Steorn's actions make business sense [Archive]

Mudd

2nd July 2007, 03:23 AM

The Irish technology company, Steorn, has made the claim that it has achieved over-unity; the ability to get more energy out of a device than is put in - a clear violation of the laws of physics as they are currently understood.

In spite of making this claim, inviting scientists from around the world to prove Steorn wrong through testing of their technology, and setting up a forum for the discussion of said technology, the company has yet to show the world a working device.

Some have criticized these actions and questioned the logic behind not showing the world a working over-unity device yet.

To me, the logic is simple.

Let's say that you, the reader, develop a start-stop purely-mechanical device that produces over-unity. It's unlikely, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume you do.

One can patent technology, but not the scientific principles underlying it.

If you patent your start-stop device and start selling it, you'll make money until someone develops a continuous-motion device based on the aforementioned scientific principles.

At that point, you'll make no money at all, because the continuous-motion version is more desirable and marketable.

The developer of the continuous-motion device will make money until someone develops a solid-state device, at which point the continuous-motion device will be as worthless as the start-stop one.

You could go ahead and market the start-stop version and hope that you're lucky enough to develop the continuous-motion and solid-state devices before anyone else, but that would be risky.

Your best bet would be to not reveal your technology until you developed the solid-state device yourself.

Let's speculate and assume that Steorn developed a start-stop over-unity device and wanted to develop the solid-state version, but was unable to work it out.

The thing to do would be to hire scientists to figure out the underlying principles so as to facilitate the development of more advanced versions of the technology.

But, maybe what Steorn claimed was true; getting scientists to work with them was harder than they originally thought... hence, the placement of the advertisement in the Economist last August for scientists to figure out the principles behind their admittedly-accidental discovery.

The ad generated enough interest to form a "Jury" of scientists to study the technology under non-disclosure agreements.

Some have questioned why the Jury results have been taking so long to be made public.

Speculating again, maybe Steorn needed time to work the kinks out of the continuous-motion and solid-state versions of the technology using the input from the Jury.

Thus, Steorn's actions are consistent with their claim of an accidental discovery of ground-breaking technology and difficulty interesting the scientific world in the discovery. And, the company is showing good business acumen.

It's be stupid to let the cat out of the bag and end up famous, yet poor.

wollery

2nd July 2007, 03:54 AM

Or, they thought that maybe, just possibly, they had such a device, but it turned out they'd missed something.

Or, they're con artists talking cobblers and have no such device.

yairhol

2nd July 2007, 05:19 AM

I remember Randi talking about that darn friction thing which always gets in the way. If we could only get rid of it...but that shouldn't be too difficult should it?

Regards,
Yair

Anacoluthon64

2nd July 2007, 05:51 AM

Supposing all these speculations in respect of successive technology generations to be true, it seems to me that it would be far safer, from the point of view of protecting intellectual property rights, to keep such a development under the tightest possible wraps until the non plus ultra hypothetical solid-state device materialises.

But perhaps I'm missing something.

'Luthon64

logical muse

2nd July 2007, 06:03 AM

Let's say that you, the reader, develop a start-stop purely-mechanical device that produces over-unity. It's unlikely, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume you do.

It's not just unlikely, it's unpossible! :eek:

Mojo

2nd July 2007, 06:27 AM

Steorn's actions make business sense if they don't have a working OU device.

JQH

2nd July 2007, 07:05 AM

Call me old mr suspicious but am I the only one who finds it odd that someone's very first - and so far only - post is intended to persuade us that Steorn might actually have something?

logical muse

2nd July 2007, 07:22 AM

Call me old mr suspicious...

OK. Old mr suspicious.

sinnikal

2nd July 2007, 07:28 AM

Call me old mr suspicious but am I the only one who finds it odd that someone's very first - and so far only - post is intended to persuade us that Steorn might actually have something?

I don't find it that odd, I've seen lots of 'first time posters' doing the same on varied subjects.
What I do find odd is the inescapable conclusion that they can't have read much of the forum before posting. Otherwise they'd have seen their sloppy nonsense filleted time after time:)

Mojo

2nd July 2007, 07:49 AM

I don't find it that odd, I've seen lots of 'first time posters' doing the same on varied subjects.
What I do find odd is the inescapable conclusion that they can't have read much of the forum before posting.

Classic example here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2733540#post2733540).

Stellafane

2nd July 2007, 08:36 AM

...It's be stupid to let the cat out of the bag and end up famous, yet poor.

If I invented an over-unity device, it would change everything. Everything. How often do you here that expression, "This changes everything"? Well, this would be one case where it would literally be true.

Think of it -- no more reliance on fossil fuels, with all the vast environmental, political, and economic benefits that would entail. Suddenly we'd be awash in wealth we could spend on matters of social and humanitarian import. We could potentially reverse global warming, and ensure abundant energy for everyone, everywhere, regardless of location or economic class. And that's just the tip of the iceberg (and never mind completely setting physics as we know it on its head).

Famous? Hell, I'd be legendary, a scientist nonpareil, whose only peers would be the likes of Newton and Einstein. Nobel prize, magazine covers, book deals, bio-pics. And that's just for starters. Then there's my moral obligation to humanity to ensure such a epoch-making, paradigm-shifting technology gets deveoped to its fullest potential and distributed to the world as quickly as humanly possible.

In the face of all that, do you think I'd fumble around in an effort to gain something as utterly trivial and irrelevant as money??

