This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is Sean McCarthy the same person as Sean "Michael" McCarthy

Just a question...

Is the person in this youtube video |1 the same person in this bio? |2 -Wolfe 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes

--85.70.33.55 00:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then this whole articile is part of a media campaign and should be deleted. ---Wolfe 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless the photo or video followed a Hollywood-quality prosthetic makeup job, these are different guys. Different hairline, hair color, eyes, eye color, nose, mouth/lips, cheekbones... They do both have dimples.

I doubt Sean McCarthy is an unusual name in Ireland. Also, your responder, User 85.70.33.55 was blocked in January for vandalism, so I would be wary of relying on his/her authority to answer this question. --Wfaxon 06:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this a viral marketing campaign..,

My reasons:

1: It is a privately held company, not publicly traded, therefore only those shareholder need to know what is really going on.

2: It is making an extraordinary claim, there for requires extraordinary proof, of which they have provided none.

3: It's not science, it is not open to public review, empirical evidence is not being applied.

4: Sean McCarthy looks so much like Sean "Michael" McCarthy I believe they are the same person.

5: Dot com companies do not become science communities.

6: They are following the same pattern as many scams, but without ripping off public money, therefore I think they are just using the format as a publicity stunt.

---Wolfe 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it looks and smells like a big scam, but that doesn't prove it is. People can think for themselves and all we need is a working model to either prove or disprove the whole thing. A true skeptic always has at least a particle of doubt and knows there's nothing to gain from outright dismissal. Landroo (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They would have to be insane to market in such a way. Once the study results came out, they could be charged with fraud if they used conscious deception to make money off of the public. What they did was so out in the open that there would be no escape for them as they are now world famous. If on the other hand it was self deception, they would still have to pay a lot of money back. Consequently I doubt that this is any sort of viral marketing. It's very clear that they sincerely believe what they are saying.

Old paradigms have fallen away many times throughout history. We'll have to see, but it's possible we are on the brink of a new energy technology.

161.98.13.100 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

change to references and notes?

I just noticed that entry number 8 ("Steorn Company Submissions". Companies Registration Office. Retrieved on 2007-02-12) references a date that has not occurred yet. What should the correct date be?

--70.92.245.137 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe that this article violates the NPOV policy, specifically, Undue weight and Pseudoscience

We should NOT give "equal validity" to Steorn's claims, as it contradicts what the majority of the scientific community thinks. From the relevant policy page [[1]],

the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

A claim to have invented technology which violates the first law of thermodynamics, without a single shred of evidence, is certainly pseudo scientific. 59.92.17.16 09:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It also violates WP:RS. Forum posts and newspapers which simply repeats what's being claimed, are not a reliable sources! 59.92.17.16 09:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From the introduction: This is, in essence, a claim that the company has developed free energy technology, or a perpetual motion machine. Such technology is considered to be an impossibility according to current scientific understanding, as it would contradict the first law of thermodynamics. To date no evidence to support the company's claim has been made public. What more can we add? Paul Studier 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We could remove most of "Details of the technology", as it seems to be completely unverifiable from a credible independent source. We could also remove "Arguments in favor", as it does not show any evidence which supports Steorn's claim (so, how is it an argument in favour??) We could also mention how the majority of scientists, such as Michio Kaku[2] or Bob Park[3], think that this is a hoax, and include what exactly they say in this article.

I think we could also add a paragraph on skepticism over this, including various commentaries outlining what the majority of the scientific community thinks.

In any case, IMO, most of the article is currently devoted to the minority viewpoint (ie, Steorns and McCarthy) and violates WP policies on undue weight and pseudoscience. 59.92.76.144 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I trimmed it a bit. Is this any better? Paul Studier 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage 59.92.76.144 to add material from Kaku and Park. But note that in the articles referenced, Kaku is first quoted as saying, "It's a fraud," but then he is later paraphrased as saying that Steorn may not have any idea that its machine is a fraud, which implies that he thinks it's a mistake. On the other hand, Park is too depressed to actually examine the Steorn claim and instead fakes a quote from Shaw. --Wfaxon 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(i) What Kaku probably means is that, while the claim is a fraudulent one, the makers of the "technology" are not intelligent enough to realize so.

(ii)I believe that Park didn't want to waste time expounding on such an obvious crackpot claim. 59.92.93.81 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(i) Two of the possibilities are that the Steorn claim is a deliberate deceit, or it is a blunder. Kaku seems to be leaving the door open to both. I was pointing out that we should avoid connecting the word "fraud" with the latter interpretation because "fraud" implies deceit.

(ii) If Park didn't want to waste his time in that column, we shouldn't waste the Wikipedia readers' time telling them so. I'm sure you can find a relevant quote from him elsewhere. --Wfaxon 00:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on both points. By including the quotes as they were said, we are not 'wasting' readers time, but merely stating what well respected scientific authorities have to say. The meaning of "fraud", is then left to the readers interpretation. They could either think that Kaku implies that the steorn claim is a deliberate deceit, or otherwise. That's not the point. The important thing is adding what members of the scientific community have to say about this crackpot claim. 59.92.45.149 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no point of view problem with this article at all. The article never says that Steorns claims are true. The article is about Steorn as a media phenomenon-- resulting from Steorn as a company making scientific claims to the public in a very dramatic way that has seized international attention. This is a legitimate story by any journalistic standard.

Wikipedia is not a science journal-- it's a public input encyclopedia describing the entire known world-- including history, culture, current events, media phenomenon etc-- not only hard science.

Sean7phil 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting claim and deadline to note...

http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/

"Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007."

Perhaps it is important to file that away, perhaps.--Remi0o 07:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Time for significant paring?

It's coming up on nine months after their original 18 August 2006 advert in The Economist, and the amount of publicly verifiable information on Steorn's magic "Orbo" has not increased one iota. Considering the continued public interest we can hardly hope to eliminate this article (yet), but maybe we should consider paring it down to just a couple of paragraphs, or even a single paragraph. The current bloat consisting of suppositions, speculations, and quotes from Steorn and their forum just add to the fog and are hardly encyclopedic.

I'm not anti-Steorn, I'm just anti-nonsense in Wikipedia. I realize a lot of people have worked hard to try to make this article into something, but so far there's nothing there. If Steorn ever delivers, that would be the time for a real article. --Wfaxon 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

At least wait until July when Steorn claim they'll make their announcement. It's not that long in the scheme of things. Then the article and what goes into the article can be reassessed. At least the Orbo article has now been merged with this one to keep the info in a single place until such time as the cards are all on the table. GDallimore (Talk) 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, the July demo date came, the demo experienced "technical difficulties" and got "deferred". So what's left? PerpetuumMobile 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at some of my recent edits. I've been pruning the last few days myself. I'll also probably remove any speculation about "why" the demo was cancelled that gets added to keep it short until such time as there's another demonstration GDallimore (Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now edited this article to remove anything which isn't arguably related to their claim. Their financial history could be paired down, perhaps, but some of the arguments against rely upon the fact that Steorn is clearly a company in financial difficulty. Even with the financial history, I've got it to less than 30kb, so there aren't any warning messages on editing the article. GDallimore (Talk) 12:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me suggest that we now make a Date Certain for the paring of this article. More than a year has passed since the Economist advert and the astounding Steorn claim has yet to be supported by a single fact. Again, I'm not saying anything against the people who've worked on the article. --Wfaxon 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The pairing is done as far as I'm concerned. Steorn obtained notoriety and are therefore notable indefinitely - notability is not lost with time. This article tells you what you need to know about them and their claim, is well referenced and avoids speculation. It no longer breaks any size limits. I don't believe any more can or should be removed. GDallimore (Talk) 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this obsession with paring down the article before the claims are verified or refuted at the end of the year 2007? I am starting to believe that many people are not nearly as rational as they think they are. The logic for suppressing the article in advance of the claims being proven true or false............? No logic, just another glitch in someones thought process. I've got a great idea for another article-- the breakdown of logical thought process in otherwise intelligent people-- How this happens and why this happens, that would be interesting...

