What are they up to?

[alan2here]

http://www.steorn.com

All seemed dead a year ago when everyone even people who previously supported them were saying they were a scam. But yet today with various activity including a new video on there site and yet another thing to sign up for, they still seem to be going.

 

What makes it all so bizare is that various companies invested a lot of money in the idea and there is an air of seriousness about it all and was right from the start, talks at universities and the such.

http://windsolair.blogspot.com/2009/04/steorn-at-standstill.html

 

I can't see that Steorn could possibly get away with this being fake, investors would eventually take legal action and I can't see that after all this time they are mistaken either.

 

All I can think is that they are in it for the money now and not thinking about there futures.

[mooeypoo]

I don't understand what invention you're talking about -- the site has a lot of high-in-the-sky "save energy" stuff. What precisely did people refer to as scam?

 

Please tell the entire story here for the people (like me) that have no clue what you're talking about.

[alan2here]

Sorry about that.

 

The other stuff is reasonable and I have no reason to think any of it is a scam (excpet they are a bit expensive), the impossible thing is the Orbo overunity (perpetual motion) device.

[mooeypoo]

Link, alan.

[alan2here]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn

 

You could look in the internet archives at earlier versions of there offical website also if you like. I lurned a lot about them on there forums when I was more intrested in the past.

[mooeypoo]

Alan, I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here but,

 

Steorn says its technology' date=' named Orbo, violates the law of conservation of energy,[4'] a fundamental principle of physics.[5] To date, no evidence confirming that the technology works has been made available to the public.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn)

 

.. if they're claiming their own technology is violating the laws of physics and they have no evidence to confirm the existence of this technology, where, exactly, is the question about it's validity?

[JohnB]

mooeypoo. Steorn issued a challenge a couple of years ago for suitably qualified people to inspect their equipment. The price of the inspection was to be willing to publicly state what you observe. Which is what the engineers in the video are doing.

 

Basically they have created an "over unity" device, or so it would appear.

 

I doubt that they even considered publishing in a journal for the simple reason that none would publish anything that apparently violates physical laws.

 

Nor did Steorn go public in a blaze of publicity. They asked for people to look at the equipment and see if there was a trick involved.

 

It would appear that there is not and those who inspected the equipment found that more energy is coming out of the system than is going in. Maybe Steorn have a theory to explain how, maybe they don't, but the thing appears to work.

 

The link in the 2006 thread no longer works, but it does contain quotes from the original site. If you are interested, the Wayback Machine will take you there.

 

So far, AFAICT, they have not asked for investors, so, weird as it sounds, they may be legit. (And wouldn't that be interesting?)

[mooeypoo]

It would be EXTREMELY interesting, and quite exciting, since it would mean we will have to rewrite the laws of physics.

 

BTW, I didn't mean to sound rude or anything, I was just very confused - I didn't see the video in there, so I didn't understand where the question is; it seemed to me to be a non issue - a company admits their equipment is violating the laws of physics and can't give forth evidence to the contrary. Sounds clear cut to me.

 

I am not sure where I missed this video but I'll go over those links you put up..

 

That said, I must say that I will be *extremely* surprised if this machine is working while violating the laws of physics. The fact Engineers did not find the trick does not mean much:

 

(1) it seems weird to me that a company would ask people to find the trick without publishing at least a REASON (hence, physical theory) why and how this would violate the laws of physics while working -- obviously, they have a patent, so there's no danger of theft - and the validation of the theory (regardless of the machine) would likely earn their staff some number of prizes. Why would they not want that unless they have something they don't want people to see?

 

(2) Engineers are very good in designing systems and analyzing systems, but they're not as good in finding hoaxes. This was proven again and again with hoaxes less extreme than this - Scientists and engineers supported a piece of technology that seemed to them and the rest of the world to work properly despite common opinion, and yet were found to be either a hoax or a human error later on by professionals who know how to recognize such things.

It's like asking a scientist to figure out a magic trick. That's not what the scientist is trained to do; they can guess, they can claim the magic cannot be logically done, but they can't actually figure out *HOW* a trick is done, if the magic trick is good enough. Magicians might.

 

(3) The idea that this might be invalid does not necessarily mean the company did it on purpose (hence, the company is trying to hoax). There are many people and companies that are simply deluded, or not rigorous enough to find their own flaws, and usually when that's mixed with wishful thinking (which is understandable), the results might be the company thinking they got it, when they don't. And the mistake can be very small.

 

The bottom line, however, is this: The machinery violates the laws of physics. When we (scientists) find a phenomena that appears to violates the laws of physics, the first thought is to state that we're missing something. The method from then on is to look WHAT we're missing that makes us think this phenomena violates the laws of physics, and reach one of two conclusions: Either we expand our knowledge of this phenomenon and see how it's actually not violating anything, OR we change the laws we know and expand out understanding of the universe.

