Talk:Steorn

Is Carlos Luna Phd candidate and expert on magnets and nanotechnology part of it

I found the following on here [1] follow the link for references to his work.

• CSIC's Website and Picture and contact info for Luna Finaly Google: Carlos Luna Steorn, looks like he knows about magnets.

Carlos Luna has been a leading researcher at Steorn and the related company Fraudhalt for several years. His name is on several Steorn patents fron 2004. Carlos Luna did PhD research at the Group of Magnetism and Magnetic Nanomaterials Institute for Materials Science of Madrid, CSIC
Trade2tradewell 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you post a link to one of Steorn's earlier patents in which his name is included? --Orangehues 13:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here [2] and here [3]

Quoted at Steorn Forum:Carlos Luna is without a doubt a serious scientist with many published papers on the cutting edge of magnetism reserch in Madrid, this gives a huge level of credence to the story that you really found something.

Trade2tradewell 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

zero credence, there was a Carlos Luna, but he worked for a company called Fraudhalt, which Mc Carthy co-owned with Phelim O'Doherty, Luna is a programmer, he is not the Carlos Luna mentioned above, so this is complete BS, and the fact that there is an out and out lie with regard to Luna, proves Mc Carthy is a fraudster. The following patent shows Luna, Mc Carthy, and O'Doherty listed as holders: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090201372

Bored now...

Steorn appear to be dead. Got bored and rewrote Hologram bracelet. Would like to get that to WP:GA status too and think it's about there. Please feel free to contribute. GDallimore (Talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The website http://www.steorn.com/ is still up, although things have been quiet on the news front for a long time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Phil Watson blog

I got stuck in an edit conflict with Biker Biker over the addition of the blog data from Phil Watson. I certainly agree that the blog should not be used as a major source and my edits were an attempt to find a smaller scale way to add this new information. However, if anyone feels that the reference to this blog should be removed entirely, I won't argue. :) GDallimore (Talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is necessary either, because it is from a WP:SPS. However, it is just about worth a brief mention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion area is not a personal message board, nor is it an organizing spot for editors on a mission. Please stop using Wikipedia for purposes other than for which it was intended.

69.171.160.160 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than keeping on reverting this, please make a viable point, not a sweeping criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Our claim reference

Citation / reference 3 in the opening paragraph section says that something violates the laws of physics somehow. When I went to the reference provided to see what it said in this regard, both the links in that reference pointed to missing pages on each server. The reference item is as follows:

"Our Claim". Steorn Ltd. Archived from the original on 2 May 2007. Retrieved 12 April 2007

Could someone fix this. Lots of these free energy systems merely claim to be harvesting energy from zero point ambient environment, so the energy is coming from somewhere, just not from J. P. Morgan, or Rockefeller at high mark-up costs and artificial imposed / planned supply scarcities that further rise prices. Oldspammer (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The cite is currently a 404 on archive.org, maybe it should have been uploaded to WebCite instead:) The wording that the Steorn device provides "free, clean, and constant energy" is available elsewhere, which would implicitly violate the laws of physics as currently known, as Eric Ash and others pointed out. Maybe the archive has a glitch, if not the article could try another source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that the phrase "free, clean, and constant energy" no longer appears on Steorn's website. Have they dropped the claim that Orbo violates energy conservation? Spiel496 (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Steorn is saying that the technology is getting "something from nothing". Rather that they have detected that energy is coming from an unknown source, or in other words, that the source is not detectable by conventional methodologies.

63.253.113.170 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Steorn have never said they got something from nothing. They said they generate free energy from tracing special paths around magnetic fields. At least, that's what they USED to say. I noticed a while ago, as Spiel has, thay they no longer directly make outlandish claims for the Orbo. Unfortunately, since neither Steorn nor any other reliable source has commented on this change of marketing policy, I don't think there's anything we can say about it because we can't attempt to interpet a lack of information. GDallimore (Talk) 11:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This RTÉ cite looks at the 2007 launch and makes a similar claim. This could be used if the archive.org link is broken.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing they have said (a while back) is that Orbo violates one of the laws of thermodynamics.

This was a major mistake on their part. I think their language now is that there is an observable net gain in energy and the source is as yet unknown.

63.229.225.130 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"We're tapping into an unknown source of energy" is no less ludicrous than "we're gaining energy from nowhere". Both are total bollocks. And no extensive discussion of total bollocks can go into the article wihout a reliable independent source. GDallimore (Talk) 11:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, the article could probably do with a little updating based on Steorn's current explanation of their technology at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/ where they do clearly talk about an energy gain - which I think is a vague but still unambiguous reference to breaking energy conservation. "Magnetic viscosity" is not a remotely mainstream scientific term, so I am going to avoid using that just as the article (correctly in my view) avoids other "alternative" energy terminology such as "over-unity". But the discussion of time variant magnetic fields could be expanded slightly. I'll try some edits to give a historical perspective of their claims. GDallimore (Talk) 17:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Free energy claim

The paragraph headed Free energy claim makes two statements which are not supported in the reference.

• (1) "Steorn said that none of these researchers were willing to publish their results for fear of becoming embroiled in a controversy"

The ref actually says none of the researchers "will talk to me", the "me" being Guardian journo Steve Boggan whose column is being used as the ref.

• (2) "...declined to name them (the researchers), citing mutually binding non-disclosure agreements."

Nothing like that appears in the reference. What does appear is Boggan saying he was "promised a diagram explaining how the system works, but then Steorn holds it back, saying its lawyers are concerned about intellectual property rights". I hope that is not meant to be the support for the non-disclosure agreements bit. Moriori (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 is in the source if you read on. I'm trying to track down where point 2 was added to the article: I'm guessing it just got mixed in with the wrong source somewhere, or was originally sourced to something unreliable. GDallimore (Talk) 10:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Found it [4]. No idea where it came from. Have fixed it. Good find. GDallimore (Talk) 11:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

New Water Heating Device to Be Marketed

Of course even though it's going to be sold, it won't actually exist because the technology is not in any science textbooks. http://www.steorn.com/heating/

67.190.27.217 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)