From PESWiki

Discussion page for Directory:Steorn Free Energy

Discussion Threads

• Steorn website forum (http://www.steorn.net/forum/?p=3)
• Irish Company Claims Free Energy (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/173253) (Slashdot; August 21, 2006)

Reviews

MPI APPLAUDS IRISH SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE

Posted Aug. 19, 2006

A Dublin, Ireland based Intellectual Property licensing firm, Steorn, has challenged the scientific community. In an advertisement published in the current issue of “The Economist‿ the firm calls for twelve skeptical scientists to come forward and test their claim to have achieved more output than input, “Over Unity,‿ in magnetic machines. Steorn promises to publish the results; whatever the conclusions, in a future issue of the magazine.

Magnetic Power, Inc. (MPI) applauds the challenger! As MPI is also a developer of magnetic devices which deliver electric power without fuel, and without breaking the basic laws of physics. MPI is glad to see that Steorn’s challenge is being taken seriously by the scientific community. “Our own laboratory results confirm what Steorn is saying,‿ said MPI’s Mark Goldes, Chairman and CEO of the company based in Sebastopol, California.

Given the urgent need for breakthrough energy systems, Goldes hopes the challenge will, as Steorn says, enable them to take less than the projected “five to seven years for the world to accept the possibility of superseding existing energy technology with magnetic systems.‿

On their website: http://www.steorn.com the company claims that the new technology can eventually power everything from cell phones to automobiles. The site also contains a five minute video that explains why they have published the advertisement. One reason is the apparent violation of Conservation of Energy, a fundamental axiom of physics, which makes it hard for scientists to accept the emerging science of magnetic energy technology.

Goldes’ enthusiasm for his Irish colleagues’ scientific efforts supports his hopes that success by the Irish Group will take the mystery out of fuel-free magnetic systems that can operate around the clock. This will speed the ability of Magnetic Power Modules™ to attract the financial resources needed to commercialize these systems as rapidly as is humanly possible, in order to meet the environmental chaos threatened by global warming (not to mention the high cost of fuel).

MPI Not So Enthusiastic After Botched Orbo Demo

On July 6, 2007, Mark Goldes, Chairman & CEO of Magnetic Power, Inc., wrote:

The Dublin, Ireland based Intellectual Property licensing firm, Steorn, challenged the scientific community and claimed they would demonstrate a magnetic machine in London. They have now postponed the widely publicized event. [1] (http://pesn.com/2007/07/05/9500478_Orbo_Demo)

In an advertisement published [last August] in "The Economist" they called for skeptical scientists to come forward and test their claim to have achieved more output than input, "Over Unity," in magnetic machines. Steorn then selected 22 scientists for that jury. They promise to publish the results, perhaps early next year, in a future issue of the magazine.

Magnetic Power, Inc. (MPI) is saddened by the sequence of events and postponement of the widely publicized public demonstration in London. MPI is also a developer of magnetic devices which deliver electric power without fuel. However, we do not claim to break any laws of physics. MPI hopes that Steorn will rapidly show evidence that their work has merit.

Based on our own work, we have believed that Steorn’s claims were credible. We hope they will rapidly demonstrate that to be the case. If they succeed in doing so, their efforts will benefit all firms developing practical magnetic conversion technology.

With a two trillion dollar world market for energy, MPI will be helped, rather than hurt, by their success.

Given the urgent need for breakthrough energy systems, MPI hopes that their future efforts will, as Steorn says, enable them to take less than the projected "five to seven years for the world to accept the possibility of superseding existing energy technology with magnetic systems."

On their website: http://www.steorn.com the company claims that the new technology can eventually power everything from cell phones to automobiles. The site also contains short videos that explain why they have published the advertisement and their explanation for the debacle in London.

The first video discusses the apparent violation of Conservation of Energy, a fundamental axiom of physics, which makes it so difficult for scientists to accept the emerging science of magnetic energy technology.

MPI enthusiasm for our Irish colleagues' has been dampened, but we hope that they will recover and provide evidence that their magnetic systems are indeed capable of the performance they claim.