 

HOWEVER, these claims need to be backed up by science. If the company just claims that its machinery is violating the laws of physics and gives no scientific corroboration or explanation of why, then even if the machinery is found to be without flaw, it will NOT be accepted to any scientific publication for the simple reason that there's no SCIENCE to publish.

If they built this machine and it truly violates laws of physics, they must have the science behind it. If they want publications, they should publish it.

 

It was Arthur C Clarke that claimed this, very smart, phrase: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The fact something seems to work only means that it's advanced enough for us not to immediately recognize how it works. It doesn't mean nature is now upside down.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws)

 

Is there a chance this changes the laws of physics? Sure, there's always a chance. Are we given enough tools to analyze and make a decision? No.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

It's possible (though unlikely) that the thing "works," just within the laws of physics, i.e. there's an input of useful energy somewhere that's not accounted for. It's even possible that the inventors honestly think they've broken the laws of physics, which would make it not a "hoax," per se. But no, they have not. I agree with mooey.

[Baby Astronaut]

obviously, they have a patent, so there's no danger of theft...

Shouldn't it turn up in a patent search, then? All details of an invention must be disclosed (and other people should be able to build the exact invention from those patented details), in order for you to gain exclusive use of the invention.

[mooeypoo]

Shouldn't it turn up in a patent search, then? All details of an invention must be disclosed (and other people should be able to build the exact invention from those patented details), in order for you to gain exclusive use of the invention.

Whatever it may be, the company can't really expect anyone to jump up and down with joy about the validity of their invention without sharing the scientific data and theories (and SUPPORT for those theories) that's behind it. It just doesn't work this way.

 

Let me give an example: We all know that magic is trickery; the good magicians admit it, though refuse to share the method. Do I know how these tricks work? No. Can scientists say for *SURE* they know? Not always. They can, however, state that it *seems* they disobey the laws of physics.

Let's say David Copperfield would state he created a machine that defies the laws of physics by making an elephant vanish. He will demonstrate - successfuly (as he has before made things vanish), and scientists would, most likely, have a hard time figuring out the TRICK. Magicians may figure it out quickly, but scientists? Not sure, they're not trained to do that.

 

Would anyone really claim that David Copperfield amazing vanishing-objects machine is contradicting the laws of physics? NO. Does it appear to? yes.. and yet, there should be a whole lot more than just "Appears to" in order for scientists to change the common (*WORKING*) valid theories.

 

Whether or not the company has a patent or wants to share their data is their problem; if they insist on claiming their machine works despite the fact it seems to violate the laws of physics, they need to explain themselves. Otherwise, the logical conclusion is that something's missing or hidden in the machine - either accidentally (as Sisyphus stated) or intentionally.

 

That's what peer review is for. If there's a theory behind that machine, and it passes the rigor of peer review, well.. then we can start talking about changing the laws of physics as we know them.

 

No one can really expect scientists to abandon the current theory in favor of theory that isn't formulated publicly, because of a phenomenon some engineers found hard to explain.

 

~moo

[Baby Astronaut]

What I meant is that if the device has been patented, all relevant details will be in the patent -- if they even applied for one. And if they didn't, it's suspicious and a bit more reason to be skeptical.

[JohnB]

mooeypoo and Baby Astronaut.

 

The thing you are missing is that it is impossible to patent an "over unity" device in the western world. They fall under the classification of "Perpetual Motion" machines and as such will not be considered for patent.

 

So until the laws change, there will be no patents.

 

This being the case, the actions of Steorn make some sense. Should the device pan out, then the laws will change and they would then be well placed to launch a court case giving them the patent rights. Just a thought.

 

mooey, they did make their theory available to the panel of 12 that looked at the machine. From their current website it would appear that they intend to make the information publicly available in the near future.

 

I take no isuue with your points 2 and 3, however I think point 1 is wrong.

 

I tried to make the point in the previous thread I linked to, but I don't think I explained myself properly.

 

Such a device (if it works) does not neccessarily break any laws. Hence no rewrite of physics laws would be needed.

 

If I may speculate.

 

Conservation of energy applies to closed systems, this system may not be closed. Physics tells us that there may be forms of "Dark Energy", a term that as I understand it, means little more than "Forms of energy that we cannot currently detect".

 

If we accept the axiom that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form" (which I do) then I see no problem with the concept that a machine may be a converter, converting previously undetectable energy into a more common form.

 

Should this be the case, then no laws are being broken, however our understanding and interpretation of those laws will need to be revised to encompass a larger viewpoint.