Anacoluthon64

2nd July 2007, 08:42 AM

Suddenly we'd be awash in wealth we could spend on matters of social and humanitarian import. We could potentially reverse global warming, and ensure abundant energy for everyone, everywhere, regardless of location or economic class.Yes, you could even silence your critics.

At a stroke, forever!

'Luthon64

Zyzzyvas

2nd July 2007, 10:26 PM

........you'll never again be cut off half-way through that riveting cell-phone conversation! ;)

cloudshipsrule

2nd July 2007, 11:36 PM

I remember Randi talking about that darn friction thing which always gets in the way. If we could only get rid of it...but that shouldn't be too difficult should it?

That'd be the first hurdle. Even floating using permanent magnets there's still that whole air thing. Of course one could create a vacuum in which to operate said device, but then there's the whole wasted energy of creating the vacuum itself. Friction sucks!

Aepervius

2nd July 2007, 11:38 PM

To answer mudd, which is probably one of those believer from Steorn's forum trying to convince skeptic of the third coming (Tesla and tom bearden being the first and second coming), ehre is what make business sense :
Business process 1 : put everything under secret wrap, until you have a ready made demo which can convince anybody, including the people you are trying to licence the tech. Have already the patent made when you go sell the licence. Do not pipe a word, do not make a forum
Business process 2 : Just as above for (1) have anything ready in secret then try to woo the public and scientist, make a public forum , show the machine and how to reproduce it as to independantly scientist, make it a public open process. Make open demo. Be open 100%.

Steorn make no sense because they kind of go half-half. 3 years long they stay under secrety, then suddenly they advert in the economist, but offer nothing nearly 1 YEAR LONG to the public, still open forum and give a lot of CONTRADICTORY statement (550 bhp fiasco, or the "we will give you flash film with scientific data" which ended with NOTHING MORE than a few friction data points) then they want to make a public demo but shroud it in secrety. Duh.

Now I am waiting patiently for the london demo, but I ain't holding my breath.

Anacoluthon64

2nd July 2007, 11:51 PM

That'd be the first hurdle. Even floating using permanent magnets there's still that whole air thing. Of course one could create a vacuum in which to operate said device, but then there's the whole wasted energy of creating the vacuum itself. Friction sucks!Not to mention sizeable losses from induced eddy currents in the materials as they move through the magnetic field, resulting in waste heat. Supercooling could help but then you'd need an appropriate cooling plant. Entropy sucks, too!

'Luthon64

Mudd

3rd July 2007, 11:03 PM

What do you suspect?

Anyway, my next thread is going to be on the topic of global warming; make what you will of that...

DRBUZZ0

3rd July 2007, 11:57 PM

I had written about this once on my site.. (shameless promotion) http://depletedcranium.com/?p=19

My take is that it's a dumb thing, they don't need it "verified." it's simple. Just bring out a black box that produces lots of energy and does so for longer than any conventional battery or other compact energy source and you're half way to proving you have it (or an RTG you stole from nasa)

I tend to think it's probably a publicity stunt for something like a red-bull type energy drink or something else stupid like that.

Michael C

4th July 2007, 12:29 AM

What do you suspect?

Anyway, my next thread is going to be on the topic of global warming; make what you will of that...

Well, if Steorn really have made an over-unity device, they'd better find a way to destroy all that excess energy they're creating. Otherwise, the world will just get hotter and hotter.

Stellafane

4th July 2007, 07:01 AM

Horatius

4th July 2007, 07:19 AM

One can patent technology, but not the scientific principles underlying it.

If you patent your start-stop device and start selling it, you'll make money until someone develops a continuous-motion device based on the aforementioned scientific principles.

At that point, you'll make no money at all, because the continuous-motion version is more desirable and marketable.

The developer of the continuous-motion device will make money until someone develops a solid-state device, at which point the continuous-motion device will be as worthless as the start-stop one.

The problem is, your ideas about who would make money are based on a lack of understanding how patents actually work.

"Interesting fact" time. Well, it's interesting if you're interested in patents. :) You can have a patent to technology B that depends on earlier technology A that was patented by someone else. In that case, the owner of patent B cannot use his technology unless he gets a license from the owner of patent A, otherwise he would be infringing patent A.

If the continuous version inventor used any of the technology used in the start-stop version, he would be in just such a position. Then, the start-stop guys could either deny him a license, and keep selling their own product, or make some sort of deal, to cross-license the two patents, so everyone could produce both devices, or some intermediate arrangement. Then, the start-stop guys are making money off everyone else who patents later versions, in so far as the later versions are based on their earlier work.

So it still doesn't make any business sense. Assuming your patents are well-written, of course.

Horatius

4th July 2007, 07:21 AM

Announcement today (http://rte.ie/news/2007/0704/steorn.html)!

By the way, Steorn plans to license this technology over the internet for "a very small fee." Therefore, protecting their profit potential is apparently not the reason for their recent actions.

That article mentions:

Steorn is contractually obliged to publish whatever the scientists conclude in full.

Does anyone have a link to confirm that? From what I saw of the contracts the panel signed, it seemed to me the exact opposite was true.

JQH

4th July 2007, 07:34 AM

What do you suspect?

That you're a Steorn shill

Anyway, my next thread is going to be on the topic of global warming; make what you will of that...

I reckon that you'll talk about CO2 causing disastrous climate change, be a down on nuclear power and alternative energy and conclude that the Steorn device will save us.

How am I doing?

trvlr2

4th July 2007, 03:09 PM

From Stellafane's link, post #20:

Mr McCarthy revealed that if the technology is validated in scientific tests, the company plans to licence it over the internet to any company who wants it for 'a very small fee'.

