Steorn's actions make business sense

[Mudd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mudd

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!

[Mojo]

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

[JQH]

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]

Originally Posted by JQH

Call me old mr suspicious...

OK. Old mr suspicious.

[sinnikal]

Originally Posted by JQH

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]

Originally Posted by sinnikal

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.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Mudd

...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]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

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]

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

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:

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]

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]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mudd

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]

Announcement today!

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.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Mudd

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]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Announcement today!

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Mudd

What do you suspect?

That you're a Steorn shill

Originally Posted by Mudd

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mudd

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]

Originally Posted by Grimoire

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]

Originally Posted by JQH

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]

Originally Posted by Moochie

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!

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Mudd

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]

Originally Posted by JQH

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]

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.

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by Beady

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]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

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]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

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]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

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]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

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]

Originally Posted by Grimoire

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

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]

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.