Free Energy Challenge

[JohnB]

Irish company Steorn has issued a challenge to physicists.

 

They make three claims;

1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.

2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.

3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

 

I can't seem to find much about them on the web, but they seem very sure of themselves. Do any of our English members know anything about them?

 

As the company is a cosponsor of awards with the Dublin Institute of Technology, it doesn't look like they are wackjobs. Could we be about to rewrite some books?

[insane_alien]

no. its just an impossible challenge. nobody will win it because the laws of thermo dynamics forbids it.

 

what will happen if physicists attempt to try for this is that we will develop much more efficient technologies with efficiencies approaching 100%. it does not mean that the laws of thermodynamics will be broken just because there is a cash sum for anybody who can do it.

[JohnB]

Read the link.

 

The company claims to have done it. They are challenging physicists to look at the technology and disprove it.

 

In early 2006 Steorn decided to seek validation from the scientific community in a more public forum, and as a result have published the challenge in The Economist. The company is seeking a jury of twelve qualified experimental physicists to define the tests required, the test centres to be used, monitor the analysis and then publish the results.

 

While I agree with you about the Laws of Thermodynamics, it is possible that the laws may be incomplete or misapplied. It is highly unlikely (borderline impossible:-) ) that they are "generating" energy but it may be that they are "tapping" energy from a previously unknown source.

 

I will follow this with interest.

[insane_alien]

personally i think they are talking crap. i would have to see their technology to see where its getting the energy from but i assure you its getting it from somewhere.

[JohnB]

i assure you its getting it from somewhere.

I totally agree, the question (assuming their tech works) is where?

 

I don't write these things off as "impossible" because I'm not convinced we are as smart as we think we are.

 

By analogy, how do you explain a microwave oven if you don't know about microwaves? Food goes in cold and comes out hot yet there is no "heat" source. Obviously the energy comes from somewhere, but if you don't know of the existence of microwaves, then how do you find out where? Or do you just say that "It's impossible" for something to get hot without a heat source and go on your merry way?

 

They claim they have an effect and are offering the scientific community the opportunity to investigate their claims;

 

"The company is seeking a jury of twelve qualified experimental physicists to define the tests required, the test centres to be used, monitor the analysis and then publish the results."

 

What more can be asked for?

[insane_alien]

yes but never the less the energy is coming from a source and therefore is not >100% efficient

[JohnB]

Ah, I see, bit of a misunderstanding. When they say >100% I take that to mean "More energy than can be accounted for from known sources" whereas you take it in the exact literal sense. Sorry about the confusion.

[insane_alien]

ahh ok. well i would be interested in investigating the unknown source but i think it will turn out to be a known phenomenon rather than a new means to power the globe.

[JohnB]

Probably, but we can hope. It'd be nice to have some sort of a breakthrough, it's been a while between drinks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It shall be interesting to see who responds to their ad in The Economist. I find it rather funny that none of those who previously "verified" their technology are willing to go on record about it.

[CanadaAotS]

probably because they are crackpots themselves and dont want to be exposed as such?

 

lol

[JohnB]

I find it rather funny that none of those who previously "verified" their technology are willing to go on record about it.

probably because they are crackpots themselves and dont want to be exposed as such?

personally i think they are talking crap

And there, Cap'n is your answer. Not many people have the balls to risk their career.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That was quite obvious, but one who puts an ad in The Economist must have at least something to say, or they're risking more than their career.

[padren]

Its like inventing a mechanical pump system that moves water from one tank to another and somehow, due to "innovative pump design" ends up with more water afterwords in the second tank than was in the first.

 

I hope it works, but I am understandably cautious.

[Sisyphus]

I hereby offer one thousand dollars to the first person who can reverse the force of gravity.

[padren]

I hereby offer one thousand dollars to the first person who can reverse the force of gravity.

 

Would a rubber ball work? It would take the force of gravity, and upon impact with a hard surface - bingo - takes the energy that gravity applied to it and reverses it.

[Sayonara]

By analogy, how do you explain a microwave oven if you don't know about microwaves? Food goes in cold and comes out hot yet there is no "heat" source. Obviously the energy comes from somewhere, but if you don't know of the existence of microwaves, then how do you find out where? Or do you just say that "It's impossible" for something to get hot without a heat source and go on your merry way?

Not the best example.

 

You might not understand what happens inside the magic box, but since you have to plug it in to a power outlet you at least know where the energy used to cook the food is coming from.

 

 

That was quite obvious, but one who puts an ad in The Economist[/i'] must have at least something to say, or they're risking more than their career.