Anyone else notice the BIG "if"?
I was under the impression that the device worked. Period.
Doesn't matter what one may think-either this works, or it does not.

I say "not".

Grimoire

4th July 2007, 04:36 PM

One can patent technology, but not the scientific principles underlying it.

If you patent your start-stop device and start selling it, you'll make money until someone develops a continuous-motion device based on the aforementioned scientific principles.

At that point, you'll make no money at all, because the continuous-motion version is more desirable and marketable.

The developer of the continuous-motion device will make money until someone develops a solid-state device, at which point the continuous-motion device will be as worthless as the start-stop one.

You could go ahead and market the start-stop version and hope that you're lucky enough to develop the continuous-motion and solid-state devices before anyone else, but that would be risky.

Your best bet would be to not reveal your technology until you developed the solid-state device yourself.
Wrong.

If you don't patent it and then sell one, the buyer can simply reverse engineer it, and build their own for cheaper (no R&D costs to recover). This would drive the inventor out of business very quickly. The whole point of the patent is to prevent that from happening. A patent is there to protect the IP of the inventor.

If you decide to not sell it, but build a whole bunch and sell the energy directly, you rely on secrecy to protect you. Given that the development of a free energy device would be the most important event in the history of mankind, I suspect that it would be rather difficult to keep the design a secret.

So, the only reason why no patent has been applied for (that I can think of) is that they know it will be rejected, since it does not work.

Horatius

4th July 2007, 04:56 PM

So, the only reason why no patent has been applied for (that I can think of) is that they know it will be rejected, since it does not work.

So far they have one published patent application, but it's for something they've already said isn't part of their device. They claim to have filed some other applications, but so far, nothing else has been published, and they haven't said when they applied, so it's hard to predict when they should be expected to be published. Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which is how their other application was filed, the applications are published after 18 months.

Since this has been going on since September, we can conclude that at least some applications were filed about then, so we may not see anything for another 7+ months. After that, their claims to have filed for patents get a lot more suspect if no applications get published.

Moochie

5th July 2007, 11:16 AM

Call me old mr suspicious but am I the only one who finds it odd that someone's very first - and so far only - post is intended to persuade us that Steorn might actually have something?

Well, Old Mr. Suspicious, apparently they're demonstrating the "device" even as we type:

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

Alas, there seem to be some "technical difficulties."

M.

JQH

5th July 2007, 03:24 PM

Well, Old Mr. Suspicious, apparently they're demonstrating the "device" even as we type:

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

Alas, there seem to be some "technical difficulties."

M.

What a surprise. Not!:rolleyes:

Ladewig

6th July 2007, 06:05 AM

If you patent your start-stop device and start selling it, you'll make money until

There's your problem. If the inventor is worried about people copying it, then the solution is to not sell it.

Steorn could easily make if he bought a warehouse and filled it with over-unity devices. As long as he chose a city that requires the electric company to buy back power from customers, he could add more and more machines and make more and more money.

If one has a goose that lays golden eggs, then selling the eggs can be more profitable than selling the goose.

tkingdoll

6th July 2007, 08:46 AM

That you're a Steorn shill

In the nicest possible way, isn't that a tad paranoid? Why would someone from Steorn bother to come here and post?

Beady

6th July 2007, 09:40 AM

tkingdoll

6th July 2007, 10:42 AM

In one of the other Steorn threads, I quote an article that explains how their actions really do make good business sense, if they are trying to demonstrate to potential advertising clients that they can grab and keep media attention.

Sorry, but they really haven't grabbed or kept media attention. This has been pretty much ignored by the media.

DRBUZZ0

6th July 2007, 12:01 PM

Sorry, but they really haven't grabbed or kept media attention. This has been pretty much ignored by the media.

I disagree. They've managed to get a fair share of the geek/net culture's attention. (not that they have any faith in the system, but enough are laughing at it). I've seen it on Engadget, Slashdot and a lot of forums, like bad astronomy and such. Although most of the attention hasn't been positive, but rather "lets see what these @$$clowns are trying to pull with this"

They were on foxnews and msnbc a couple times - not that that means anything. But hey, it's hard to get a lot of attention with something this crazy.

Beady

6th July 2007, 12:50 PM

Sorry, but they really haven't grabbed or kept media attention. This has been pretty much ignored by the media.

I didn't say they'd been successful, just that their actions make sense if that's what they're actually trying to do.

Grimoire

6th July 2007, 01:38 PM

If one has a goose that lays golden eggs, then selling the eggs can be more profitable than selling the goose.
Unless someone figures out how to make their own golden goose. I doubt the design would stay secret for too long.

tkingdoll

6th July 2007, 02:36 PM

I disagree. They've managed to get a fair share of the geek/net culture's attention. (not that they have any faith in the system, but enough are laughing at it). I've seen it on Engadget, Slashdot and a lot of forums, like bad astronomy and such. Although most of the attention hasn't been positive, but rather "lets see what these @$$clowns are trying to pull with this"

They were on foxnews and msnbc a couple times - not that that means anything. But hey, it's hard to get a lot of attention with something this crazy.

I'm talking about mainstream media outlets.

They have about 4 ticks in the 10 boxes that go into a successful viral campaign. So if that is their intention, they have not succeeded.

Ladewig

6th July 2007, 03:08 PM

Unless someone figures out how to make their own golden goose. I doubt the design would stay secret for too long.