Sean7phil 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am with GDallimore - this article is indefinitely notable. They have received significant media coverage. The media coverage may have been initiated by their own actions, but none the less they they are notable. They are so notable that they are mentioned in articles that have nothing directly to do with them - to wit "http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/300042". I'd strongly suggest that the article not be pared down any further. CraigWyllie (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that even hoaxes should be documented. The category perpetual motion machine is sufficient debunking. Paul Studier (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

lame quote

This is considered by Dr Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park, to be an important indicator that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse.

Why is this even mentioned? Wouldn't ANYONE think this? It's also completely POV, Dr. Park's POV in this case. This statement is completely worthless. The reader should evaluate Steorn's PR handling on his own, not have some opinion shoved down his throat by an "encyclopedia."

You make two objections here, first that the quote is POV, second that the quote is useless in the article. I think you're wrong on both counts.

First, Wikipedia has a policy against editors pushing a POV, not against incorporating POV's from exterior, reliable sources. If a reliable source says something that is relevant to an article, it has a place in the article, regardless of their POV. If you can find a reliable source that says the opposite, then that can be included to to ensure there is no systematic bias within the article, but I've searched and have been unable to find anyone except Steorn and a few bloggers saying anything positive about Orbo. See here, for example - not a reliable source!

Second, it is relevant to the article. Steorn have claimed that the reason for their chosen approach to releasing information about their product is to avoid people dismissing them out of hand. Someone else has said that, actually, the way they've chosen to release information is actually a sign that they're talking bollocks. To ensure that the article has the necessary independent quality, such comments about Steorn's actions from exterior sources are vital to ensure balance in the article and that no one view is shoved down anyone's throat. GDallimore (Talk) 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed "several employees vowed to shave their heads" to "eleven employees shaved their heads..." Gandydancer 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference number 1 is a dead link. (the Economist ad)--Xerces8 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it this one? If so, it's working.--Dali-Llama 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention here that I responded to this comment by linking to that new source for the advert. It's not a great copy, so a better source would be useful. GDallimore (Talk) 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive this talk?

I am wondering if it was time for much of this talk to be archived? Steorn are due to publicly demo their technology next week, (they said they will show their device but exact details of the tech will not be revealed. This is a demo and not validation/proof), and if it happens then there will be a renewed interest in Steorn. Given that this talk page is huge now it might be good to start it afresh. KittensOnToast 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - archived through the end of 2006 (~165 Kb). -- MarcoTolo 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Magnetism is a conservative force ?

Is stated in the article. This however is not true according to Ampère's Circuital law. This law states that the curl of the magnetic field is in general not always zero, which is requered for a conservative field. It also follows from Ampère's Circuitual law that the magnetic field is conservative iff there is no current density and no change in the electric field, which on the other hand could be the case. The obvious question would be: is the EM field conservative ? This I do not know.

Although it's been a while since I did it, I seem to recall that curl H = J and J would be zero in an isolated system. If J > 0, then there is energy entering (or leaving) the system, so it is not isolated and one would not be surprised if a system of magents kept on moving forever... Of course, this is a vague memory from 10 years ago, so I could be wrong. GDallimore (Talk) 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is according to the page on Ampère's Circuital law:

\mathbf {\nabla } \times \mathbf {H} =\mathbf {J} +{\frac {\partial \mathbf {D} }{\partial t}}

So not only `real' current but also change in the electric field can produce curl in the magnetic field. This changing electric field on its turn can be produced by an changing magnetic field according to Faraday's law of induction:

\nabla \times \mathbf {E} =-{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}

I should note that this last effect may often be neglectible. 80.100.30.125 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

( This and the original post where made by me: Bram Westerbaan 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) )

Thanks. I remember now. I fixed this a while back, but forgot to come back and mention it. GDallimore (Talk) 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

np. You could note that according to Poynting's theorem electromagnetic energy is conserved and if I am not mistaken this implies that the lorentz force is conservative. -- Bram Westerbaan 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

American or British/Irish

There have been quite a few edits recently changing American spelling to British spelling and vice versa, so the article is now a hodge-podge of the two. Which is it to be? I can't work it out from the initial article (as suggested in various guidelines) since there are no distinguishing words. Shall we say British spelling since this is an article about an Irish company? GDallimore (Talk) 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would make sense. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

English does seem logical Craig Mayhew 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I say don't sort it out at all-- Let Brits spell like Brits and Irish spell like Irish and Americans spell like Americans.

This would be no different from a Brit and an American speaking with each other-- no attempt is made to force one or the other to change the style of English that they use. Why force such change then in a written conversation? Let the article flow between styles depending on the contributor. We'll all be the richer for it.

Sean7phil 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Three distinct possibilities

1. They misunderstand the functioning of their own technology, and the energy is from some non-obvious source they can't trace. 2. They blatantly claim it violates the principles of physics, so they're promoting some meta-physical worldview that they claim powers it. (such as ley lines, magic, alchemy, etc.) 3. It's an alternate reality game.

With their page, and the blog that seems to be set up specifically to document their pending failure (http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/), it most closely resembles an ARG of some sort. --205.201.141.146 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This (above) is like asking someone "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a trick supposition.

The only fair and logical supposition would be to include a 4th possibility-- that they are right about their claims. The world used to be flat, and the people who said that it wasn't were called crazy as well...

Sean7phil 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 demonstration

After many delays the July 2007 demonstration was postponed indefinitely (news story on steorns website: http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001

I wasn't quite sure where to add that into the article, I'm sure someone else can find the right way to do it. Boldra 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh, I was guessing this was going to happen. It's not surprising they had a "technical failure"; they probably have nothing to really show (or got scared someone was going to bust them at the last moment). Move along children, nothing to see here... nneonneo 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And here I was looking foward to see them making fools of themselves in public, ah well, next time maybe. 82.229.207.75 09:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So what happens now? They said something earlier ago about the scientists/engineers under NDA releasing their findings eventually, do we have a date for that? W3bbo 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

wow, you can really tell people aren't open minded to new possibilities when they are willing something to fail and would love it if it did 86.155.63.91 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Most people, including highly educated people, are decidedly closed-minded as a rule.

This includes people who imagine themselves to be forward-thinking, but who are actually closed-minded about anything contrary to their own cherished beliefs.

Formulaic thinking, ideology and religion are the norm; while true original thinking is actually a very rare thing.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, let's see, how does that apply here? We close-minded lot shouldn't question the original thinkers at Steorn who announced they had invented a perpetual motion machine, which would violate the laws of thermodynamics? We are close-minded because we question an astonishing claim which totally lacks supporting evidence? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't directing that comment specifically at you or any other individual. But as a general rule, questioning new ideas is not close-minded. But attacking people who bring forth new ideas, or trying to shut down any discussion or debate on the subject, or (most common) categorically dismissing new ideas without a careful and reasoned consideration are all close-minded behaviors.

Also using manipulative rather than straightforward counterarguments is a sign of close-mindedness (you are wrong, I know you are wrong, so I will manipulate the conversation until you 'lose').

On the other hand, having doubts about new ideas, or disagreeing with them is not close-minded at all. It's how you do so that makes the difference: Are you open-minded enough to consider something that is contrary to what you have always known? If you at least consider it carefully and then reject it, then no, you are not close-minded.

