Steorn reveal date: Friday April 13th


Recommended Posts

As much as I'd like to believe you can get free energy, it's more likely it's only a matter of time before it's discovered where the energy was coming from.

You mean, another parallel universe and another Rodney McKay will come...nm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all-magnet motor means just a motor running off magnets, then there is no breach of physical law. The thermodynamic principle is still in effect, as magnets lose their strength over time.

losing strength in a period of..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:woot: I'm building one now -- and smashing my electric meter !

It probably gets an assist from Gravity, as well.

From the website:

Steorn calls time on application process for scientists to step forward and test free energy technology

Dublin, 25th August 2006: Steorn, the technology development company, has today announced a cut-off date for scientists to respond to its challenge to take part in a public validation of its free energy technology.

Steorn placed an advertisement in the Economist on August 18th inviting 'the most qualified and the most cynical' scientists to step forward. More than 3,000 scientists have now responded and the deadline for any last minute applications has been set for 12 midnight, September 8th.

Steorn's technology is based on the interaction of magnetic fields and allows the production of clean, free and constant energy. The technology can be applied to virtually all devices requiring energy, from cellular phones to cars.

Edited by Hum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the more i read about this, the more i see the fundamental problems, although i would love to see how they claim to turn the magnetism into power (although instead of laying it out for scientists to critique, they are hiding behind IP laws, good luck getting a patent guys! :laugh: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite some of whats been said here, I would still very much like this to be true and so i'm being very POSITIVE about it. It's so flippin' exciting that i actually want it to be true. Hell, if the scientific community can obstinately cling to and purport the "theory of evolution" and it's offshoots as a valid truth which to me is utterly absurd in the most literal sense of the word, then Steorn, uttering another blasphemy in the eyes of many is fantastic to see. I'm getting a little frustrated that so many are so vehemently opposing their claims so quickly and so totally. Of course those people may be absolutely right and maybe it will be proven that Steorn are con-artists on a grand scale..... I personally think that having that attitude though, especially when its SO automatic, skepticism if you like, is very damaging to a persons perception and therefore experience of the world. If you take on an attitude of automatically "expecting the worst" then you might just find what you're looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very interesting to say the least. one thing that has me puzzled is the over 100% efficient part. what does it exactly mean when it says over 100%?

I think that just means that you get more energy out than you get in. Eg, you put 100% energy in, and you get that energy + a bit more coming out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite some of whats been said here, I would still very much like this to be true and so i'm being very POSITIVE about it. It's so flippin' exciting that i actually want it to be true. Hell, if the scientific community can obstinately cling to and purport the "theory of evolution" and it's offshoots as a valid truth which to me is utterly absurd in the most literal sense of the word, then Steorn, uttering another blasphemy in the eyes of many is fantastic to see. I'm getting a little frustrated that so many are so vehemently opposing their claims so quickly and so totally. Of course those people may be absolutely right and maybe it will be proven that Steorn are con-artists on a grand scale..... I personally think that having that attitude though, especially when its SO automatic, skepticism if you like, is very damaging to a persons perception and therefore experience of the world. If you take on an attitude of automatically "expecting the worst" then you might just find what you're looking for.

You can sugar coat it all you want. Anything that claims a "major" breakthrough with lack of repeatable experimental results or theory is going to treated with skepticism and don't even compare this with evolution.

Edited by davemania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can sugar coat it all you want. Anything that claims a "major" breakthrough with lack of repeatable experimental results and theory is going to treated with skepticism and don't even compare this with evolution.

As far as i am aware, at this very moment, many scientists who responded to their advertisement are testing their (Steorn's) claims and will present to the world their findings in due course. Whether they find their claims to be invalid or not will be made very clear when that announcement is made. According to Steorn, their findings have already been verified by independant bodies and the only dubious thing i find in all this is that the scientists who Steorn claim to have validated their findings refuse to "go on record" stating so and that on Steorn's website a stupefying 18% of voters say they simply sill not trust the findings of the scientific jury. We'll all know pretty soon (i hope) what the outcome of all this is, but one thing's for sure, Steorn simply cannot dupe the thousands of scientists who have agreed to test their technology, and in the fullness of time we'll know the truth of the matter.

I, unlike seemingly many others here, have no interest in talking down their announcement with idle conjecture so that if the time comes that their claims are proven false i can smugly say "I knew it". That seems to be the overwhelming impression i get from this thread so far instead of objective, logical commentary the likes of which only a few so far seem capable or more crucially, willing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i am aware, at this very moment, many scientists who responded to their advertisement are testing their (Steorn's) claims and will present to the world their findings in due course. Whether they find their claims to be invalid or not will be made very clear when that announcement is made. According to Steorn, their findings have already been verified by independant bodies and the only dubious thing i find in all this is that the scientists who Steorn claim to have validated their findings refuse to "go on record" stating so and that on Steorn's website a stupefying 18% of voters say they simply sill not trust the findings of the scientific jury. We'll all know pretty soon (i hope) what the outcome of all this is, but one thing's for sure, Steorn simply cannot dupe the thousands of scientists who have agreed to test their technology, and in the fullness of time we'll know the truth of the matter.