It seems to me that they are saying "The Journal of Applied Physics have stopped returning our calls."

[JohnB]

Not the best example.

Perhaps not, but I hope you got my point.

 

Just so that nobody misunderstands my position.

 

I believe that all forms of Perpetual Motion machines are impossible. I am however open to the idea that there may be more forms of energy than those we currently know and use, and the tapping of those energies may give the appearance of PM.

 

Consequently I am willing to let them present their data before deciding whether they have anything or not. All I'm arguing for is a more open attitude rather than a knee jerk "crackpot" reaction.

[swansont]

Perhaps not' date=' but I hope you got my point.

 

Just so that nobody misunderstands my position.

 

I believe that all forms of Perpetual Motion machines are impossible. I am however open to the idea that there may be more forms of energy than those we currently know and use, and the tapping of those energies may give the appearance of PM.

 

Consequently I am willing to let them present their data before deciding whether they have anything or not. All I'm arguing for is a more open attitude rather than a knee jerk "crackpot" reaction.[/quote']

 

Then let them present their data, but that's not what they are doing. Nor, apparently, are they just running it and generating free energy, at which point you don't care about validation from experts — you just sell the energy and make lots of money. (If people could really build these things, they wouldn't need investors to develop their ideas.)

 

"Keep an open mind" (and "think outside the box") are overused phrases that, when coming from the "inventors," are a distraction meant to shift the burden of proof. The opposite is necessary: skepticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not some sleight-of-hand. Claims that the phenomenon has been verified but not by anyone willing to come forward gives off a very strong, unpleasant odor.

[CPL.Luke]

I find it funny that they have pictures of all the officer's for the company, but none of the engineers who made the thing.

 

although the way they set up the challenge makes it seem like they are interested in doing the science properly. Hiring a dozen scientists and having them run the thing through its paces and then having those scientists publish their results seems perfectly reasonable.

[Sisyphus]

Would a rubber ball work? It would take the force of gravity, and upon impact with a hard surface - bingo - takes the energy that gravity applied to it and reverses it.

 

Nah. As it's flying upwards it's still accelerating downwards. The force of gravity on the ball never wavers.

[JohnB]

Swansont, to me the difference between an open and closed mind is the difference between these two statements.

 

A. "It's impossible." and

B. "It may be possible but, according to the Laws of Physics as we know them, I don't see how."

 

To me, "A" shows a closed mind, "B" shows a healthy scepticism.

 

For all of history, those who could rightly be termed "Guardians of Knowledge" have been certain that they knew what was possible or impossible.

 

They have always been wrong.

 

I side with the dreamers and heretics. While they've also been wrong a lot of the time, in some ways they're much more fun. (Either to laugh with or at. )

[Sisyphus]

I think the point was more that the burden of proof is on the heretic, not the establishment. And that extraordinary claims (of which this definitely fits) require extraordinary evidence. And that if that heretic makes a claim that ought to be completely verifiable, yet somehow hasn't been, it's rather suspicious.

[swansont]

Swansont' date=' to me the difference between an open and closed mind is the difference between these two statements.

 

A. "It's impossible." and

B. "It may be possible but, according to the Laws of Physics as we know them, I don't see how."

 

To me, "A" shows a closed mind, "B" shows a healthy scepticism.

 

For all of history, those who could rightly be termed "Guardians of Knowledge" have been certain that they knew what was possible or impossible.

 

They have always been wrong.

 

I side with the dreamers and heretics. While they've also been wrong a lot of the time, in some ways they're much more fun. (Either to laugh with or at. )[/quote']

 

Sisyphus nailed it — it's the burden of proof. Show me a device that's over-unity — actually demonstrate that fact — and I'll be very interested in how it works. My skepticism inversely correlates with the amount of actual evidence, but it's not up to me to obtain that evidence.

[CPL.Luke]

however the company in question is trying to demonstrate that fact, they are hiring real engineers and real physicists to analyze the device and then publish their findings. they are not offering a cash prize to disprove that they're over unity or screaming on internet forums that nobody takes them seriously.

 

The fact that they are trying to do this properly makes me think that they may (and I mean may) have found somoething, while it may not be getting free energy it could be taking in energy from a previously unknown source.

 

EDIT: ah crap I just figured out what they're doing, they are a public company so when they announced this challenge their stock price probably went up, they'll drag it out for a few months while they all sell their stock. Then when they've sold most of it and made a shitload of money they'll release the results go bankrupt and then retire with a crapload of money.

 

Its just like what the dot coms did in the 90's