By the way, being close-minded is not a crime. Everyone is close-minded at times. Its a part of being human.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please use the talk page for article improvement and avoid general discussion per WP:FORUM. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Steorn really privately held?

The summary of the article currently states that Steorn is privately held. However, in several interviews Sean McCarthy has mentioned his responsibility towards "the shareholders". See for example [4], minute 10:50, when he says "I've had a priority of issues (sic) that I've had to deal with: obviously there are shareholders, people in the company and there's the media..."

I don't know about Ireland, but in the US, a privately owned company can have several shareholders. Public just means a higher level of regulation and reporting and that the shares can be listed on an exchange. Paul Studier 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the clarification!

Kinetica

The Free-energy machine is on demo today in an ART GALERY. This is not an invention, it is ART.

This whole thing is a conceptual art exhibition at a conceptual art gallery; The machine is on show today at the Kenetica gallery in Spitalfields Market, Hoxton, London - a district of the city well known for avant-garde art. The whole thing is a spectacular stunt, most probably intended to illustrate how vacuous we Brits really are when it comes to an understanding of basic science.

There are no verified claims at all that support the notion that there is a real free-energy machine. There is plenty of verified evidence that suggests that this is a very interesting art exhibit in a famous London art gallery. --Salimfadhley 10:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kinetica is famous? Not really - It only opened at the end of last year. Also, it's a museum, not an ART GALERY [sic]. I'm sceptical like anyone else, but I'll sit on the fence until someone proves either way. Once/if they sort out their technical problems, I'll go to Kinetica have a look... EAi 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent news links

Energy-from-nothing demonstration delayed indefinitely

Perpetual Energy Demo Runs into Technical Difficulties

Perpetual commotion

Perpetual motion goes into reverse

Steorn shuts down its "free energy" demo

Infinite power machine demo postponed

Surprise: "Free energy" machine hits "technical difficulties"

Seven reasons why Steorn's perpetual machine will never work

---Wolfe 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note mechanism?

Can someone explain how the "notes" section was created, technically? I would love to use this in my articles! Maury 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

<_ref_>The note you want to put at the bottom<_/ref_> (without "_") Kromsson 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the references section. The Notes section uses the old, now superseded referencing templates {{ref}} and {{Note}}.

Basically, you put:

 {{Ref|A|[a]}}

in the article somewhere and then put:

 '''a.''' {{Note|A}} Note text

in a notes section at the end. The two template create internal links to one another. The capital A is the label that is used internally, while the lower case [a] in the Ref template is the symbol that is displayed. GDallimore (Talk) 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

{{HighDefMediaComparison}} uses it to interesting effect if you want another example. I first came across it at Four Stages of Cruelty. GDallimore (Talk) 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically if I use the ref template, the

mechanism doesn't see it? Ok, I can definitely use that. I just wish they would add a true <_note_> /

for this! Maury 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Edit of K-Toy Video

Having a B.S. in Physics and a J.D., let me say straight off I think Steorn IMHO opinion is bullcrap and my edit probably violated WP:RS. However for those that are interested.Here it is in abrdiged form. "This video <googlevideo>5235319714285439453</googlevideo> ( or http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/2007/08/k-toy-video-discovered.html ) features Thieu Knapen, founder of Kinetron (http://www.kinetron.nl/), referring to a gizmo he built to characterize Steorn's invention concept,...... See his website: http://www.kinetron.nl/ - Kinetron is a supplier to Swatch and other giants. It is well known in the industry." See K-Toy Video Discovered ( http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/2007/08/k-toy-video-discovered.html) - Background and comments. (FreeEnergyTracker; August 30, 2007)Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is should be clear to anyone who looks at this video that the video does not show the generation of energy! Mahjongg 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just cause some guy says his idea is based on Steorn's, doesn't make it the same as Steorn's or in any way related to them and doesn't mean he should get coverage here. GDallimore (Talk) 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This video is from the Steorn documentary. Leaked. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a physics layman, but it appears to me that this little device is simply converting "potential" energy. IE - before he triggers the device, he's "resetting" a magnet (on the left) by lifting it into place. Perhaps I don't understand the significance of this video, but it seems non-compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.7.31 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly the noteworthy part is that the tinier weight lifts the heavy. The thing he moves is a lock and does not seem to store any energy. But indeed, there could be a "hidden" potential energy there. This video is more a curiosity and "truth statement" rather than a proof. The interview is supposedly made a short time after he has built the "toy" which is the design he built in order to convince himself. FYI. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Legality

I was just wondering, this seems like a publicity stunt of some sort. Were they to finally admit it, would they face any legal consequence at all? It looks so wrong that one would think it is illegal (if indeed this is a conscious deception, made in the name of art, publicity or whatever) but it´s hard to pinpoint exactly how one could get at them. If someone with knowledge of Irish law could add what would be the legal consequences (if any) if this is a scam I think it would be worth a mention in the article.Elartistamadridista (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Being wrong in science is not a crime. Self deception could also be seen as more likely than intentional deception of others.

Or they could be right. The testing isn't over yet-- and the world was once flat.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By Now It is Appropriate To Ask: Any Citable Articles On The Results or When The Results Will Come Available?

By Now It is Appropriate To Ask: Any Citable Articles On The Results or When The Results Will Come Available, This DOES at this point relate to the article and is not just discussion.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Asking the question "Has any got more verifiable information to add?" is pointless since, if they did, they would add it. You're just inviting chatter about whether and when their claims will be proved or otherwise. GDallimore (Talk) 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what are the criteria here? I'll announce a company -- Spiel496 Inc. -- We're working on a machine that will turn straw into gold. Suppose for the sake of argument, that everyone is talking about us -- that makes us notable, so we get a Wikipedia article. Fine. How much time has to go by before our lack of progress gets noted as a fact on the page? Spiel496 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as it takes for a reliable source to not the lack of progress, one should think. скоморохъ 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What "reliable source" is going to note the lack of progress? The American Physical Society isn't going to take this seriously enough to waste their breath. And news organizations don't tend to report on the absence of things occurring. So we're left with one source: Steorn itself. I count 17 variations of "Steorn has claimed..." in the article. I think Steorn is relied on too heavily as a source for this article. Spiel496 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

We are an encyclopedia; we mindlessly parrot reliable secondary sources. Your opinions on Steorn's progress or lack thereof hve no encyclopediac value. As for Steorn being over-relied upon as a source, this simply mirrors the situation of the news orgs etc. who have no alternative source. Nothing you have said is reason to change the article, barring new sources coming to light. Regards, скоморохъ 05:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does have a right to exist-- this rates as a wikipedia topic simply because Steorn is a media phenomenon and is therefore an event in the broad pool of contemporary encyclopedic subjects.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Therefore since it's been months since the company has been in the news, can we delete this junk now? ---Wolfe (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it? That would give the Free energy suppressionists ammunition. Paul Studier (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When was the public forum deleted?

I noticed right now that the public forum seems to be gone from the Steorn.com website. When was it removed, and is that an interesting development, maybe, in the general Steorn 'story'? I see there is a closed developers forum, and I'm not sure, but I think that was there before, and that it isn't new or a kind of replacement for the public forum (I'm not 100% sure, though). I know there was much talk about stuff that didn't have much to do with Steorn, on the public forum, which is perhaps understandable since there haven't been much news from Steorn lately to talk about. Was the public forum removed because of all the 'off topic' talk, or is there some other reason? Anyone know? 62.16.190.81 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Found it. (Seems it's not linked to from the home page, though?) 62.16.190.81 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not linked directly to the home page. I'm not sure why, although forum membership is restricted to Scientists and Engineers.