Why do you doubt it could be kept secret? The scenario I described, the inventor could just paint some panes of glass, put them on the roof, and tell neighbors that he is running a new type of solar cell to generate all that electricity.

ohp

6th July 2007, 03:11 PM

The demo is only 5 minutes from our office in London.. I popped down there today.

So very dissapointed. I had hoped I'd see what it looked like.

You know, with such strong lights, they missed out on an opportunity to use solar power :-)

http://www.mechtopia.org.uk/images/steorn.jpg

Moochie

6th July 2007, 03:55 PM

I disagree. They've managed to get a fair share of the geek/net culture's attention. (not that they have any faith in the system, but enough are laughing at it). I've seen it on Engadget, Slashdot and a lot of forums, like bad astronomy and such. Although most of the attention hasn't been positive, but rather "lets see what these @$$clowns are trying to pull with this"

They were on foxnews and msnbc a couple times - not that that means anything. But hey, it's hard to get a lot of attention with something this crazy.

I came across the demo announcement via Salon the other day, and promptly posted the link, above. The Salon item was totally skeptical.

I am absolutely not surprised at their failure to show anything. I wonder if anyone actually expected a positive result.

M.

andyandy

6th July 2007, 04:10 PM

their claim is incredible, their whole approach is incredible, i am incredulous :)

if they have something that works, why not just patent it, market it and become the richest company in the world? Why bother with scientific validation? If it works then scientific validation will inevitably follow.

ohp

6th July 2007, 04:32 PM

I am absolutely not surprised at their failure to show anything. I wonder if anyone actually expected a positive result.

I guess it's hard for people to believe that they could have got so far without having something that worked. Generally the self deluded meet someone that gives them a good slap around the face before this amount of money gets spent.

So you begin to think.. obscure marketing excercise? tax write-off? fraud? perhaps the public exhibition was enough to rope in the final few investors... someone is now running to Brazil with a suitcase full of money and random parts of a food mixer.

or perhaps it's real.

sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face there.

andyandy

6th July 2007, 04:47 PM

I guess it's hard for people to believe that they could have got so far without having something that worked. Generally the self deluded meet someone that gives them a good slap around the face before this amount of money gets spent.

So you begin to think.. obscure marketing excercise? tax write-off? fraud? perhaps the public exhibition was enough to rope in the final few investors... someone is now running to Brazil with a suitcase full of money and random parts of a food mixer.

or perhaps it's real.

sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face there.

I'd vote fraud.
from a marketing profile sense it doesn't make much sense - their reputation would be in shreds if they revealed it to just be an exercise in web marketing....

I imagine they've got a fair few private investors hooked with the lure of untold riches - and all they need to do is spin it out over several years, keeping having "technical problems," writing off large chunks of that investment as R&D per year....until finally they've milked all they can, and they announce that due to financial difficulties they're unable to continue...

They exit the scheme having never had to admit that it was all a scam - and are several million pounds richer as a result -

it certainly is one way to generate something from nothing....

Grimoire

6th July 2007, 05:42 PM

Why do you doubt it could be kept secret? The scenario I described, the inventor could just paint some panes of glass, put them on the roof, and tell neighbors that he is running a new type of solar cell to generate all that electricity.
Let us assume your scenario is implemented. Existing solar cells generate a relatively small amount of power. UO devices, by their very definition, can generate enormous amounts of power. Someone will notice that there is a ton of power coming out of a building that is far too small to be generating power via traditional means. They will investigate and discover the devices.

A real OU device will be the most important event in the history of mankind. More important than splitting the atom, more important than landing a man on the moon, and more important than when Ook said to Groog "Hey, look what happens when I rub these two sticks together really fast". An event of that magnitude would not remain hidden.

ohp

6th July 2007, 06:05 PM

Someone will notice that there is a ton of power coming out of a building that is far too small to be generating power via traditional means. They will investigate and discover the devices.
.

I'm sorry, but this statement brought forth visions of people casually going around with thermal imaging goggles, opening up electricity meter closets and various other bits of equipment to detect excess building power.

How much power is your neighbour using, right now?

can you tell if he/she has an aluminium smelting plant n his back room, or an oxygen/hydrogen electrolysis plant?

I would imagine that the most likely scenario is that someone would notice underbiiling at the electricity plant, then they'd break down the doors of the dusty warehouse and the swat team would take over the place, as the OU engineers slowly raise their hands over their heads, and look at each other with that "we've been busted" look on their faces.

Sorry, imagination running away again there :-)

Grimoire

6th July 2007, 06:15 PM

I'm sorry, but this statement brought forth visions of people casually going around with thermal imaging goggles, opening up electricity meter closets and various other bits of equipment to detect excess building power.

How much power is your neighbour using, right now?

can you tell if he/she has an aluminium smelting plant n his back room, or an oxygen/hydrogen electrolysis plant?Since I live in a townhouse, yup, I can! :) But seriously, standard housing or even commercial lines just couldn't handle the power needed to actually make a bunch of money off of this.

I would imagine that the most likely scenario is that someone would notice underbiiling at the electricity plant, then they'd break down the doors of the dusty warehouse and the swat team would take over the place, as the OU engineers slowly raise their hands over their heads, and look at each other with that "we've been busted" look on their faces.
That would be a likely scenario, right up until the first comma. ;)

A similar tactic was used here in BC by the police to help track down marijuana grow ops. Use too much power and BC Hydro would sic the cops on you. That changed a while back, when it was realized that the police need a warrant for your power records BEFORE they could look at them...

Ladewig

6th July 2007, 07:17 PM

Since I live in a townhouse, yup, I can! :) But seriously, standard housing or even commercial lines just couldn't handle the power needed to actually make a bunch of money off of this.