We continue to develop our own Magnetic Power Modules™ and plan to commercialize these revolutionary power generating systems as rapidly as is humanly possible. Practical magnetic systems of this nature can help reduce dependence on oil, coal and nuclear fuel.

They will also assist the ability to meet the extraordinary challenge of the recently announced eight year window, within which humans must sharply reduce the use of fossil fuels, in order to mitigate the dire, life threatening, threats posed by global warming.

For more information, contact Mark Goldes, CEO (707) 829-9391 magneticpower@gmail.com

Skeptics

No shortage, as usual. Most of the news stories above bias on skepticism. Below are major skeptical contributions, as reflected in the title of their piece.

• Yet Another Free Energy Farce (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/082506yet.html#i1) - free-energy plan #12,255,740! True to class, they’ve ... (James Randi Educational Foundation; Aug. 25, 2006)

Rebuttal 

Steorn's approach is hardly typical of other claims that have come forth (whether or not those have any validity). (1) They are an established company with a reputation to maintain; (2) they have a full business team, each with individual reputations to maintain; (3) they were not looking for "free energy" but stumbled on it; (4) they insist on academic collaboration, both having invited some 100 institutions to review it, few of whom would come, and those who did refused to go on the record, so they went very public with their request to the academic community to test and then publish their findings, whatever they are; (5) they have adequate capital from their other endeavors to finance this research and development; (6) they are paying all expenses for the jury process; (7) they are not accepting any moneys or licensing agreements UNTIL validation is achieved by the academic community; (8) they have built numerous test rigs of high workmanship to analyze various components of their system. Each one of these highly notable attributes sets them apart from the parade of which you speak. -- SilverThunder 10:10, 10 Sep 2006 (EDT)

Yes, But... 

The problem as I see it, is that this firm (Steorn) seems to have several of the key telling signs that we see in all these free energy scams. 1. When I go to their web site and click on management, I do not get a list of key people that work for the firm. Now compare that to a site like TeslaMotors where all the management is listed. 2. They claim that their main business is making anti counterfeiting devices, but when I try to find such devices on their web site, I can find none. 3. They seem obsessed with all the attention they are receiving = 3000 scientists and 64k hits etc, etc. 4. Sean has been asked several times in the forum section wether this device can run on it's own without being plugged in and he evades the question each time. He does not state a simple Yes, or No? He now says that he will post a FAQ section next week to answer all the most common questions. So we should know the answer to this question by the 15th of September, right? 5. The firm first stated that they were not looking for investors. Then this stance changed to: "only after it is tested". Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like a marketing ploy to lead people on? 6. What does this firm currently gross each year from their line of current products? How long have they been in business?? So many questions and so little hard facts. (posted (http://pub6.bravenet.com/forum/487525627/fetch/759324/) by informed on Sep 10, 06 - 12:01 PM)

A thought occurs to me on looking at the photograph of the device; why is it so 'over-engineered'? Any physicist would use a more open 'breadboard' set-up. Why the relatively massive girders? I trust that the scientific jury will look carefully at them, just in case they contain concealed batteries, compressed air or such-like. Art Dent.

Comments

Does anyone know thier US or GB patent application number / US or GB patent number?

The link http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Electromagnetic/Steorn/US2006066428A1.pdf is dead ...

Reddi 17:12, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

Correction: http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/Steorn/US2006066428A1.pdf

-- SilverThunder 21:20, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

Sean McCarthy at Steorn has said on several occasions that the Low Energy Magnetic Actuator (LEMA) patent (pictured at the top of the page to the right) has nothing to do with the over unity technology, and actually explained a few reasons why, although attractive, it does not work for that purpose. The LEMA was actually intended to reduce the effort required to engage and disengage magnetic clamps on an optical workbench.

http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22962&page=1#Item_0

-- jcims 21:19, 03 Nov 2006 (EDT)

Hey - why has Steorn slipped to nr. 9 in the top 100? Their process is on schedule - the jury of 12 high powered scientists is right now working on test rigs supplied by Steorn to confirm over-unity - what other similar claim can be made by companies of comparable promise?