The forum only comes up in search engines on complex keyword searches like "Steorn, magnetic" or "steorn, 2008".

66.227.84.101 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now it seems the forum is accessible only by logging in, and one needs to apply for membership. Just wanted to mention this when I saw this change there right now. 84.202.252.127 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An apt quote?

“

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

”

- Richard Feynman (1918-1988) --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could be worth adding to perpetual motion machine if it isn't already there. GDallimore (Talk) 09:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed claim?

I added the term "peer reviewed" to highlight the normal rules of academic refereeing. Even if Steorn published their own report saying that the machine worked, it would mean very little if it was commissioned from a hand-picked team of scientists, which is what Steorn wanted. It is true that the whole process of Steorn producing evidence to support the claim seems to have fizzled out, but Steorn had ample opportunities to publish their work in a peer reviewed journal but declined to do so. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say "no peer reviewed" evidence, it implies that there has been "some evidence, but the scientific community have not approved it" which is misleading. In contrast "no evidence" covers "no peer reviewed evidence" and is also perfectly correct. Statements by Steorn that they have achieved over-unity are not "evidence" and that is all they have released - no reports giving evidence have been released. GDallimore (Talk) 09:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that the demonstrations of the machine to the media were "evidence" of a sort, although there is still nothing that would even remotely satisfy a peer reviewed academic journal. However, I am not going to argue with the "no evidence" phrase. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the machine hasn't been demonstrated to the media - only results saying "400%" efficiency without explanation of where those results came from has been given to the media. That is not, even remotely arguably, evidence. Other claimed successful demonstrations have not been made public due to "controversy" issues. GDallimore (Talk) 10:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To change the subject somewhat, my main concern is that Steorn has fallen back on the time-honoured tactic of saying that trade secrets and non-disclosure agreements are involved. If the Steorn claim were true, every law of physics would have to be rewritten from scratch and Nobel prizes would be awarded, since the physicists involved would be ranked on a par with Newton and Einstein. This should be a far greater motivation than any financial gain. The usual cause of free energy claims is that people have applied non-standard reasoning to how the machine obtains and uses its energy supply. When the standard explanation is applied, the machine is found to be doing nothing that would break the current laws of physics.

Incidentally, the introduction suggests that the Steorn device would "particularly" violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. It could be argued that any perpetual motion claim violates all three Laws of Thermodynamics, since violating one of the laws would inherently lead to a violation of the other two. Here is a description of the three laws which may or may not please the purists:

Law 1: The amount of energy available to a mechanical system is constant.
Law 2: A mechanical system uses up its energy supply while it is operating.
Law 3: The processes of a mechanical system will eventually run down and cease.

When the Third Law was proposed, it was described in some quarters as a logical consequence of the other two laws and therefore unnecessary. Sir Eric Ash argued that the Steorn claim was a violation of the First Law, since it would require more than 100% of the energy to be output by the machine. Patent offices traditionally reject this claim on the grounds of contradiction, and the UK Patent Office says that devices of this kind are "contrary to well-tested physical laws and not capable of industrial application" (in plain language, they don't work). The people at Steorn must know that the chances of a obtaining a patent on a machine making this claim are remote, and have cited the "controversy" argument as a reason for keeping their cards close to their chest. However, the legal maxim that the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim still applies, and it appears that the Steorn claim is going nowhere, as with numerous similar claims in the past. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy bleed-over from other dimensions: Could the Steorn device be drawing energy from another dimension? One thing that occurs to me is that String theory, which has gained credence in mainstream science, points to eleven total dimensions of our Universe. If so, and if this device works as described, then perhaps there is no violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics at all-- but rather the dimensional "frame" involved would simply be larger than the four dimensions that we are most familiar with. The Steorn device might then be opening some kind of cross-brane aperture, either allowing or drawing energy flow into the four traditionally-known dimensions.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic as it is not related to article improvement. Speculating on how the Steorn device works is pointless anyway, since they have failed to convince any independent observer that the device is capable of performing as stated. Do that, and then we'll worry about how it works. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Outright deception

Reflecting on the 50s and Wilhelm Reich and his 'orgone generator boxes' why are steorn allowed to operate? Wilhelm Reich died in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.110.205 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because if you had a climate where people claiming new ideas were not allowed to operate, there would never be any new ideas.

Sean7phil (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Current status?

It is coming up to a year since anything has been publicised about Steorn, do they still exist? The website says "2000-2008" at the bottom, but it doesn't appear to have changed since July last year. 219.88.194.55 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Better to phone them up and ask them than assuming dead based on lack of website updates! 80.169.139.110 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a hoax, and a well-documented one at that. See: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136912-page,3-c,scamshoaxes/article.html Bluerondo (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to accuse people of bad faith unless there is strong evidence. The suggestion that Steorn is a deliberate hoax or publicity stunt was discussed extensively on the talk page at the time that the story broke in 2006, and the consensus was that the claim was likely to be well meaning but misguided. What is more to the point is what Steorn is doing at the moment, and the article could benefit from some updating here. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussions may have well generated a consensus two years ago, but in view of the lack of any evidence since that this miracle machine actually works, it is difficult not to describe it as anything but a hoax. What is more to the point is not what Steorn is doing at the moment, but what Steorn is not doing at the moment. What it is not doing is explaining what happened with its fabulous "infinite energy" machine. Let's see some "strong evidence" regarding that! Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to have fizzled out for Steorn during 2008, with Google News reporting no recent stories at all. It would be hard to find any mainstream scientist prepared to take the claim seriously, so it would be interesting to know how things currently stand for the company. The Steorn website has a developer's forum which can be accessed only with a username and password. Clearly this falls a long way short of peer review, so for the time being the claim must be regarded as having poor supporting evidence.

The use of the word hoax needs some caution, since it is often taken as implying deliberate and premeditated deception. If the people at Steorn were perpetrating a Jeremy Beadle-style prank, they would probably have revealed it to the media by now. Deception for financial gain can be a criminal offence, and this does not seem to be the primary motive behind the claim. The description of Steorn by Sir Eric Ash as "a prolonged case of self-deception" seems to be the most accurate. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that care is needed, and agreed that Eric Ash's view seems more likely. But enough people probably think it is a hoax that it's worth a mention. I think the edit I made makes the point that only some people hold the opinion that it is a hoax, so the article remains balanced. A more reliable source than PC World would be nice, though. GDallimore (Talk) 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Christopher Null of PC World, in contrast [to Eric Ash], believes the company's claims to be a hoax..." but this is not accurate. In PC World Null says "...Steorn's mini-infomercial seems so earnest and honest that it's hard to believe the group is really trying to bilk anyone. Rather, these Irish fellows just seem self-deluded and confused." This is definitely not "in contrast" to Eric Ash's view and is pretty far from calling it an outright hoax. This sentence should be edited, which I will do barring objections. 24.80.63.89 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We could say something like "As of July 2008, Steorn have not produced any evidence of a working Orbo" and keep that sentence updated (2009, 2010...) as needed. 88.32.216.139 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Steorn Developers' Forum

Before going round in circles on this and getting a 3RR block, let's look at what is being said here. The uncontroversial part is that a login is required to access the forum. The forum page does not explain how to register for access, and the edit stating that access is by invitation only is unsourced, and therefore likely to be challenged. The sentence "No statements have been made giving the reasons behind this, which leads to speculation that the company may be hiding either failures or successes" is clearly unencyclopedic and more of a personal comment than a statement of fact. The developers' forum should be mentioned, but within Wikipedia guidelines. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the Date of the 7 Minute Sky News Interview with Sean Mccarthey?