Wouldn't that depend on the cost of materials and assembly?

Even if you installed industrial lines to the power grid, unless you are breaking the law in some way, no one can come inside and discover your secret. Furthermore, even if the police or other authorities did produce a search warrant, that does not mean they can seize and reverse engineer your devices. I maintain that one could make money and keep the process secret.

In any case, the real money is showing it to a few select investors and then running off with their money.

Foolmewunz

6th July 2007, 09:22 PM

Mods?

There's a grizzled old veteran thread on Steorn running in the Current Commentary sub-forum for getting 'nigh onto a year, now.

Could they be merged? Or is this a distinctly different audience(apparently it is)?

Wolverine

6th July 2007, 09:31 PM

A merge would be messy, IMO.

Horatius

6th July 2007, 11:20 PM

... unless you are breaking the law in some way, no one can come inside and discover your secret. Furthermore, even if the police or other authorities did produce a search warrant, that does not mean they can seize and reverse engineer your devices.

You're assuming it will be the cops who come visiting. It could very well be representatives of less, shall we say, principled? organizations.

The profit potential for such a device is so huge, you have to expect that a lot of people would be willing to do a lot of nasty things to get a piece of that pie. Consider what a rapidly expanding industrial China might do, for instance.

Grimoire

6th July 2007, 11:29 PM

Even if you installed industrial lines to the power grid, unless you are breaking the law in some way, no one can come inside and discover your secret. Furthermore, even if the police or other authorities did produce a search warrant, that does not mean they can seize and reverse engineer your devices. I maintain that one could make money and keep the process secret.
I wasn't just referring to legal discovery. Industrial espionage exists. Just recently, there was an issue between McLaren and Ferrari (http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/07/04/fia_to_investigate_espionage_affair/) in Formula 1 racing. Believe me, OU is far more valuable than some aerodynamic parts for a race car. Hell, I'd break in if I thought I could get my hands on a real OU device.

In any case, the real money is showing it to a few select investors and then running off with their money.
Agreed! :thumbsup:

Foolmewunz

7th July 2007, 12:06 AM

Well, to address the opening post and add some.....

From a business sense this has been a debacle. He got no major media coverage whatsoever, so that's a PLUS, because those that are reviewing the last few days and commenting are not being kind.

This is a horribly run company, of whatever sort it is. To have but one device ready, and that one nearly not tested ("it ran the night before" when the cameras weren't on), no spare parts, no backup device, a presentation in a museum of all places, the sooper secret panel, et al.... It ain't the scientific method, it ain't good marketing, and it ain't good sense.

They're either delusional or scammers. I opt to believe in the former. As to he possibility of the latter, I offer (freely purloined from fence-sitters on the Steorn forum) the following:

The bearings! It was not that the bearings were faulty. It's that the bearings chosen couldn't handle the changed environment, e.g. heat.... They got their bearings from watch/clock makers. Now that's the interesting scam angle.... A well-made grandfather clock can run accurately for at least a week, inaccurately (i.e. losing a little time) for a month or more. The bearings in a clock or watch are such that they are designed to interfere as little as possible, but they are also dealing with fine-tuned mechanisms that will create as little friction as possible. It's highly conceivable that they designed a plexiglas watch without hands, and that it could've run in an ideal climate for the ten days to which they'd committed for the vid streaming.

Like I said - interesting possibility.

Sean also said that the slots that everyone assumed were for insertion of magnets, were actually for air. Someone posited that the extreme sensitivity to the heat was because they were intending to use the air as a possible booster to the SMOT device.... e.g. by heating and cooling the room or area around it, the effect might be to generate 'thermals' that would boost the visible output.

This second theory sounds rather forced. The first one is more appetizing. Neither sounds as attractive, though, as the idea that they really may have believed they had something and that they just crapped all over themselves and aren't willing to admit that they were dreaming.

tkingdoll

7th July 2007, 06:32 AM

You gotta admit though, they have a very nice website.

DRBUZZ0

7th July 2007, 09:13 AM

You gotta admit though, they have a very nice website.

I've seen better. I could probably do better. I'm not impressed

Foolmewunz

7th July 2007, 09:21 AM

I've seen better. I could probably do better. I'm not impressed

Probably? Rather a strange statement.

How come you haven't?

http://www.depletedcranium.com/

I think their website is devoid of meaningful content, is poorly managed, and is essentially part of whatever delusion or scam they're all about. But physically, it's a great site. I've seen a couple of others recently for commercial entities that flow much the same way. It's a clean and good site.

JQH

7th July 2007, 03:18 PM

In the nicest possible way, isn't that a tad paranoid? Why would someone from Steorn bother to come here and post?

Probably for the same reasons they would claim to have an over-unity device in the first place.

tkingdoll

7th July 2007, 04:22 PM

Probably for the same reasons they would claim to have an over-unity device in the first place.

1) to make money
2) to gain fame

I think perhaps you have overestimated the importance of this forum.:rolleyes:

joobz

7th July 2007, 05:40 PM

Personally, I find it quite poetic that it was, excessive heating of the device that caused failure. Afterall, it's heat generation by the device that makes the whole thing impossible to begin with.