I, unlike seemingly many others here, have no interest in talking down their announcement with idle conjecture so that if the time comes that their claims are proven false i can smugly say "I knew it". That seems to be the overwhelming impression i get from this thread so far instead of objective, logical commentary the likes of which only a few so far seem capable or more crucially, willing.

Objectively ? Logically ? There has been little or no scientific background or proof given by steorn at all. They refused to name the independent scientist or have their work peer reviewed and they seem to be dragging this open test for as long as possible (3 years.... ) And other poster on this forum have already cited Steorn fishy background and company status.

THis isn't the first time a company have made an exaggerated claim to get some publicity. If there are actually any "substance" to their claim, than fine. So far, theres nothing but unsubstantiated claims and rumours.

Edited by davemania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectively ? Logically ? There has been little or no scientific background or proof given by steorn at all. They refused to name the independent scientist.

Isn't this exactly what they are addressing right now by getting these scientists to look into their claims? I'd suspect it was the independant scientist(s) who refused to be named rather than the other way round.

And other poster on this forum have already cited Steorn fishy background and company status.

I view very suspiciously the comments relating to Steorns "fishy" background. It's beside the point anyway.

THis isn't the first time a company have made an exaggerated claim to get some publicity. If there are actually any "substance" to their claim, than fine. So far, theres nothing but unsubstantiated claims and rumours.

Again, this is a valid point, but it is also precisely what they're addressing right now. Their doing this (this way) is not as outrageous as some on this thread would have us believe.

If they are scam artists, it shouldn't be too long before we all find out. Nevertheless the whole furore is fascinating.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alsheron, i think your perspective of the scientific endeavor is being clouded somewhat by the resolution scientists have. there is a reason scientists are obstinate. it's not because they are being obstinate for the sake of being so, nor are they being obstinate because they refuse to believe anything else. if you understand science (and the philosophy of science), you'll see that scientists are among the most open-minded people there are. thus, the fact that so few, if any, are seriously considering this company is evidence not of obstinacy, but of a fundamental flaw in the research, as i've explained already.

but let's take a closer look.

Despite some of whats been said here, I would still very much like this to be true and so i'm being very POSITIVE about it. It's so flippin' exciting that i actually want it to be true.

of course it's exciting, and there isn't a single scientist (or a single person!) who wouldn't want it to be true. if it is, it means the end of the energy crisis and, for the scientists, a new insight into the fundamental laws of nature.

but remember, crackpots have marketed their products before. what's to say that this time is any different? and what is to say that millennia of science, a holistic web of theories, experiments, and facts, is fundamentally incorrect, and therefore that most of it is?

Steorn, uttering another blasphemy in the eyes of many is fantastic to see. I'm getting a little frustrated that so many are so vehemently opposing their claims so quickly and so totally.
Of course those people may be absolutely right and maybe it will be proven that Steorn are con-artists on a grand scale..... I personally think that having that attitude though, especially when its SO automatic, skepticism if you like, is very damaging to a persons perception and therefore experience of the world. If you take on an attitude of automatically "expecting the worst" then you might just find what you're looking for.

skepticism is the attitude of the scientist (and, i should add, it should be the attitude of everyone who wishes to be a critical thinker).

it is absolutely impossible to do science without skepticism. there is a difference between having an open mind (being able to accept that something might be right), and skepticism (refusing to believe outright that something is right). scientists are both open-minded and skeptical, for numerous reasons. do not confuse the two.

in fact, bad science often comes about because people LACK skepticism and tend to inject their beliefs into their theories, experiments, etc.

I'd suspect it was the independant scientist(s) who refused to be named rather than the other way round.

i'm skeptical of that. not only would that scientist be the recipient of all the world's prizes, from politics to public policy to the nobel, that person would perhaps be the most important person in history.

I view very suspiciously the comments relating to Steorns "fishy" background. It's beside the point anyway.

it's not besides the point. a dubious background is evidence of foul play and an indication that one must be especially skeptical. not everyone is innocent or righteous. there are people who want to take advantage of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;) There's no reason not to take a look at Steorn's research. It's to many people's benefit if their discovery works.

I question tho, whether what works on a small scale can be made practicle on a large scale, to power things like cars and homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is interesting. My first reaction was extreme disbelief. But it seems they're very serious about it. How could they still be pursuing this after 3 years if it were a complete hoax?

I suspect this technology is "for real" in the sense that it produces energy as they claim. But I think it produces the energy in such a way that it doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy. They mentioned magnets. Let's not forget the Earth is a magnet. Their device could be using the Earth's magnetic field in some way, extracting energy from it. They said they know it doesn't come from the ambient environment based on temperature, but if it were to come from Earth's magnetic field, there would be no temperature change - only a magnetic intensity change, which they didn't mention.

If it doesn't come from Earth's magnetic field, it could still be grabbing energy from a higher dimension. In this case, it's even more revolutionary than if it were "free energy" because it's essentially PROOF that there are more than 3 dimensions.

In any case, I'm really excited to see the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Yes, this is certainly exciting!! Imagine having a car that would never need fuel!

I for one don't believe this to be a hoax at all. I have seen/heard interviews with these guys and there very modest and seem legit:

I don't know if this has been linked before, but the sky news report is on you tube as well:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.