I see no date on the link or the web page holding the videao. Makes it hard to put it in context of the overall story about Steorn claims.

65.101.251.116 (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This interview is also on the Sky website at [5], and it is dated 8 September 2006. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Current status of the company

Where exactly is this 'public money' all we know is that there are share holders, it is not a publicly traded company. How are they able to stay in business? Are they even still operating, or have they been reduced to a web site? ---Wolfe (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does try to give the most up to date information about Steorn. However, there has been little to report during 2008, although the Steorn website is still up and running. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

17 December 2008 - McCarthy to break his silence

A handsome .jpg file hosted on blogspot.com touts:

Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy presents a talk in DIT Bolton Street, Room 134

on

Conservation of Energy
History of claimed perpetual motion machines
Orbo Technology - Principle of Operation

17 December 2008, 18.30

Check out Steorn.com/Talk for more info

The link is to this:

Steorn Talks

Our 'talk' initiative is designed to give people within the technology development community an opportunity to understand the Orbo proposition and ask questions in a direct, face-to-face format.

The programme of talks starts in Dublin on the 17th December 2008 and will involve a sequence of talks in universities around the world, including the US/Europe and the Middle East.

I'll leave it to the eternal optimists/true believers to incorporate this information into the article.

--72.70.9.199 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to add yet. We'll see what coverage these talks get, if any. GDallimore (Talk) 10:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not notable enough for the article at the moment, but it is the first time in many months that Steorn has done something likely to be featured in the media. Watch this space, as the saying goes. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is notable-- the whole article is about Steorns alleged invention and after almost a year of silence the President of the company is going to talk about it.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know "the President of the company is going to talk about it"?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, did anyone manage to find some media coverage of this talk by Sean McCarthy? I had to admit defeat.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the talk, as well as an audio recording can be found here. There seems no media coverage from this particular talk (looking here, the only news item is a reference to an example of an energy scammer). However, talks are planned in the Middle East, Europe and the United States. This source (a pro-Steorn blog) appears to be the most active place for all things Steorn. +mt 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This should go under the 'announcements' section in the article. Along with a note that it didn't happen after being announced, if it didn't.

205.240.11.90 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Did this ever happen? If so are there any sources or videos?

205.240.11.90 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

yes. See my comment above for details. +mt 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

McCarthy Announces New Date for Study Results

In the new talk given at Dublin Institute of Technology in December of 2008, Sean McCarthey announced that the results of the independent studies would be revealed in February of 2009 (in two to six weeks as of this writing). He also said that Steorn would begin licensing the technology in 2009.

That is worthy of an article addition. I don't have the time at the moment but perhaps someone else does, if not I will make the addition soon.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The only available sources are primary (the recording of the talk) and unreliable (a blog) so I disagree that there's anything worthy of addition to the article. Nevertheless, I will add something brief, largely to preclude someone else adding inappropriate contributions that contravene WP:CRYSTAL. GDallimore (Talk) 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. What is a 'primary source'? Why would an audio recording have less value as a source? (I'm guessing its harder to verify if it really was the person, but I'm not sure what the wiki policy is. Although the recording certainly sounds like his voice as is easily recognizable in earlier Steorn videos).

Also on a slightly different track. I wonder if the University of Dublin student or staff newspapers might have an article that cites Sean McCarthys comments or refers to his talk at least. Haven't had time to check though.

Sean7phil (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A primary source is one that is close to an event (Wikipedia:PRIMARY). So, for information about Steorn, the talk given by Steorn is a primary source. It's usually better to use secondary sources (such as the blog) in order to get independent commentary on and interpretation of the primary source and then use that to help write the article rather than analysing Steorn's talk ourselves. The blog isn't a great source, though, (Wikipedia:SOURCES) so if you can fid something published by DIT, I think that would be a great replacement. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sean7phil (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I haven't been able to find any print sources to support the above-mentioned primary (audio) citation. The audio recording of the Steorn December 2008 talk at University of Dublin clearly sounds like Sean McCarthey although this remains a primary source without the customary supporting formally-published print source to cite (as per Wikipedia citation standards). February is upon us however, and at some point this month we should have more.

Sean7phil (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Claim

Per WP:Words to avoid, I'm going to start toning down use of the word "claim" in this article. I realise this might be contentious since a lot of people feel we should belittle Steorn's "claim" to have created energy with a few magnets as that is the only way to avoid promoting fringe theories. However, as a complete disbeliever myself, I think the article puts the counter-evidence across well enough that we, as authors, do not need to add our personal views by using loaded language to describe what Steorn have said they have done. Any comments? GDallimore (Talk) 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we're definitely overusing the word - it comes up five times in the lead alone! Most of the time we should just copyedit to remove the repetition, as the whole subject is pretty much just one big claim, but there's some definite misuse in there ("Steorn believes that the sum of these claims", "Steorn claimed that its advertisement"). --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Steorn claimed that its advertisement" bit was the particular example that made me think the article had gone way too far in the anti-Steorn direction. I've tried rewriting the lead. I'll get back to the rest soon, but feel free to chip in. GDallimore (Talk) 11:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've chipped in. I've also put one instance of "claims" back into the lead ("claiming that they had developed a technology", rather than "saying that"), as this seems a clearer word to use for a pro-active newspaper ad. --McGeddon (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It hardly needs restating that the Steorn concept is an example of WP:REDFLAG. Every law of physics and engineering would be in need of revision if the machine did what it said on the tin. However, it is best to avoid overdoing the word "claim" if only as a style issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this Sean McCarthy?

One of these men is Steorn's Richard Walche - is the other Sean McCarthy? The photo was taken shortly after both had shaved off all their hair as part of a charity fund-raising event. McCarthy's most distinctive feature was his long-hair! --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Sean McCarthy, although I stand to be corrected.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I searched flickr for "steorn" and I saw other images of Steor employees including this person. I know for a fact that he was a Steorn employee at the time of the Orbo affair. Unfortunately in this photo he is pulling an odd face and he is in profile: I've not seen any similar images of Walshe that I can compare it to. Glad to see that 2 years after this silliness people are still watching the Steorn page! --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

30 january 2009

the steorn website doesn't exist anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.35.160 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 January 2009

Looks fine from here. It hasn't been updated since October 2007, but it's still there. --McGeddon (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless the second year is produced by a script that just outputs the current year :-) Xlcus (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! Sexy new web site with the date "4 February 2009" (and nothing else). Maybe they're about to solve the energy crisis after all... ;-) johantheghost (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which means of course that any info in the article reputedly referenced/cited by the website should no longer be there. :). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess they're still (claiming to be) serious... the new site is on line, full of promises of great things to come. I'm having trouble finding any new information, though (except that they now seem to be selling test kit). johantheghost (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried adding mention of this to the end of the opening paragragh of the article and it was almost immediately removed. Can someone who understands wikipedia better than I please put something there? Currently it states (approximately) that "to date, no mention of Steorn technology has been released to the public". I added to that "however a February 4th Press release announced the release of commercial grade Orbo testing technology and has also announced the phased release of Orbo technology during 2009." This sentence disappeared within minutes of posting.