--Hdeasy 04:57, 14 Jan 2007 (EST)

Can anyone tell me why it is better for Steorn to progress down the infuriating route they are taking now, rather than building the Steornmobile, parading it round the place THEN saying 'lookey what we got'. Even the most skeptical of scientists - even my grandmother - would believe their claim once they got a Ford Escort to trundle round a track for a week without stopping for fuel.

It just seems like there are far more... impressive... ways to break this news to the world in general. If they were a little less confident in their press releases and their community interaction I could understand this cautious approach - it makes sure you don't look completly stupid - but they seem completly convinced.

-- 0ddb411 22:46, 14 Feb 2007 (EST)

Patent Demo Proposal by Brian Hafner

On Sept. 1, 2006, Brian Hafner <brimichl {at} yahoo.com> writes:

I have been reviewing the Steorn Patent and came up with a simple machine to demonstrate this technology. Review it and ask questions if there is any thing that is not clear. Not a scale drawing. Sorry.

Simplified explanation as three pictures

"A round magnet, sitting flush in a rotor N facing one side, S facing the other side of the rotor, moves past a stator magnet showing N toward the rim of the rotor. On aproach of the rotor magnet attraction is happening when the S of the rotor magnet sees the N of the stator magnet beeing on that side of the rotor. The rotor goes on revolving as the stator is moved to the rim there is no sticking because the the attraction and repelling is equaled out. On revolving further the stator shows its repelling side to the rotor magnet and gives it a further kick.
The second magnet on the rotor must be turned in relation to the other, because when it is aproaching the stator magnet, it should be attracted... the process runs reverse. We come back to the first position of rotor and stator" (from [steorn forum (http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=31911&page=1#Item_8)]

Quotes

zpenergy.com - August 25th 2006

"I think the point that we're making is that this publicity stunt, and it is a publicity stunt, has one direct aim, and that is to grab the attention of the scientific world really to get them angry enough to have to deal with this.

The question we're asking is an honest question to the world of science: either prove this works or prove it doesn't work - whatever you find, and to also make absolutely sure the answer is put into the public domain. As far as we're concerned, we're not asking a question we don't know the answer to."

- Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn - about violating the first Law of Thermodynamics.

"Our position on this is that we don't expect anybody in the general public to believe us at this point," McCarthy said. "We're just asking people to believe the process [of the audit.] We're saying that at the end of this process, the answer is going to be published whether we're right or wrong."

- Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn - about challenging, with public skeptical scientist testing, the first Law of Thermodynamics.

"Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Sean McCarthy, Chief Executive Officer of Steorn, and ask every question that I could think of. My conclusion at the end of our talk is that I have no idea what to make of all this. However, I can say that McCarthy was very direct and forthcoming with me.

Steorn has issued a bold challenge to the physics establishment, and this establishment will not acquiesce without a fight.

I predict that none of us will know whether this claim is valid for months, perhaps years. If the company's panel of experts determines that the claim demonstrates new science, the remaining question is, Who will pay attention to it and who will ignore it?"

- Steve Krivit (zpenergy.com)

Times Online - August 28th 2006

"If I am proved wrong, this company is out of business and I will never work in this town again," he said.

Sean McCarthy

"“The seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing.‿

Sir Isaac Newton

Forum post compilations

(from Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.@vortex-list)
If you wade thru the thousands of posts in the steorn forum, it's obvious that Sean McCarthy is trying to provide much of the information necessary to build his device without compromising his patent applications. There are even summaries of what he's said.

• It's 7.5 watts/gram
• It's 0.5 watts/cm^3 for the electrical generator version, about 10 times that for the mechanical output version.
• Reversing it absorbs energy and it doesn't get hot.
• It doesn't use magnetic shielding or Halbach arrays.
• It does require 3D geometry (can't run in a plane).
• It probably uses magnetic viscosity, where the integrated force on a ferromagnetic material varies as the speed of approach or withdrawal.
• They have a 550 horsepower prototype running.
• Steorn implies their initial emphasis is on cell phone battery replacements.
• They have a contract with a manufacturer to provide a small number of "High value demonstration units".
• The energy is derived from the attraction phase in the center of the cycle.
• The motion is not of constant speed.
• If the scientific jury challenge had no takers, they would have build a Steorn car and paraded it around.