 

However, there seems to me there might be an easy answer to this interesting topic.

 

Steorn are asking for 300 engineers to register with them for development of the technology, after that it will be released generally. Lacking the qualifications for the engineers part, I have registered to be amoung those who recieve the theory and designs when it goes general.

 

From what I've seen in their vids, I doubt I would have much trouble constructing one of their machines. I suggest I try it and find out what (if anything) happens.

 

I would think that if it worked, there are enough brains floating around here to work out why. I would also think that I've been around long enough for people to realise that should there be a result, deliberate deception on my part would not be the cause.

[Baby Astronaut]

mooeypoo and Baby Astronaut.

 

The thing you are missing is that it is impossible to patent an "over unity" device in the western world. They fall under the classification of "Perpetual Motion" machines and as such will not be considered for patent.

 

So until the laws change, there will be no patents.

JohnB, there is no such law to change. Nowhere in the patent requirements does it even suggest that a machine violating the laws of physics can't be patented.

 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/utility/utility.htm#detailed

 

Detailed Description of the Invention...

 

In this section, the invention must be explained along with the process of making and using the invention in full, clear, concise, and exact terms. This section should distinguish the invention from other inventions and from what is old and describe completely the process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or improvement invented....

 

It is required that the description be sufficient so that any person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, science, or area could make and use the invention without extensive experimentation.

 

 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#whatpat

 

What Can Be Patented...

 

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent....

 

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine.

[JohnB]

Baby Astronaut, from your links and further reading a accept that there are no laws to change. Rules however, are another matter.

 

Any "over unity" electrical device is by definition a "perpetual motion" machine, since it could be hooked up to a generator and run itself.

 

From the USPTO:

What cannot be patented:

 

Inventions which are:

Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or

Offensive to public morality

 

Hence, under the rules any over unity or perpetual motion machine cannot be patented. Most patent offices have this restriction, otherwise they would be inundated with "over balancing wheel" applications and would get seriously bogged down.

 

I must admit, I find the phrasing somewhat odd. I would have thought that while a machine that runs without external power input could be called many things, "not useful" wouldn't be one of them.

[Mr Skeptic]

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#whatpat

 

What Can Be Patented...

 

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent....

 

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine.

 

Since perpetual motion machines don't work, they aren't useful and can't be patented. I think that the patent office decided that no perpetual motion machines work and that they wouldn't grant patents for them. This would save them the trouble of countless explanations to would be inventors of perpetual motion machines.

[Baby Astronaut]

Nice, JohnB. A bit odd...unless they mean "we reject all submissions of the theoretically impossible nature."

 

Maybe if someone actually did invent the machine, but omitted the bits about perpetual motion -- and just claimed it produces a "big saving on energy" -- then it might get accepted?

 

However, from the OP's link to the Blogspot follow-up....

 

Somewhat unromantically though understandably the US Patents Office no longer entertains such "perpetual motion" ideas without a working model.

 

 

If true, the patent office might accept its submission if proof of a functional model were demonstrated. But the company never even produced one....

 

Since then it has raised €16 million from investors and has spent more than €10 million of this but it still does not have a prototype of any sort to show for its efforts.

 

Wow, those investors need better advisers

 

 

 

 

For anyone's curiosity....

What

can

be patented – utility patents are provided for a new, nonobvious and useful:

 

• Process
  
  
• Machine
  
  
• Article of manufacture
  
  
• Composition of matter
  
  
• Improvement of any of the above
  
  

 

What

cannot

be patented:

 

• Laws of nature
  
  
• Physical phenomena
  
  
• Abstract ideas
  
  
• Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office.
  
  
• Inventions which are:
  
  
  .
  
  
  • Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
    
    
  • Offensive to public morality
    
    

 

Invention must also be:

 

* Novel

* Nonobvious

* Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)

* Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms

[JohnB]

I missed the Blogspot link the first time around, thanks for pointing it out again.

Wow, those investors need better advisers

So, it would appear does a relation of the Blog author:

A relative of mine has, apparently, been persuaded to invest over €3 million in the venture. That’s bad enough, but it also appears he has paid dearly for his participation. So much so that one promoter of the company, who purchased his shares at a much lower price earlier on, would have to make a profit of nearly €60 million in a trade sale before my relation would break even, according to documentation that I’ve seen.

Not being mean, but it appears he is complaining that people who bought shares earlier and cheaper than his relative would make more money in a sale than his relative. I can only say "Well Duh."

 

However, the money side is making things look more dubious by the minute. I can think of a number of ways this type of operation can act as a scam. (And trust me, I know a lot about setting up and running scams.)

 

I guess all we can do is wait and see what happens.