Either I am not using the edit functions correctly (possible)-- or someone is sitting on this site and pouncing on anyone who doesn't match their personal biases (that bias being skepticism about Orbo). Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but shutting down factual and correctly cited statements in the main article would not be fair. Any help would be appreciated. My apologies in advance if I am simply not using the edit functions properly, although I thought that I was and all of my carefully cited article additions but one disappeared within minutes.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it wasn't me who axed your edit, but I would like to comment. You wrote Steorn "announced the release of commercial grade Orbo testing technology". It didn't. It announced release of testing equipment, but did not specify the equipment would test its Orbo technology. Furthermore, it seems to be associated with Orbo technology but not part of that technology. What Steorn said today is also not evidence that its technology works. The inference in your addition needed to be removed. Hope this helps. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And it wasn't removed, it was moved to the appropriate section of the article (as well as being rephrased based more carefully on the annoucement). The lead is intended to summarise important parts of the article itself. An announcement by Steorn that they are selling testing equipment is not an important part of the article merely because it is the first proper announcement from Steorn in almost 2 years.

Indeed, I think there is nothing more to say about this announcement unless some third party picks up on it. A search of Google News yesterday revealed a very amusing opinion piece from EndGadget (gone now, but worth tracking down). A search today reveals this: http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=384756&rel_no=1&back_url=. I think this can be the basis for some edits, largely ignoring anything Steorn have said directly and just reporting what others say about them.

By the way, Sean7phil, please, please check your edits using the "show preview" button before saving them. It will save hugely on subsequent corrections. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Steorn website has had a makeover, but they are still nowhere near convincing independent observers that the machine performs as claimed. The article should avoid giving the impression that the new testing equipment adds anything new to the validity of the claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, the "range" of equipment they offer does not merit mention in the article. So they're selling a Hall probe. That's not a new device. The fact that it measures magnetic fields is a very tenuous connection to the Orbo. That's bait-and-switch for them to say "now we commercialize our technology" while changing the technology from free energy to early 20th-century equipment. Can anyone give a good defense for keeping the test equipment in the article. What if they start selling pencils with the Steorn logo -- is that notable enough to include as well? Spiel496 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it's more than a hall probe, and the main device they're selling is possibly the subject of a patent application published last month (click the external link at the end of the article to search for Steorn patent apps). Also, I can think of a good reason for mentioning this: they've made their own devices for measuring the energy output of the Orbo, and all of the reports of excess energy have been based on the output of those devices. Methinks there's something wrong with their devices. Of course, that's all just speculation on my part and I won't discuss it further here since that's discussing the topic, not the article.

Having said that, I'm more than happy for it not to be there until a reliable source says something interesting about it. GDallimore (Talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If they want to "measure the energy output" of their device, I would suggest a Wattmeter, not a device that only measures magnetic flux variations. So far they have not publicly shown a device that even gives off enough energy for a flashlight light-bulb though. Mahjongg (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the unlikely event of Steorn allowing mainstream scientists to test the machine, here is what should happpen:

Connect the output of the machine to the input and watch what happens next. If the machine is 200% efficient, looping it round again will make it 400% efficient, then 800%, 1600% and so on all the way up to infinity. If the machine cannot do this, then there is little point in saying that more than 100% of the energy is coming out of it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You killjoy, you. ):Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This renewed interest in Steorn has prompted a new round of people wanting to add stuff about the Hall Probe and other gizmos Steorn are selling to the article. I've just found a new source which discusses them - ie a third party source. On this basis, I think it is now worth adding something to the article. Please could anyone who still thinks this should not be mentioned comment here. GDallimore (Talk) 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The third party content is more of a cheap shot than a discussion, don't you think? "...Steorn's free-energy claim was a ruse to improve brand recognition and to help them sell Hall probes." I don't find Thomas Ricker's theory plausible. The number of Hall probe consumers is not large, and I would bet most of them would consider Steorn to be a bunch of wackos. Hall probes still not notable in my opinion. Spiel496 (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Plausibility is not a issue that matters, in my view. If you think the source is not reliable, say so, but if you're going to say simply that you disagree with the source then there is nothing for us to discuss. Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. I'm saying this is an op-ed column and that this statement of opinion is worth mentioning - god knows this article is in need of more reliable third party views on the validity or otherwise of Steorn's claims. I've also put the opinion in an existing paragraph to expand on the commonly raised issue that this is all just a scam.

So, where's the problem in what I've added? GDallimore (Talk) 06:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fired some of the key people

This is a small, private company according to the lead in our article. So why then did we list every tom dick and harry as key people. Check out Sony or BMW, who don't have a long list. Also, it was interesting that key people for this Information and energy technology company were a chief financial officer, a marketing manager and the corporate finance and strategy boss. Hmmmmm. I've removed them. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.0.40 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

no electromagnetic component

I removed the phrase "no electromagnetic component" from the section describing the technology, because I can't figure out what it means. Literally, it would mean there aren't even magnets, so that can't be right. The phrase was lifted from the reference [6]. Does anyone know what they intended to say? Should it have been "no electromagnets"? Spiel496 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, they seem to claim the motor does not have any electromagnets, only permanent magnets. Mahjongg (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why Spiel is confused. You seem to be saying that "no electromagnetic component" means that there are "no magnets or any kind, even permanent magnets". I don't see how you have reached that interpretation. "no electromagnetic component" is a bit techno-babblish, but I didn't think it was that unclear. Suggest changing it to simply "no electromagnets" if Spiel can clear up where the confusion was in case I've misunderstood something. GDallimore (Talk) 10:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem is (was) that "electromagnetic" means "of or related to electromagnetism", which is a huge topic. Electromagnetism isn't just electromagnets; it's the force that holds electrons to atoms; it is light; it is the reason one object can push on another. So, changing it to "no electromagnets", fixed the grammar. Sorry if I was being too literal. Spiel496 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the ignorance here, but is there any reliable info on what the Steorn device actually does? Inventors have claimed many times that wheels with magnets on the rim being deflected by other magnets can produce perpetual motion, despite all the evidence that they cannot. Here is a video of someone testing the idea.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, that's very much along the lines of what Steorn are saying (although there's presmuably a little more to it than that, hence my removal of "permanent" before "magnet" in a recent edit). We've already got someone quoted in the Responses section saying that Steorn are the latest in the long line of people to have "discovered" some amazing property of magnetism. More seriously, there's so little info on the device that this whole edit flurry was probably a bit pointless. I was tempted to just put it back the way it was, but put it in quotes, since we're all just guessing what Steorn mean so it's perhaps wrong to try to rephrase what they say in a way that makes sense. GDallimore (Talk) 15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer to ianmacm's question is "no". Even when an engineer does invent something real, the description from the CEO is often unintelligible. I find very little substance in the "Details" section. The only objective and informative bit is the Eric Ash quote "the Orbo is a mechanical device which uses powerful magnets on the rim of a rotor and further magnets on an outer shell". McCarthy's quote is gibberish: "...when you travel round the magnetic fields..."? Who is traveling around the magnetic fields? And the 285% efficiency report is meaningless without saying what two things were ratioed. The puddle of real information being dry, this article has resorted to drinking sand. Spiel496 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you drink sand? :). Other than that, I agree. Oh, and in response to your earlier comment, I understand what you're saying about "electromagnetic component", but I think that, in context, such a broad interpretation of "electromagnetic" wouldn't be logical.

By the way, given that there seem to be a few people with their eye on this at the moment and also given that there are unlikely to be any new facts to report before the end of 2009, do we think we could do a big clean-up and get this article to GA status? I think with a bit of a tidy of the whole "free energy claim" section, reducing the number of sub-sections and combining it with the subsequent "details" and "responses" sections, we'd be well on the way to something good. GDallimore (Talk) 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction was "that would be a massive clean-up!". But as I read the article from the beginning, it actually seems in pretty good shape. I think it's solid up to the "Details" section. I propose "Details" and "Responses" be merged into one section, which conveys

No details have been released
The second-hand descriptions (mechanical device with permanent magnets)
Eric Ash's opinion ('cause he actually met with Steorn).