These problems were primarily due to excessive heat from the lighting in the main display area

VanillaCone

7th July 2007, 06:34 PM

Having worked for a technology startup company in the late '90s, I can think of another reason for Steorn's current approach. They believe they have discovered a technology that potentially could do what they claim, but the device can't do it yet, so the current hype is to entice big venture capitalists to invest kajillions of dollars into their company for a piece of the perpetual-motion pie. I remember our product was still in R&D when we sought our second, larger round of funding, and when we pitched the concept to investors we certainly did not say, "Our product should be able to do this and that by the time we finish it." Heavens no. It was absolutely going to do what our engineers and software guys said it was going to do. And our investors were a bunch of traditional bankers who would have scarcely batted an eyelid if we told them we were inventing a matter transporter device. They just wanted to know how much money it was going to make.

And guess what? They never could get the thing to work. Millions of dollars down the toilet. I'm not a techie, and their confidence and know-it-all attitude certainly had me fooled. I left a good, stable job to go work fo them. But hey, we sure had some fun office parties while it lasted!

ETA -- I just remembered something else about my startup experience. When we were seeking our second round, our CEO did not characterize it as money to be used for the further development of our beta product. It was always described as money needed for further enhancements and more efficient versions of the product that would follow the initial, presumably working technology. The written investor information we gave potential VCs (subject to non-disclosure agreements) stated the absolute truth about our situation and the risks involved in making an investment, but in verbal pitches it sounded almost just like what Steorn is saying: "We have a working product that is the best thing ever and blows away everything you've ever seen, but we just need more money to make it even better!" Now I understand that it's a sort of entrepreneur's code language for: "We're really, really hoping this will work, so come spin the wheel with us!"

ChristineR

7th July 2007, 07:15 PM

If I invented an over-unity device, it would change everything. Everything. How often do you here that expression, "This changes everything"? Well, this would be one case where it would literally be true.

Think of it -- no more reliance on fossil fuels, with all the vast environmental, political, and economic benefits that would entail. Suddenly we'd be awash in wealth we could spend on matters of social and humanitarian import. We could potentially reverse global warming, and ensure abundant energy for everyone, everywhere, regardless of location or economic class. And that's just the tip of the iceberg (and never mind completely setting physics as we know it on its head).

Famous? Hell, I'd be legendary, a scientist nonpareil, whose only peers would be the likes of Newton and Einstein. Nobel prize, magazine covers, book deals, bio-pics. And that's just for starters. Then there's my moral obligation to humanity to ensure such a epoch-making, paradigm-shifting technology gets deveoped to its fullest potential and distributed to the world as quickly as humanly possible.

In the face of all that, do you think I'd fumble around in an effort to gain something as utterly trivial and irrelevant as money??

Duh, yes! And this supposed competitor who is planning to rip off Steorn's technology would surely like nothing better than to pay Steorn's scientists billions of dollars so that they don't have to waste time copying the existing work when there's billions to be made just by being first to market.

VanillaCone

7th July 2007, 07:57 PM

Duh, yes! And this supposed competitor who is planning to rip off Steorn's technology would surely like nothing better than to pay Steorn's scientists billions of dollars so that they don't have to waste time copying the existing work when there's billions to be made just by being first to market.

I certainly think it's safe to say that business people are in business to make money. If they were merely interested in making the world a better place, they would quit their jobs so they could spend the entire day posting in the JREF forum, as I have done.

Foolmewunz

7th July 2007, 08:21 PM

Relating all this back to the OP......

Vanillacone - I like your anecdotal evidence. This is exactly how the guys with the bright ideas proceed when they've only got a bright idea, or like in Steorn's case (and may of the internet startups in the 90s), they had something that kinda/sorta worked in a limited or controlled environment, and postulated that it could work everywhere, all the time.

The problem with this as regards Steorn, though, is that while following those axioms, they obviously had nothing more than the idea or the one-off example. Instead of the normal boardroom investment route, they decided to go through some rather strange moves, mostly geared to getting attention, but I think in the end indicative that they thought they had something, but didn't know just what that something was. Why else the Guradian advert, the open forum, the developers forum, the scientific panel, the woeful release of information*.

The NDAs are understandable in any such venture. But opening up a sub-panel which they referred to as their "Developers Forum", was ridiculous. This was bright lads and lasses from their forum. Sign the NDA and show some sort of knowledge or expertise, and you're in.

In hindsight, they were hoping that someone in one or another of these groups would come up with that "Eureka!" moment that would explain their original anomaly and allow them to replicate it.

All of this adds up to nearly the exact opposite of the theme of the OP in this thread. This was a horrible muddle in terms of business. (They haven't been taking new investors, so the idea that they're doing it to kite their stock price doesn't work, either.)

*If you look at their very slick website, check the press information, press releases, and Steorn In The News sections. There were many more announcements since last August - they made them in their Forum, though. They had dozens, if not hundreds of news articles and mentions on television and had whole sub-sections of websites and blogs dedicated to them. Yet none of the news clipping are after Aug/Sep of last year. They've published nothing in the way of specs, although they promised to. Instead, they've opted for stupid video clips and museum shows.

All in all, as I said, as "good business", this has been a disaster.

VanillaCone

7th July 2007, 10:35 PM

All in all, as I said, as "good business", this has been a disaster.

One more memory came flowing back just now, nothing but one more drop of anecdote in the sea of scientific information proving Steorn's claims (I kid.), but I remember the worst day of my startup experience was the day our company's Web site went live, and a group of posters on SlashDot absolutely ripped to shreds all of the claims it made about our product. (Ours was one of many competing technologies at the time intended to increase the efficiency of IP networks.) I had written all of those claims based on many interviews with our company leaders and was quite personally hurt by the shredding. To make matters worse, our CEO went on the defensive and posted replies on SlashDot blaming "the marketing department" for failing to properly convey certain aspects of the technology, even though (he didn't say this part, of course) he had personally read and approved all of it.

