, but it seems non-compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.7.31 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Supposedly the noteworthy part is that the tinier weight lifts the heavy. The thing he moves is a lock and does not seem to store any energy. But indeed, there could be a "hidden" potential energy there. This video is more a curiosity and "truth statement" rather than a proof. The interview is supposedly made a short time after he has built the "toy" which is the design he built in order to convince himself. FYI. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Arrogance of Impossibility

Any reasonable scientist will grant that we understand less than one percent of what goes on in the universe. Given how little we actually understand, it is extremely arrogant then, to say that anything is impossible. Sean7phil 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean7Phil, while any contributions you would like to make to this article are more than welcome, and any suggestions you have for improving the article can be made here, please note that this is not a discussion page about the merits of Steorn or their claim, thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above comments in response to another post saying the article did not meet Wikipedia standards-- because the claim was patently impossible.

So I was, in that context, defending the validity of the article rather than just engaging in discussion. However I should have juxtaposed my post to that one in order to preserve the clear context, rather than creating a new section. My apologies.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's far more arrogant to state that the entire scientific establishment is wrong without offering any actual proof. The First Law of Thermodynamics works. Showing an easily-exploitable exception to it would be grounds for a Nobel Prize in physics. Hundreds of free energy claims have been made over time, none have worked. I see no reason to suppose this one is different. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

?? The article seems built around the premise of providing proof. Whether Steorn succeeds or not, the article can not say yet, as that information has not ben released, but the premise of providing proof seems central in the article and makes the article acceptable.

This is different, however, than the assumption by some, that the Laws of physics will never be disproven in any case or in any context. That assumption may perhaps be a bit arrogant- and so it was been acceptable to post here on Wikipedia such an article suggesting the possibility of breaking one such law.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

I was just wondering, this seems like a publicity stunt of some sort. Were they to finally admit it, would they face any legal consequence at all? It looks so wrong that one would think it is illegal (if indeed this is a conscious deception, made in the name of art, publicity or whatever) but it´s hard to pinpoint exactly how one could get at them. If someone with knowledge of Irish law could add what would be the legal consequences (if any) if this is a scam I think it would be worth a mention in the article.Elartistamadridista (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Being wrong in science is not a crime. Self deception could also be seen as more likely than intentional deception of others.

Or they could be right. The testing isn't over yet-- and the world was once flat.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By Now It is Appropriate To Ask: Any Citable Articles On The Results or When The Results Will Come Available?

By Now It is Appropriate To Ask: Any Citable Articles On The Results or When The Results Will Come Available, This DOES at this point relate to the article and is not just discussion.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Asking the question "Has any got more verifiable information to add?" is pointless since, if they did, they would add it. You're just inviting chatter about whether and when their claims will be proved or otherwise. GDallimore (Talk) 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what are the criteria here? I'll announce a company -- Spiel496 Inc. -- We're working on a machine that will turn straw into gold. Suppose for the sake of argument, that everyone is talking about us -- that makes us notable, so we get a Wikipedia article. Fine. How much time has to go by before our lack of progress gets noted as a fact on the page? Spiel496 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as it takes for a reliable source to not the lack of progress, one should think. скоморохъ 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What "reliable source" is going to note the lack of progress? The American Physical Society isn't going to take this seriously enough to waste their breath. And news organizations don't tend to report on the absence of things occurring. So we're left with one source: Steorn itself. I count 17 variations of "Steorn has claimed..." in the article. I think Steorn is relied on too heavily as a source for this article. Spiel496 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC).
We are an encyclopedia; we mindlessly parrot reliable secondary sources. Your opinions on Steorn's progress or lack thereof hve no encyclopediac value. As for Steorn being over-relied upon as a source, this simply mirrors the situation of the news orgs etc. who have no alternative source. Nothing you have said is reason to change the article, barring new sources coming to light. Regards, скоморохъ 05:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does have a right to exist-- this rates as a wikipedia topic simply because Steorn is a media phenomenon and is therefore an event in the broad pool of contemporary encyclopedic subjects.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Therefore since it's been months since the company has been in the news, can we delete this junk now? ---Wolfe (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it? That would give the Free energy suppressionists ammunition. Paul Studier (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When was the public forum deleted?

