Steorn - The Movie
If ever there was a candidate to feed the conspiracy theorists, this is it. What is the likelihood of Fire 2.0 being discovered by a bunch of renegade engineers-come-showmen-come-saviours-come-businessmen? Depending on what day it is, your personal perspective, or what mood the company is in, it can come across as ingenious, frustrating, patient, diligent, silly, caring, daring or bloody reckless.
The truth is that they are extraordinary because they are human. They are ordinary because they are without affectation. I’ve often wondered what I would have done if I’d discovered such a technology. I would probably have followed their journey fairly closely in the first couple of years, working quietly, raising funds, patenting what I could to prepare for launch. I wonder though, if the secrecy, the responsibility, the lure of gold, the excitement, the tension and worry would not leave its mark after almost four years and so close, now, to the goal. Meeting the Steorn crew, one cannot avoid being struck by their affable personalities. They are, at turns, relaxed, funny, serious, focused, and sociable. I get the impression that they would rather wind the day down with a pint of Guinness than a bucket of
Everything they do highlights the marriage of sound business sense with responsible, world citizens.
Over the past year they have shepherded a minor media frenzy, recruited a jury of scientists to test the impossible, improved their tech so that they are close to Fire 2.01, shaved their heads for charity, held a forum party for a bunch of strangers from around the world, set up the SPDC, moved on the Africa project, smiled at vicious verbal and written attacks, organised a demo of a tech destined to change the planet and finessed their business plans to nurture humanitarian projects even as they prepare to take on the global giants of the energy business. And still they had time for fun. Songs have been composed and sung, silly videos have been made and drinks have been downed in one. Now that is pretty damned cool. (I made the bit up about the drink because the sentence worked better, but it might be true).
I will return to this subject sometime in the future. For now, I would like to plant a seed. In everything that follows - in the coming months - as realisation dawns to the truth of Steorn’s claims, we should recognise how lucky we are that it was discovered in a tiny corner of
posted by Paul Story at
20:12
9 Comments:
This story is really beginning to verge towards the cult religion end of the spectrum. Its a lovely picture you paint of these folks and I take my hat off to them if they have done what they claim they had. But before sining soviet like praises to these guys they need to do something other than burn a couple of million of investors money. Where is the proof. I belive you, or someone, spoke of the first week in July as the demo date....well here we are. And no Demo?
Nice people are not necessarily good inventors - Ford was a biggoted anti-semitic xenophobe but he developed the production line and Model T. Lets see what they promised - and if is as they say then I will be first to be raising money for the statues. And will erect it on my fron lawn!
Hi Anthony,
Fair comment and quite justified IMO.
It comes down to this:
The 'too good to be true' measure of how unlikely something is to be true, is present in the story of Steorn's free energy device. The technology is inexpensive, uses mechanisms that are but a small step from the stuff we have been using for over a century, has come at exactly the right time - when we need it most - and will give us new insights into our universe as an added bonus.
By that measure alone, it should all be a horrible lie.
Now take the post your comment refers to. Wow! Another 'too good to be true'. Who are these guys? Surely we can't get that lucky?
If Steorn is telling the truth, they deserve the accolade I've painted in this post. The people behind the company really are doing something extraordinary for humanity.
If they are not, they need to be pilloried. This is not a hope for revenge at my embarrassment for being so foolish, but a fervent request that we send a message to future manipulators that there is a line. You do not use false charity, you do not offer hope to billions of disadvantaged people, or promises to save the planet to prove some silly point or to further some selfish or puerile goal. Anyone who does should be shunned, and their project made to fail, so that those tempted to follow their lead can see that the result is not something they would want to achieve.
When we strip everything away, it is this gulf - the enormous chasm between the saviours they appear to be and the callous and evil people they would have to be (for this to be a lie) - that colours my judgement.
