Free energy?

[c186282]

Once again we have claims of free energy. They say they want the
scientific community to have a look before they commercialize the
product. Hey, why bother with the science, if you really have a magical
device that makes energy why not just sell them. I'm sure the free
market will respond well if it really works.

see:
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/sc_nm/technology_energy_dc

I can't post links yet. sorry.

 

[phildonnia]

The concept of "free energy" -- which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics that in layman's terms states you cannot get more energy out than you put in -- has divided the scientific community for centuries.

This must be some new definition of "divided" that I wasn't previously aware of.

 

[Cyphermage]

Once again we have claims of free energy. They say they want the
scientific community to have a look before they commercialize the
product. Hey, why bother with the science, if you really have a magical
device that makes energy why not just sell them. I'm sure the free
market will respond well if it really works.

They have a Web site.

http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5

It is likely they are confused, but I don't automatically discard claims like this without examing them. I've never been fond of thermodynamic laws.

 

[balrog666]

Laws, shmaws!

If they can build a perpetual motion machine, I say "Let them do it!".

 

[Cyphermage]

Laws, shmaws!

If they can build a perpetual motion machine, I say "Let them do it!".

If this thing works, would it be eligible for Randi's Million Dollar Challenge? It would be nice to have at least one applicant who isn't demonstrably insane.

 

[jmercer]

I love this front-page disclaimer:

Our technology has been independently validated by engineers and scientists - always off the record, always proven to work.

 

[Dilb]

They say they have a paper on the technology, but they want to verify everyone who downloads it off-line. Aparently they want science to verify it, but only a select bit of it.

According to their video a working model is plan C. Plan A aparently being scam investors quietly, plab B being make a big public display and then scamming people.

 

[Aepervius]

I registered just for fun. naturally I gave my job/work address . I am no that dumb.

 

[Mojo]

According to this, back in May they were planning to market a device to extend the battery life of mobile phones:

A small Dublin firm hopes to revolutionise the consumer electronics market with technology to extend the lifespans of batteries in mobile phones and other gadgets.

...

Sean McCarthy, the cofounder and chief executive of Steorn, said the firm’s products were based on the same principle as kinetic energy generators in watches.

I wonder if there could be something similar involved in their free energy device.

 

[BobK]

Thermodynamic laws paraphrased.
You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Steorn’s technology produces free, clean and constant energy. This provides a significant range of benefits, from the convenience of never having to refuel your car or recharge your mobile phone, to a genuine solution to the need for zero emission energy production.

The #1 Free Energy Scam Indicator, right on page 1: We have this device that will change the face of the world, and we envisage it used for gas saving and not having to recharge your phone. Yeahh .

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

And reading on:

Steorn is making three claims for its technology:

• The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
• The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
• There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

Notice #3: Even a device that could suck heat energy out of the surroundings would be in violation of thermodynamics and would qualify as a free energy device. They don't even know what they are talking about.

Hans

 

[pjh]

*yawn*

Steorn develops free energy technology and issues challenge to the global scientific community

London, 18th August 2006: Steorn, an Irish technology development company, has today issued a challenge to the global scientific community to test Steorn’s free energy technology and publish the findings.

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

Steorn has placed an advertisement in The Economist this week to attract the attention of the world’s leading scientists working in the field of experimental physics. From all the scientists who accept Steorn’s challenge, twelve will be invited to take part in a rigorous testing exercise to prove that Steorn’s technology creates free energy. The results will be published worldwide.

Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, commented: “During the years of its development, our technology has been validated by various independent scientists and engineers. We are now seeking twelve of the most qualified and most cynical from the world’s scientific community to form an independent jury, test the technology in independent laboratories and publish their findings.

“We are under no illusions that there will be a lot of cynicism out there about our proposition, as it currently challenges one of the basic principles of physics. However, the implications of our technology go far beyond scientific curiosity: addressing many urgent global needs including security of energy supply and zero emission energy production. In order for these benefits to be achieved, we need the public validation and endorsement of the scientific community”.

“We’re playing our part in making that happen by throwing down the gauntlet with today’s announcement – now it’s over to the scientists to ensure that the real potential and benefits of our technology can be realised.”

Following the validation process, Steorn intends to license its technology to organisations within the energy sector. It will allow use of its technology royalty-free for certain purposes including water and rural electrification projects in third world countries, details to be announced later

http://www.steorn.net/en/news.aspx?p=2&id=22

 

[Anacoluthon64]

"We fully accept there is going to be cynicism surrounding this but what we're saying to the world of science is come and prove us wrong," said Steorn Chief Executive Sean McCarthy.

"The answer to the question we're posing is too big not to look," he added.

(Emphasis mine.) 'Nuff said, I think.

This must be some new definition of "divided" that I wasn't previously aware of.

See, that's the trouble with these people: they avoid clarity like the plague. In this case, they must mean equal apportionment over a single class, rather than two.

'Luthon64

 

[Mojo]

This is perhaps revealing:

Steorn has decided to publish its challenge in The Economist because of the breadth of its readership. "We chose it over a purely scientific magazine simply because we want to make the general public aware that this process is about to commence and to generate public support, awareness, interest etc for what we are doing."

In other words, the purpose of the advert is not really to ask "the scientific community" about this; they are announcing to the general public (and specifically those working in the finance sector) that they are asking "the scientific community" to validate their device.

 

[gfunkusarelius]

i love how they have videos of people talking instead of some sort of demonstration of the technology in process. thanks guys at Steorn, now i will be seeing links to this page on other sites and have to hear my friends saying "See, they will now be shut down because the govt and oil companies will never let their technology out"

 

[Meffy]

This must be some new definition of "divided" that I wasn't previously aware of.

The statement as given was incomplete. Ought to have said "divided the scientific community from the wishful thinking community." I won't address the bit about centuries.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Thermodynamic laws paraphrased.
You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game.

As sung by Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow in "The Wiz".

 

[Yoink]

I take it as read that this is hocum, but I'm wondering: is there any legitimate reason why these "free energy" guys never do choose to go the route of legitimate scientific journals rather than press-releases and news conferences to the non-scientific media?

What I'm getting at is this: say you suddenly discover that you have a source of infinite free energy in your pantry (no, not your pants!). From the point of view of maximizing your economic advantage (let us assume you're averagely selfish) would you be wiser to incorporate, patent, and market and leave the scientific community's confirmation to follow? Assuming that what your discovery revealed was a fundamental aspect of the physical world that could be exploited in a number of different ways, could you in fact develop a patent that would prevent other people from exploiting the same thermodynamic loophole without needing your approval? Might you gain some patent-protected time by going directly to market before publishing your findings?

Or can we just assume that any "free energy" thing we read about in the business pages before reading about it in a science journal is nonsense?

 

[tsg]

This is perhaps revealing: In other words, the purpose of the advert is not really to ask "the scientific community" about this; they are announcing to the general public (and specifically those working in the finance sector) that they are asking "the scientific community" to validate their device.

First sign of crackpot science: publishing results in a press release rather than in a peer reviewed journal.