Endless energy. (Spam on topic)

[Xandax]

Well, fell over this article Our Technology | Steorn


Not that I belive it, but it could be fun

[Kipi]

Bah!

Too good to be true. And becuase of that, I'm smelling dead, rotting fish there.

Seriously, the Principle of the Conservation of Energy has been one of the basics laws, and before this there hasn't been anything which could even remotely prove otherwise. And it's true what they claim, why haven't I nor anybody else who I know ever heard of this? Surely something like that would have been in media already...

But if what they claim is true, the what great potential and problem solver they have invented...

[Magrus]

I'm inclined to think it may be possible. I had a friend who was an engineering major who told me that there are alternatives which are old for generating energy which aren't used. These alternatives function on a much higher efficiency rating than say, our gas engines for cars. Why aren't they used? Expensive to manufacture, set up, and they are impractical for anything but a stationary, warehouse type set up.

Any sort of breakthrough technology can happen, at any time. Learning is always happening. To believe that something new cannot happen because it isn't in a book already is insane. Not to mention, if this IS true, it probably will be shut down by those taking pay-offs from the natural fuel industries. Tossing aside all of those cars, gas stations, oil refineries, etc for a new energy generator or something along those lines is just not going to happen. Not until the oil runs out anyhow.

[Masa]

@Mag: Oil IS running out pretty fast and will propably become very expensive luxury. Then we have to toss all of those cars, gas stations, oil refineries.

Inventions like these are crucial at a time like this. Still before I see it I don't believe.

[fable]

Bah. The only thing that has ever-renewable, self-charging energy is a five-year-old child.

[C Elegans]

I didn't read the details since I'm at work, but the fact that they chose to publish the scientific challenge in The Economist rather that a scientific journal, indicates that publicity is a far higher priority than optimal scientific quality, which is a fishy attitude.

I know at least 4 people with a PhD i physics, so I'll try to remember to ask them what they think.

[Xandax]

I know I want one for my computer..... it would be cheaper in the long run

But I strongly doubt - being logical and all that - that these people have struck something suddenly now. And yes - as CE states - it looks much more like they want PR then they actually have invented something (accidently).

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Xandax

I know I want one for my computer..... it would be cheaper in the long run

But I strongly doubt - being logical and all that - that these people have struck something suddenly now. And yes - as CE states - it looks much more like they want PR then they actually have invented something (accidently).

I can imagine that next they publish an article where they say that to actually be able to develop the sytem and methods to the usable level (read: invent the whole sytem they claim they already have) someone must sponsor them...

And, when someone finally does that, these scientist suprisingly just disappear.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Kipi

I can imagine that next they publish an article where they say that to actually be able to develop the sytem and methods to the usable level (read: invent the whole sytem they claim they already have) someone must sponsor them...

And, when someone finally does that, these scientist suprisingly just disappear.

Let's raise funds for them and see what happens.
You can deposit it all on my account and I'll make sure it gets transfered .... when we have collected enough

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Xandax

Let's raise funds for them and see what happens.
You can deposit it all on my account and I'll make sure it gets transfered .... when we have collected enough

Sure!!!

*donates 10€*
Is that enough?

[Fiberfar]

Originally Posted by Xandax

Let's raise funds for them and see what happens.
You can deposit it all on my account and I'll make sure it gets transfered .... when we have collected enough

Will one D.kr do?

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by fable

Bah. The only thing that has ever-renewable, self-charging energy is a five-year-old child.

Maybe that's the clue. The have miniaturized several five-year-old children. They reside inside a small device that can absorb sound and vibration energy.

Seriously though, when someone claims they have new interesting findings and wishes to "get them out to the public" it's time to be sceptical, on the other hand, when they claim to have made something that would invalidate 200 years of research as well as 10 000 years of human experience it is time for scorn and mockery. I wonder what they are after? Email addresses?

Edit: http://www.physikfuerkids.de/histori...der/magnet.gif

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Dottie

Maybe that's the clue. The have miniaturized several five-year-old children. They reside inside a small device that can absorb sound and vibration energy.

Seriously though, when someone claims they have new interesting findings and wishes to "get them out to the public" it's time to be sceptical, on the other hand, when they claim to have made something that would invalidate 200 years of research as well as 10 000 years of human experience it is time for scorn and mockery. I wonder what they are after? Email addresses?

Money and publicity.

That's what most of such persons are.

[Ashen]

Well it is interesting that's for sure. I for one do not want to keep my mind closed in the sense of saying out right that something is impossible etc. I believe we as scientists should avoid this for these sort of claims (something is impossible) have been disproved many times.

Now I am sceptical but will keep an open mind. Their call for that panel, plus the explanation why publish it there and not in some scientific mag sounds reasonable enough. But I too think it is possible they start pushing for funding etc, and then we see nothing, we've seen it enough times by now.

"Early into this project the company developed certain generator configurations that appeared to be over 100% efficient."

Well they either are or they aren't, and it's not that hard to tell ... meh.

I suppose time will tell us whether this will go somewhere. It would be great if it did but I doubt it.

EDIT: Well I've looked around, the company has been in business for some years now, that's certain. There are apparently some interviews about this as well. The head of research is named somewhere as well, but so far, no evidence at all to what they are claiming. Considering that I am going to remain a firm sceptic - no evidence, no claim. Just a scam.

[Curdis]

Originally Posted by The Steorn Corp

This represents a significant challenge to our current understanding of the universe and clearly such claims require independent validation from credible third parties. During 2005 Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record.

This is from the first page. If you go to their forum you will find an interesting thread where a forum member insults a Melbourne acedemic for disagreeing and advocates mail (and Phone) box bombing!

Interestingly Barry Williams from the Australian Skeptic is also quoted and all the claims made by the actual acedemics seem reasonable and not one of them support the claims of the company (I am most surprised that the forum actually still had such damaging material still up).

Let me paraphrase the company:

Originally Posted by a bunch of bozos

I've got something for nothing.

Nobody will believe me when I say so.

When I showed someone exactly how I did it they agreed that I could get something for nothing, but won't let me tell you who they are or how I did it.

Because none of the people who beleive me work for a peer reviewed journal I'm advertising for experts in the economist (Curdis ! Scientific American would accept such an advertisment, as would Nature).

Now I've got as open a mind as anybody, but really this is just more junk and rubbish. When you read on the internet that you can "!!!1!!!Get richh quikk !!!1!!!" do you fall for it? This is just the same thing in a fancy web design.

The law of conservation of energy (while not final and still subject to the test of falsifiability) has stood since it was first framed and is as close to a statement of common sense as you will find in hard science.

Sorry but the claims are rot - Curdis !