Skeptical view

Art Dent says:

Could we start, right here, a list of people who should be barred from 'jury duty'. This list will be in the best interests of Steorn because, if 'the usual suspects' are on the jury, nobody will take it seriously: even the most naive citizens will check them out on the web and see that their other beliefs extend - without a gap - into the paranormal, ufology and downright magic. My starter list, off the top of my head (please add more), is:

• Harold Aspden
• Harold Puthoff
• Thomas Bearden
• Thomas Phipps
• Neal Graneau
• Roger Jennison
• ...

plus anybody on the list at: http://peswiki.com/index.php/New_Energy_Congress#Members

Rebuttal : This is a moot issue. The jury has been selected, and most likely includes none of these individuals.

Yes, but it would still be pretty embarrassing if they had already been chosen, would it not? It would certainly show 'where Steorn are coming from'. Art Dent 07.02.2007

Good day Art Dent. I trust that you have done an immense amount of research into who and what type of people they originally announced they are looking for. They are not looking for Free Energy Scientists. They are looking for SKEPTICAL Scientists. Please think for a while, are Harold Aspden, Tom Bearden, Tom Valone, skeptical scientists regards free energy and overunity? Well, are they? I regret to inform you that they are NOT skeptical scientists, therefore Steorn would not be interested in using them. Steorn from day 1 have announced that they are looking for Skeptical Scientists, who have the required pedigree to be taken seriously, no matter which way the results are. Esa Ruoho 18.38 (GMT+2), 07.02.2007

The first problem is that skeptic is such a 'weasel word'; it means different things to different people. Aspden et al. would be the first to call themselves skeptics: skeptical about relativity, the conservation laws, etc. Secondly, Steorn may not want to attract people like them - but they are the only ones who will turn up, or be chosen. Thirdly, pedigree means nothing. Take Professor Brian Josephson, for instance. He was one of the youngest-ever Nobel-prize winners (physics), and even has an effect named after him. However, he 'endorsed' one of Professor (sic) Eric Laithwaite's ludicrous anti-gravity gyroscope experiments and, if you want someone to back up (scientifically) your belief in telepathy, he's your man! There was once a then-famous mathematician called Chasles. He collected original letters written by historical personnages. He happily bought letters supposedly written personally (and often in modern French!) by Jesus, Buddha, etc. People like Chasles are still around today; I bet that most of them are turning up at Steorn. Finally, I have indeed done a lot of research on Steorn; much of it concerning their official company accounts. I shall post some of the more interesting facts elsewhere on this site. Art Dent.

More Comments

Steorn Kinetica Museum Presentation

Sean gave a presentation on the history of perpetual motion machines Tuesday which included a vid of one of their early working models. Here is one of the attendees' description of how it worked:

The magnetic gradient created by the stator array is changed by shifting the array in the direction of the axis of rotation at the correct moment allowing the attractive gradient to help lift the heavier weight and the repulsive gradient to help push the weight. The claim is that the energy needed to shift the array is less than the energy created by the magnetic gradient.

This should be simple enough to test.

Did that 'history of perpetual motion' include the Spence case? Spence was a 19th-century fraudster who demonstrated a machine that supposedly worked by periodically shielding permanent magnets from each other. In fact, he used another (concealed) magnet to keep it going. Nevertheless, he managed to fool Sir David Brewster into publishing a scientific paper about his invention. I wonder whether Steorn will have the luck to attract an equally gullible and famous modern scientist. Art Dent

"Overunity" does not mean ex-nihilo

On Aug. 23, 2006, New Energy Congress member Sterling D. Allan wrote:

"Overunity" is just a way of saying that there is more energy coming out of a system than was put into it. The implication is not that the excess comes ex nihilo, but rather, that it comes from a source external to the input.

What that external source is, is the question for physicists to grapple with. The practical/commercial question at present is whether the input:output is indeed in excess of 100%. In this case, the "input" is the amount of energy that was required to charge the magnets.

The next question is whether the input:output ratio is sufficient to be commercially feasible.