The point of this story is that the skeptics on SlashDot who had a basic grasp of such technologies immediately recognized the problems with our product. Everything they said turned out to be true. Whenever a bold and legitimate claim of breakthrough technology is made, the developers of that technology must make certain to release enough technical information about the product to satisfy the potential skeptics, or the claims will be dismissed immediately as hype. Any argument that releasing such information would be tantamount to giving away the farm simply flies in the face of history and common sense. On the contrary, failure to adequately explain legitimate new technology to your peers and potential customer is a grave mistake that can have irreversible effects. The only real reason to hold back is if revealing more will expose the product's fatal flaw, as was unfortunately the case with my startup.

Of course, that's just the opinion of one former tech marketing dude.

Mojo

7th July 2007, 11:15 PM

Why else the Guradian advert...

The advert was in the Economist. According to older versions of the Wikipedia article about Steorn, there was until 25th August last year a link on Steorn's "press coverage" page to a story in the Guardian on 1st April 2006. The story doesn't exist, and Steorn said the link was a placeholder left by their website designer.

Foolmewunz

7th July 2007, 11:40 PM

The advert was in the Economist. According to older versions of the Wikipedia article about Steorn, there was until 25th August last year a link on Steorn's "press coverage" page to a story in the Guardian on 1st April 2006. The story doesn't exist, and Steorn said the link was a placeholder left by their website designer.

Guradian in Cantonese means Economist.:spjimlad: :spjimlad:

Not really... a typo and an error in the same line....

tkingdoll

8th July 2007, 05:23 AM

DRBUZZ0

9th July 2007, 01:43 AM

Probably? Rather a strange statement.

How come you haven't?

http://www.depletedcranium.com/

I think their website is devoid of meaningful content, is poorly managed, and is essentially part of whatever delusion or scam they're all about. But physically, it's a great site. I've seen a couple of others recently for commercial entities that flow much the same way. It's a clean and good site.

It's got the whole "Glassy OSX" thing going on, which people seem to universally think is the best way for things to look. I'm trying to be a bit more original, and also I don't have the time to put all the graphics stuff onto my site. I'd also like to be a bit more original

I'm using the Wordpress templates, which I'm honestly just sorta learning how to use that format and customize it.

I was thinking of revamping it with a bit more of the dull brushed-metal look, and I may soon, but it's a lot of work for a site like that. I think their site was created, in a large part, from preexisting tempates and graphic libraries.

Cuddles

9th July 2007, 04:57 AM

The NDAs are understandable in any such venture. But opening up a sub-panel which they referred to as their "Developers Forum", was ridiculous. This was bright lads and lasses from their forum. Sign the NDA and show some sort of knowledge or expertise, and you're in.

On the subject of NDAs, I've been told before that they're worth approximately as much as the paper they're written on. Is this actually true? Presumably if you are actually an employee it's all part of your contract, but what about random people on their forum? Could they actually do anything legally if someone just decided to tell all?

TheGline

9th July 2007, 01:46 PM

I have the feeling these guys are not deliberate scamsters, but are just hopelessly self-deluded and following unthinkingly in the footsteps of other people who pulled the same stunts (although, those others were probably far more consciously fleecing the people who stumped cash as an "investment" in whatever technology they were hawking).

It might explain why they're scorning conventional scientific channels and conducting science-by-press-release -- they're convinced they're onto something which needs to be shown to "the public" as soon as possible, and validated in the court of public opinion. The problem is that they do not seem to understand they are clattering down a road with ruts already well-worn in it by so many other people who didn't understand how energy operates. (And at the end of that road, a brick wall, which they're bound to augur into before too much longer.)

I'm glad the majority of the attention they have been getting has been profoundly skeptical.

DRBUZZ0

9th July 2007, 03:53 PM

I still say you could make a "free energy" "perpetual motion machine" - or something which would be effectively the same, using an RTG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator).. and if you compensated for the energy reduction over time (ie had a governor to keep a motor running at the same rate, even as voltage drops, by starting out with more of the radioisotope than needed).

If you used something like plutonium-238 (halflife=86.41), you could create a device which would be perpetually in motion and would not show any detectable slowing or reduction in energy output in even the longest human lifetime.

(And I really don't care what happens after I am dead)

Mudd

10th July 2007, 03:04 AM

Ya know -

Having started this thread before the failed demonstration, I must say I've changed my mind about Steorn's business acumen.

- Mudd

Foolmewunz

10th July 2007, 07:00 AM

Ya know -

Having started this thread before the failed demonstration, I must say I've changed my mind about Steorn's business acumen.

- Mudd

Mudd,

Well, then a hearty welcome (which I think some of us neglected)! Nothing like having evidence change your opinion. And apologies for whichever of us suggested you were spamming for Steorn - I didn't see that at all, but we tend to get a little suspicious sometimes.

I have to admit that while I was expecting some sort of meltdown for them, I was expecting it "eventually". This week's adventures are just puzzling. And the culmination of them just throwing in the towel and tacitly admitting defeat by the fact that even with 6 days left to the gallery and vid streaming time.... well that's just mind-boggling. I know there are still some believers over on the Steorn Forum, but I can't fathom what keeps them going. I guess that's what people refer to as blind faith.

JQH

10th July 2007, 07:29 AM

Mudd,

... apologies for whichever of us suggested you were spamming for Steorn ...

That would have been me. Mudd's third post does kind of suggest I was wrong, so apologies from me.