I recommend eliminating:

The efficiency percentages (meaningless, as pointed out earlier)
Scalability claims (it violates the principles of physics and engineering, but they know how it scales?)
Eric Berger quote (speculation on Steorn's motivation behind a speculated hoax)

I don't know:

Barry Williams quote -- good quote, but hearsay; he hasn't seen the equipment

Williams never commented on the equipment. His point is that Steorn is not the first company to claim discovery of the miraculous property of magnetism that allows you to get free energy. Remember? This article is about the company called Steorn. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Spiel496 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Spiel496 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, let's lose the claims of scalability. Of course any machine with more than 100% efficiency is scalable (you just connect the output of one to the input of the next, et voila). However, the source where that quote comes from looks to be quite useful (ABC news) and I think it can be used to replace the Eric Berger quote. I like the Eric Berger bit because it's a statement about one of the two widely accepted possibilities: (a) Steorn are wrong and they know it and are committing some sort of fraud or (b) Steorn are wrong and they don't realise it (per Eric Ash). The article should keep at least some mention of the possibility that it's a fraud.

Suggest something along the lines of "some scientists believe this must be a fraud <ABC ref> but Sir Eric Ash, after meeting with McCarthy, said..."

If I get a chance, I'll go over some of this tonight. GDallimore (Talk) 09:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like that wording.

Regarding the scalability, the concept that two devices would generate twice as much energy as one should be "obvious", but so is the conservation of energy. We've been asked to throw out all that old thinking, though. For all we know, the universe can support only seven operating Orbos. Spiel496 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Got distracted by other things, so can't put the necessary focus on this now. With some effort if we can find the impetus between us, I see a bright future for this article. One powered by Orbo's no doubt! GDallimore (Talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Orbo "exposed"

Some interesting speculation on how Orbo works (or rather why it doesn't work) here: [7] Mahjongg (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the Orbo device seems to be a variation of the overbalancing wheel, which is a favourite meme in the world of perpetual motion theories.[8]. If this idea actually worked, it would have been proved long ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mahjongg, that is a good link. Clicking through, I was led to [9] which shows a movie of McCarthy explaining the failed demo. This fairly long interview could be a source of material for the article. One thing I learned (at about 3:30 into the video) was that the device uses very low-friction bearings. McCarthy talks about a usual spin-down time of three minutes of the rotor alone (no magnets?), but that the failed bearings were spinning down in just 20 seconds. That says to me that they have a device that is so well built that it almost runs forever just because of low friction. So even a slight amount of energy sneaking in is going to tip the energy balance towards not slowing down at all. Where might this energy be coming from? My unfounded hypothesis is demagnetization of the magnets. Aligning the ferromagnetic domains in an object requires adding energy to it; it's conceivable that a device could be made to slightly demagnetize a magnet and use some of that released energy for mechanical motion. Spiel496 (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I put quotes around the word "exposed" in the title of this discussion section in order to emphasize dispassionate neutrality.

Sean7phil (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is a solenoid, above the magnet, with changes polarity causing a magnet to be attracted toward the solenoid, causing the magnet to move (production of energy). When the magnet reaches the solenoid the solenoid change polarity causing the magnet to drop (producing energy).Irrito (talk)

ZeroF

They appear to have another product, called "ZeroF": http://www.steorn.com/enterprise/zerof/ --Cheese Sandwich (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

it appears they now also claim to have invented "ZeroFriction", another pipe dream. Their terms are too fuzzy to be sure this is what they are actually claiming though, but a zero-friction bearing would fit well with their other claims, see the thread above this one. Mahjongg (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jury Reports!

Steorn press release

Announcement by the Jury

List of Jury members

Text of the Announcement:

Posted by Ian MacDonald on January 20, 2009 at 7:47pm

Announcement

In August 2006 the Irish company Steorn published an advertisement in the Economist announcing the development of “a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy”. Qualified experts were sought to form a “jury” to validate these claims.
Twenty-two independent scientists and engineers were selected by Steorn to form this jury. It has for the past two years examined evidence presented by the company. The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy. The jury is therefore ceasing work.
The jury consists of scientists and engineers in relevant fields from Europe and North America, from industry, universities and government laboratories. Information about individual members can be found at http://stjury.ning.com/

R.I.MacDonald Chairman, Steorn Jury

Note the date of the Announcement. Note today's date. --71.162.84.11 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This was added to the lead section by an IP. I held off on adding this yesterday, partly because of WP:SPS, and partly to see if everyone was happy with saying that the jury process concluded that the Steorn device did not function as stated. Is this OK for the article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add, so I've tidied and have corrected the date of the posting (Jan was an error). Hopefully some reliable sources will pick up this news so that some more responses can be added, but it sounds as though the jury are remaining pretty tight-lipped. GDallimore (Talk) 07:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a puzzle how the jury announcement is dated 24 June 2009 when it was available on 22 June.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The comments suggest it was actually 21 June, but that an error was made and it was posted with a January date. Then it was corrected, but corrected to 24 June... I've just put "June" in the article since Steorn hasn't helped by failing to date their press release at all! GDallimore (Talk) 09:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This shows the Steorn press release was dated 22 June 2009. -71.162.85.27 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Been searching for third party reports on this. A couple of blogs have picked it up, but I'm averse to citing those on "reliability" grounds. However, one of those blogs is from Ben Goldacre. If anyone spots him writing about this in the Guardian, then that should definitely be added to the article. Eyes sharp, people! :) GDallimore (Talk) 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Times covers it (this is the paper of record in Ireland): http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0624/1224249416758.html Bokononist (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well... It's a report adverse to Steorn and yet Steorn accepts it and references it on its own official proprietary web page. I think that's enough evidence for it and took the liberty to add it to the main article. I think those interested in Steorn deserve to read this and Steorn's acknowledgement seems to be to be excellent authentication of it. I edited the entry about the jury report to add the reference to the Irish Times (thanks, Bokonist).Maryyugo (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits because everything you added was already in the article! GDallimore (Talk) 07:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Another "Grew Like Topsy" article

This article jumps all over the show, which is often the norm for Wiki articles that have been added to in dribs and drabs over time. It needs rewriting. I'll get around to it hopefully today, but if not, then tomorrow. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article - Such quackery is COMMONPLACE AND NOT NOTABLE

Don't "improve" the article, DELETE IT!

Guys, you all know this is all crapola, right? (Unless you are uneducated and/or naive yourself) This kind of garbage is all too common throughout history and one more is not notable. Maybe include this latest** fraud in an article about modern quackery or about magical thinking, but this is NOT SUITABLE for Wikipedia and it's NOT NOTABLE.

** "Latest" doesn't even apply because this kind of quackery constantly pops up over and over. At any time there are dozens of people trying to commercialize magic, AND getting naive investors as well.