I personally envision the magnet motor to be to magnetic forces what a wind turbine is to wind. It merely harnesses a system in flux that hitherto has not been known to be in flux. Seon McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, agreed that this is a plausible model.

Skeptical view

I think that Mr Allan is just playing with definitions. Everybody knows that 'over-unity' is just the polite word for 'perpetual motion'. By his definition, every automobile engine becomes over-unity: much more energy comes out of the petrol than was put in by the ignition spark. Of course one can tap energy out of thin air; the electric potential difference between your head and your feet is of the order of several hundred volts, and this can be used to run a motor. However, the currents involved are minute, and so the energy available is also very very small; it might takes decades just to pay off the cost of the equipment. Even the energy of a lightning bolt is modest (just a few Joules) - many people (especially journalists) cannot distinguish between energy and power. Perhaps the people at Steorn have been deceived by a pure accident. There was a case reported some years ago of a mysteriously rotating 'tin can on a stick' situated on some waste ground. It turned out that cables from a hydroelectric plant passed below the can and that stray fields were making it rotate. Have Steorn checked that none of their neighnours is using high-intensity magnetic fields? Will the 'panel of scientists' look for such things, whether accidental or intended? Art Dent

Would scientists miss opportunity for fame?

On Aug. 24, 2006, 'Casual Observer' wrote (http://pub6.bravenet.com/forum/487525627/fetch/753348/):

From the Steorn web page:

"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."

Right ... so several professors tested a free energy device that overturns the laws of physics, and absolutely confirmed that it works, but somehow not one of them wanted the "burden" of being an instant Nobel prize winner / celebrity / millionaire? As someone who has worked at academic institutions for many years, I find such a statement laughable. Almost every faculty member I've ever known would leap at the opportunity for that sort of fame and fortune. For that matter, many of them would lie, cheat, or steal to get it. Steorn is peddling the same tired myth that free energy types love to repeat: that professors are part of some cabal sworn to protect scientific orthodoxy like some bunch of medieval priests. The truth is exactly the opposite: any professor would jump at the change to be the man / woman who re-wrote the textbooks and became a household name in physics and engineering.

Rebuttal 

There is indeed a "new wine can't be put into old bottles" phenomenon in any sector of society, especially science. Old scientists guard their dogmas with a passion, and those who promote new science must be willing to fight a tremendous battle to overturn old ways of thinking. "Free Energy" has been painted with a very dark brush, and anyone in academia who speaks contrary to that will be accused of scientific heresy. This is human nature, and has been for as long as history has been recorded. It hasn't suddenly changed in our day. On top of that add the pressures of vested interests, such as oil, whose money finances the old school. Then you have politics on top of cantankerousness to contend with. It takes profound courage for someone to stand up to such forces, and until they published their invitation in The Economist, Steorn had not found such courage. -- SilverThunder 16:27, 24 Aug 2006 (EDT)

Skeptical view

I think that SilverThunder is failing to distinguish between new theories and new experimental evidence. It is true that scientists hang onto theories like grim death, and that is only to be expected because the mass of data supporting the new theory needs time to build up to the point where it out-weighs the evidence that supported the old theory. Note that no new theory can invalidate old evidence (under the conditions originally used to obtain it); it can only refine and re-interpret it. Thus, a further implication is that an order-of-magnitude improvement (at least) in the accuracy of the experimental measurements is required even to demonstrate any deviation from the old theory. New experimental evidence is an entirely different matter. If it can be replicated by anyone, then science will accept it almost 'overnight'. But replication is essential. Recall 2 fairly recent cases: cold-fusion, which was revealed directly to the Press (a la Steorn)and turned out to be bogus, and 'high-temperature' superconductivity, which was announced quietly to fellow scientists and was accepted by everyone, with hardly a ripple. It is true that cold-fusion was originally replicated by many reputable laboratories, but this was an example - as Casual Observer said - of certain academics doing anything to be 'in on the act'.

Just a little note

In Italian language, "orbo" means "blind". A hidden message?

See also

• Directory:Steorn Free Energy - primary page, for which the above is commentary