Foolmewunz

10th July 2007, 09:24 AM

That would have been me. Mudd's third post does kind of suggest I was wrong, so apologies from me.

Sorry, JQH - didn't mean to single you out. And, as I said, we're a naturally suspicious lot in Skepticsville! (I've been hanging out on Steorn, mostly lurking, since last August, so I was pretty sure he wasn't a shill for them - their peanut gallery aren't exactly subtle.)

Mudd

11th July 2007, 03:26 AM

Michael C

11th July 2007, 04:11 AM

Foolmewunz -

I've also been dropping in occasionally on Steorn's forum since last August, which is where I first read about this forum.

Their actions beg the question, "What, exactly, are they up to?"

If it's money, there are a lot easier ways to make it than spend a good chunk of change on public embarassment that's guaranteed to drive away investors...

Anyone care to speculate?

- Mudd

p.s. - It's got to be money, doesn't it?

They could be deluded. Or maybe some person within Steorn is scamming the others.

The BBC sent in Professor Sir Eric Ash (CBE, etc. etc. and a recognised authority on electrical engineering) to talk to Sean McCarthy. His conclusion:

"I believe that Mr McCarthy is truly convinced of the validity of his invention. It is, in my view, a case of prolonged self deception."

Read the BBC article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6283374.stm).

Lothian

11th July 2007, 04:55 AM

Let's speculate....
The thing to do would be to hire scientists to figure out the underlying principles so as to facilitate the development of more advanced versions of the technology.

... hence, the placement of the advertisement in the Economist last August for scientists to figure out the principles behind their admittedly-accidental discovery.I understood that the juries job was to confirm that the device worked not to work out how it worked.

Mojo

11th July 2007, 05:03 AM

I understood that the juries job was to confirm that the device worked not to work out how it worked.

What's taking them so long?

Lothian

11th July 2007, 05:15 AM

What's taking them so long?They haven’t started. (I guess)

The contract between the jury and Steorn (on the Steorn site) talks about a 90 day process from start to finish.

Given that Steorn expects they jury to report at the end of the year they are not due to start until October.

Foolmewunz

11th July 2007, 05:33 PM

They haven’t started. (I guess)

The contract between the jury and Steorn (on the Steorn site) talks about a 90 day process from start to finish.

Given that Steorn expects they jury to report at the end of the year they are not due to start until October.

Probably correct. If the comments of those who signed the NDA to get into the Developers Forum are to be believed, the scientists haven't gotten their hands on a working model, yet. One commented that one of the jurists took the tech specs they were given and created "something" that operated for seven hours in his garage in Florida.

All of this is hearsay, of course, because Steorn's strange behaviour has mandated no releases of any progress reports or even status elements about what the jury is doing. Steorn neither confirm nor deny the above.

DRBUZZ0

13th July 2007, 07:15 PM

Foolmewunz

13th July 2007, 08:19 PM

I REALLY hope I don't catch too much flack for this, but I have done some research and made some diagrams and collected information which pretty much explains how "Orbo" was supposed to work and how it could have fooled those at Steorn and such.

I can't really post it all here easily, so I'm offering the following link: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=54

I'm not trying to spam anything. It seems like it should be relevant and worth reading.

No flack from here. Excellent stuff. Nice recap if their extrapolations are accurate.

Others: Recommended reading. Much based on speculation, but pretty decent speculation and from people who got as close to the source as possible (other than the anonymous jury, I guess).

DRBUZZ0

13th July 2007, 08:49 PM

No flack from here. Excellent stuff. Nice recap if their extrapolations are accurate.

Others: Recommended reading. Much based on speculation, but pretty decent speculation and from people who got as close to the source as possible (other than the anonymous jury, I guess).

Yes, I realize that there is some speculation, but bare in mind that the device was out in the open and relatively simple in design - it's not like you can speculate that much about what the design looks like. It's obviously a wheel and obviously surrounded by some sort of slots and mounted on a plate.

The only logical extrapolation (based on what they have said about it being magnetic and other things) is pretty much that those slats held magnets (where else could you put magnets?)

And if that is the case, it boils down to being Dejavu all over again, as it would be a classis perminant magnet motor

Foolmewunz

13th July 2007, 10:16 PM

Yes, I realize that there is some speculation, but bare in mind that the device was out in the open and relatively simple in design - it's not like you can speculate that much about what the design looks like. It's obviously a wheel and obviously surrounded by some sort of slots and mounted on a plate.

The only logical extrapolation (based on what they have said about it being magnetic and other things) is pretty much that those slats held magnets (where else could you put magnets?)

And if that is the case, it boils down to being Dejavu all over again, as it would be a classis perminant magnet motor

The thing about the slots is confusing, though. I agree that with everything else we've learned they're positions for the magnets. But, was Sean being disingenuous and/or trying to steer people away from what their real design was? He told the post-mortem crowd at Kinetica that those slots were for air. (Or something to that effect. I didn't listen to the interview, but read a second hand transcript.)

As to the extrapolations... I'm not criticizing them. By that I meant to say (and should've said) that I'm not technically qualified to judge whether or not they make sense. I follow the logic, but science and particularly physics tend to turn around and bite me in the butt when I assume too much.

ETA: As to the dejavu.... reminds me of my friend Marc Decker. He designed a brilliant device at the age of 9, living with his mom in Ecuador. She looked at the sketch and said, "Oh, you drew a washing machine." He'd never seen one. I think Sean and the boys stumbled upon something, didn't research it, and found out later that it'd been done to death, already.