71.174.198.218 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This misses the point, because Steorn has established sufficient notability with independent sources to be worth a Wikipedia article. The use of terms like "fraud" and "quackery" comes across as an attempt to promote a point of view, which would not make for encyclopedic tone. Agree that free energy claims are common on the Internet, but not many have picked up as much independent coverage as this one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I think using "fraud" and "quackery" is simply calling a spade "a spade". It's an "Emperor's New Clothes" kind of thing - something that is much needed to be said about the "free energy" and "water-powered car" crowd (and their gullible investors). It's not something that would be put in the article (particularly if it was deleted of course). I imagine you will agree that neutral point of view is required only in the article itself, "points of view" in this discussion are A-okay. Not only are free energy claims commonplace, but so are the gathering of and bilking of investors, and the making of news. It is my "well-considered POV" that yet more quackery and bilking and news-making should not be considered notable -- unless as an example of the class of activity, which would be notable. There. :-)

--71.174.198.218 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of words like "fraud" and "quackery" would be removed on the grounds of WP:SOAPBOX. It is enough to state that the Steorn device violates all current laws of physics and engineering. The word "fraud" is also potentially libellous, since it implies bad faith or criminal activity. The only really notable thing about the Steorn claim so far is how well marketed it has been. It is also inaccurate to compare it to free energy schemes where members of the public have been asked to invest large sums of money, because Steorn has not done this. It helps from time to time to look at why claims of free energy fall into the WP:REDFLAG category, and the article includes a quote from Eric Ash, who was asked to look at the device for the BBC.[10]

your well written paragraph demonstrates that you do not understand the history of scams concern perpetual motion machines. But think of them as the ponzi schemes of the world of physics applied to investors who do not understand physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.61.224 (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, I am well aware that some people have set up dubious investment schemes based on free energy machines. Steorn has not done this, and the main criticism of Steorn has been that it has been unable to verify its claims independently.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please listen. If you want the article deleted, you can't do it by discussing it here. You need to go to WP:AfD and follow the instructions there to nominate this article through the normal process. As everyone here is telling you, however, you haven't got a chance in hell of having this deleted so I suggest just giving it up. Either way, there's no point commenting here. GDallimore (Talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This actually seems to be a different IP just wanting to add their own WP:OR thoughts to Wikipedia, I don't think they want the article deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm confused, but this contribution (now deleted) made me think it was the same person. Perhaps the anon could clarify or WP:create an account if they want to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't advocate use of "fraud" or "quackery" in the article. I advocated deleting the article for non-notability. If Steorn hasn't asked for money, that is a simple fact which does not affect notability. "Fraud" and "quackery" are mere descriptors relating the activity in the article to so much other similar activity.

"Fraud" needs intent to deceive to apply. "Quackery", not so. If there is no intent to deceive, they are deceiving themselves, and thus it is quackery! Fraud or quackery, one or the other. The emperor has no clothes and yet has (like many others) succeeded in creating publicity (ho hum). It is not a soapbox to straightforwardly declare violations of laws of physics (esp. on talk page), nor is it a soapbox to do so with passion! :-). Belief in such magic, while putting forth an image of knowledge to support it is quackery. A spade is a spade. Quackery, Quackery, Quackery. In as much as the principals know (or suspect) the physics to be impossible, it is fraud. There is no libel here, just commonplace quackery. "Good marketing" is commonplace and not notable.

Retaining this article degrades Wikipedia unless the material in the article is properly framed as merely an example of the class of activity. Delete the article and add some of the material to the perpetual motion article. The (admirable!) creativity and ingenuity of us humans in devising such things, and the faith we show in pushing aside contrary information might also be added to the perpetual motion article. It's a psychology thing, an ingenuity thing, and also an incomplete education thing. That's where the notability is, not in one more example of the same old thing.

72.93.188.22 (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (same guy)

We seem to be at permanent cross purposes here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog where likes and dislikes can enter the equation. The coverage by the BBC, Irish Times etc is what establishes the notability, not whether the claim is true or not. Shouting "quackery" is not going to make the claim go away, so people can look at the evidence in the Wikipedia article and make up their own minds. The last time I looked, the current laws of physics were still intact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, pal. It's still quackery and Wikipedia should not be seen to add publicity to the same old thing. "Shouting" "quackery" is not intended to "make a claim go away". "Confidently using" words like "quackery" is intended to label the activity as the same thing as the same old non-notable thing, as I've said over and over, which you've ignored.

72.93.188.22 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the laws of physics are going to come crumbling down over this article, but if you really dislike it, it can be nominated for deletion. This would need to satisfy Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and a consensus would need to be established. See also the General notability guideline.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article is too long to adsorb into perpetual motion, and part of the length is the important information about the fail demonstration, the unanimous negative vote of the jury, and the intended commercialization in spite of this. IMHO, this article is a wonderful example of quackery that is valuable. Paul Studier (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to some bias, and people who live in the UK or Ireland may find this more notable than in other countries, since this is where most of the coverage has been. If The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman can have its own article, then so can Steorn. It more than meets WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no point discussing this here. If someone wants the article deleted (or merged) on notability grounds, they need to go through the process at WP:AfD. It's not particularly hard to follow, just requiring the addition of some standardised templates in order to open it up to a wider discussion among non-involved editors. My (non)vote would be WP:Snowball, though. GDallimore (Talk) 07:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to Free Energy Suppression

The article links to an article on the above, but no mention is made of anyone claiming that Steorns' alleged device is being suppressed. Given that not even Steorn claims that, is there any point in the article keeping the link? Autarch (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are many small improvments like this which could be made to the article, which is why the current protection is all the more galling. The whole free-energy claim section is still in need of better organisation

Edit protected request to

remove the see also link to Free energy suppression spotted by Autarch
change the sub-section heading from "Jury" to "Jury process" which is slightly clearer and actually might help address one of the complaints raised by Irrito. GDallimore (Talk) 09:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 09:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Autarch (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Views on the technology

OK, another section to look at. I really like the comments by Eric Ash saying that Steorn's use of religious sounding words like "dogma" is completely inappropriate in a scientific context. I've seen similar comments somewhere about Steorn's Jury process, saying that forming a "jury" is not good scientific practice for validating or denying a claim. Has anyone else seen that, or know which source it might be. I think that could fit into the article very nicely. GDallimore (Talk) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not the way I want the page to look but all things considered, I normally don't get what I want. Thanks for doing your best to balance the Steorn Wikipedia website.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Archived from Talk:Orbo on 2010-10-12

Orbo Talk

It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.26.53 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 February 2007

Indeed. Why is this being treated as a real thing? Perpetual motion machines *don't work*. That's not an opinion, it's not a bias, it's an indisputable, unarguable, irrevocable fact. Start arguing otherwise and you might as well say that 1+1=2 is only a theory. This is absurd.--Eric TF Bat 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything is possible. What if they found another source of energy? For example, before nuclear energy were discovered, some device generating energy (heat) by nuclear reaction, would look as a violation of conservation of energy. Personally, I don't believe in their claims, but, let them try to prove them. 81.94.145.74 07:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Expanding the article. Ideas? --Satsuki 09:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea! Delete the article! Advertisements by criminals are not notable!--Eric TF Bat 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This site is going to be hit a lot by vandalism. I can see it now! :P --Satsuki 10:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but we have to be fair and non-partisan. The latest edit might be seen as vandalism, but as "free energy" has no contextual value, and "perpetual motion" does, it seems (though somewhat negative in nature) to be an accurate edit. Personally, I think some mention of electromagentics needs to be made, as that appears to be the focus of the device (from what little I was able to glean from the website). --Snicker^|¥°^€| 14:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to change it back in the first line, at least. Free energy is the phrase used by Steorn in their own description of the technology, so I think it's more accurate and more fair to use that phrase. I'll leave the change to the line about it being a theoretical impossibility. Nleseul 15:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I added information on the history of the Orbo brand name but mistakenly checked minor edit box.

Tellurion 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to read more about their technology. How exactly do they try to get the free energy. Maybe sometime we could make it a part of perpetual motion article. 81.94.145.74 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

redirecting the page

consider deleting the page and redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn#Free-energy_claim It duplicates anyway, and "Steorn", not "Orbo" is the name most people associate with this. Kirils