We could go on like this forever. Your points are well made and well intended. But they paint the situation too black and white - I am studing for Law Exams at the moment and life is never black and white. In case after case the truth ALWAYS sits somewhere between where people expect it to. Steorn does not have to be con men and liars or saviours of the world. I suspect they believe they have what they have, but what they have is not what they think they have. Scientific history points to the this situation. Look at cold fusion - repuations were destroyed because very clever people saw what they wanted to see. My assumptions are confirmed by the simple fact that Stoern has published and disseminated a large amounts data to various people at various times - but they have never simply uploaded a video on their site of their machine running. WE dont require absoute proof, nothing like that. Just a simple video showing a simple machine turning and doing something- the absence of it and the failure to produce the anticipated public demo speaks volumes.
On the other hand - what should they waste their time trying to convice you or me of anything? This I find even more suspicious the more I think about it. Why have forums on their site, and public demos and lectures at UCD? What is the point - lots of noise with no music!
Hi Anthony,
You make valid arguments. I think, though, that you are too quick to dismiss the demo. July is only just starting and at no time did Steorn say that they would have a demo on the first of the month or any such specific date. I believe that a little more patience will answer many of your points.
Further, while I agree that it is always possible to make a mistake, it is inconceivable that Steorn engineers cannot tell the difference between a machine that can operate without fuel (even as it drives a significant load) and one that does not. This is not a theory - they say they have built and tested such machines. To me, the only room for error is the possibility that there is some flaw in their conclusions that form the claim that there is no degradation of constituent parts or that the permanent magnets do not demagnetise over time. Even then, I would find it easier to believe that they were lying.
Too much is made of the possibility for error. It really is black and white. They are lying or they have what they claim.
Hmm, so much for science. Your blog seems to have descended to propaganda style fiction!
In an earlier post you said that the device need not contradict CoE. Now you are saying it creates energy, which is a direct contradiction of CoE.
It is this confused understanding among even supposedly science literate people that makes me think the thing is a lot of hogwash.
You say it is hard to believe they have made a mistake. In my experience, mistakes are the most likely thing! Far more likely than dishonesty, or new science.
I expect the demo will not be convincing, it will just introduce more grey. Some claims take time to determine, e.g. cold fusion. A wheel spinning for 10 days will not prove much.
Hi Bob,
Yes, it does sound like propaganda, doesn't it? However, I can assure you it is nothing but my honest opinion. Your comment is fair enough though.
I do take issue with the following:
"...In an earlier post you said that the device need not contradict CoE. Now you are saying it creates energy, which is a direct contradiction of CoE.
It is this confused understanding among even supposedly science literate people that makes me think the thing is a lot of hogwash..."
Where do I say that it creates energy? I try not to do this, precisely because I am not confused by the terminology and the implications of such a statement.
A wheel spinning for 10 days will not prove much and that is why I am hoping for more. However, Steorn has been consistent in its statements - the demo will not constituting proof. That is for validation day. Rather, my hope lies in the fact that Sean has stated the demo will make a powerful point.
We will know soon enough when all our words become redundant.
How can a device running without obvious input power for 10 days not at least indicate that something EXTREMELY unusual is going on and that an external load could be driven? (Which I hope it will be to make the demo much more convincing.)
Hi WP,
That is my hope too. I would be extremely surprised if we did not see a compelling demonstration, but there's no way of knowing until the veil is lifted. I guess I am trying to temper my expectation. I admit that I am finding it difficult to do just that.
Fingers crossed.
Paul Story: Meanwhile the rest of us can hop on the ride happy in the knowledge that Steorn has confounded one more law:
There really is such a thing as a free lunch.
The First Law of Thermodynamics can be interpreted as "there is no free lunch". Now maybe you were being rhetorical, but its sloppy. Sean has at times said "it creates energy".
I note that other statements made about Orbo are more equivocal: "it has no external energy source".
This is what makes these things frustrating for skeptics. Sensational claims are made, but when challenged are retracted. To a layman the distinctions may be trivial, but as a scientist you must know they are important.
If Sean hadn't said "creates energy", or more honestly said "we just don't know where the energy comes from", he would have more credibility.
I apologise if I misread your "free lunch" statement. Are you saying the device creates energy, or are you saying the energy source is unknown at this point?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home