I noticed right now that the public forum seems to be gone from the Steorn.com website. When was it removed, and is that an interesting development, maybe, in the general Steorn 'story'? I see there is a closed developers forum, and I'm not sure, but I think that was there before, and that it isn't new or a kind of replacement for the public forum (I'm not 100% sure, though). I know there was much talk about stuff that didn't have much to do with Steorn, on the public forum, which is perhaps understandable since there haven't been much news from Steorn lately to talk about. Was the public forum removed because of all the 'off topic' talk, or is there some other reason? Anyone know? 62.16.190.81 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Found it. (Seems it's not linked to from the home page, though?) 62.16.190.81 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not linked directly to the home page. I'm not sure why, although forum membership is restricted to Scientists and Engineers.

The forum only comes up in search engines on complex keyword searches like "Steorn, magnetic" or "steorn, 2008".

66.227.84.101 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An apt quote?

“ For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. ”

- Richard Feynman (1918-1988) --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could be worth adding to perpetual motion machine if it isn't already there. GDallimore (Talk) 09:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviewed claim?

I added the term "peer reviewed" to highlight the normal rules of academic refereeing. Even if Steorn published their own report saying that the machine worked, it would mean very little if it was commissioned from a hand-picked team of scientists, which is what Steorn wanted. It is true that the whole process of Steorn producing evidence to support the claim seems to have fizzled out, but Steorn had ample opportunities to publish their work in a peer reviewed journal but declined to do so. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say "no peer reviewed" evidence, it implies that there has been "some evidence, but the scientific community have not approved it" which is misleading. In contrast "no evidence" covers "no peer reviewed evidence" and is also perfectly correct. Statements by Steorn that they have achieved over-unity are not "evidence" and that is all they have released - no reports giving evidence have been released. GDallimore (Talk) 09:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It could be argued that the demonstrations of the machine to the media were "evidence" of a sort, although there is still nothing that would even remotely satisfy a peer reviewed academic journal. However, I am not going to argue with the "no evidence" phrase. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but the machine hasn't been demonstrated to the media - only results saying "400%" efficiency without explanation of where those results came from has been given to the media. That is not, even remotely arguably, evidence. Other claimed successful demonstrations have not been made public due to "controversy" issues. GDallimore (Talk) 10:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
To change the subject somewhat, my main concern is that Steorn has fallen back on the time-honoured tactic of saying that trade secrets and non-disclosure agreements are involved. If the Steorn claim were true, every law of physics would have to be rewritten from scratch and Nobel prizes would be awarded, since the physicists involved would be ranked on a par with Newton and Einstein. This should be a far greater motivation than any financial gain. The usual cause of free energy claims is that people have applied non-standard reasoning to how the machine obtains and uses its energy supply. When the standard explanation is applied, the machine is found to be doing nothing that would break the current laws of physics.

Incidentally, the introduction suggests that the Steorn device would "particularly" violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. It could be argued that any perpetual motion claim violates all three Laws of Thermodynamics, since violating one of the laws would inherently lead to a violation of the other two. Here is a description of the three laws which may or may not please the purists:

  • Law 1: The amount of energy available to a mechanical system is constant.
  • Law 2: A mechanical system uses up its energy supply while it is operating.
  • Law 3: The processes of a mechanical system will eventually run down and cease.

When the Third Law was proposed, it was described in some quarters as a logical consequence of the other two laws and therefore unnecessary. Sir Eric Ash argued that the Steorn claim was a violation of the First Law, since it would require more than 100% of the energy to be output by the machine. Patent offices traditionally reject this claim on the grounds of contradiction, and the UK Patent Office says that devices of this kind are "contrary to well-tested physical laws and not capable of industrial application" (in plain language, they don't work). The people at Steorn must know that the chances of a obtaining a patent on a machine making this claim are remote, and have cited the "controversy" argument as a reason for keeping their cards close to their chest. However, the legal maxim that the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim still applies, and it appears that the Steorn claim is going nowhere, as with numerous similar claims in the past. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outright deception

Reflecting on the 50s and Wilhelm Reich and his 'orgone generator boxes' why are steorn allowed to operate? Wilhelm Reich died in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.110.205 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current status?

It is coming up to a year since anything has been publicised about Steorn, do they still exist? The website says "2000-2008" at the bottom, but it doesn't appear to have changed since July last year. 219.88.194.55 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)