What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?

[Mojo]

It would be nice if they put all of that GBS quotation on their website.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Best to hold off judgement until actual facts are in.

 

[CFLarsen]

How is directly stating what they are interested in, and what they will do, "evasive manuevering"?

One might not approve (of ignoring challenging from a few in the biased skeptical movement), but it is not being evasive, it is being pretty direct.

So, Victor Zammit's Challenge is valid?

Zammit also chooses his own "scientists" to review the evidence.

 

[Horatius]

How is directly stating what they are interested in, and what they will do, "evasive manuevering"?

One might not approve (of ignoring challenging from a few in the biased skeptical movement), but it is not being evasive, it is being pretty direct.

The thing is, the only "direct" stating they've done is their claim to having free energy. Everything else is a mass of obfuscation. Watch their video at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1784833525509845733

A bunch of feel-good platitudes, a few metaphors, but no actual information. Nothing there that anyone who would like to replicate their findings could use.

They've been running a forum, and have said they'd answer questions, but as of today, still no questions answered in their FAQ.

Then there's the Guardian Article where they "showed" him the apparatus.

According to McCarthy and Walshe, the marketing manager, there have been no fewer than eight independent validations of their work conducted by electrical engineers and academics "with multiple PhDs" from world-class universities. But none of them will talk to me, even off the record. I am promised a diagram explaining how the system works, but then Steorn holds it back, saying its lawyers are concerned about intellectual property rights. And that European partner, the one with the moving, almost perpetual, prototypes? It won't talk to me either and Steorn has undertaken not to name it.

Bogus. They claim they've already filed their patent applications.

Steorn says it has seven patents pending on its technology

That would cover any IP issues. Either they're lying, or they should fire their IP lawyer for incompetence. And of course, they won't name anyone else who's ever looked at the device.

According to McCarthy and Walshe, the marketing manager, there have been no fewer than eight independent validations of their work conducted by electrical engineers and academics "with multiple PhDs" from world-class universities. But none of them will talk to me, even off the record.

So, with all this hoopla, why haven't any of these 8 people come forward? They're interested enough to study the device, but not interested enough to say anything about it?

I call Shenanigans on this.

So, can you show me anywhere that they've actually said anything of any significance, other than their bald claims of free energy, and platitudes about how great things will be?

 

[CFLarsen]

So, with all this hoopla, why haven't any of these 8 people come forward? They're interested enough to study the device, but not interested enough to say anything about it?

So, can you show me anywhere that they've actually said anything of any significance, other than their bald claims of free energy, and platitudes about how great things will be?

These questions will be ignored.

 

[Horatius]

These questions will be ignored.

Yeah, but asking them makes me feel better.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Here's a guy who ought to have tea with Randi.
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/rupertgoodwins/0,39020691,39281444,00.htm

I got caught up reading the responses/posts and a few other of his articles, but I think he summarizes things pretty succinctly. Heck, he's our kind of skeptic - he even phoned Steorn and got Sean on the line and interviewed him!

It's either BS or BS (Bad Science or Bull***t). On his referral, I checked out their website. For the developers of the most revolutinary technology in the past three hundred years, it's certainly missing a few things. It's a slick PR job, nothing more.

Notable:
No FAQ. Sean is JAQ like most tin-foilers. Just asking questions.... or actually Just Asking You to Ask Us Questions so that we can fill up our FAQ, since oh, ummm, absolutely no one has asked us any questions yet and we wouldn't know what to put in an FAQ section.
The request to their forum to ask the questions has been out there since September 1. Surely in that time Sean could have picked up ONE question to post in the FAQ?

So far, I'd say it's Nonsense 10:Science 0 (Still early in the first half, so maybe Steorn scores a try before half-time and makes it closer.)

FAQ 1: Where are and who are these 8 experts they say they've had view their device and certify "Ohmigod, it works!" One of these experts must be currently replicating it in his garage if he/they really exist.

FAQ 2: Best conclusion from the threads: This would extend the boundaries of physics. You cannot copyright the laws of physics. What are they intending to do with their hush-hush secret device and why keep it a secret? Post the plans and let the scientiifc community have at it.

T'ai Chi - stop constantly referring to "skeptics". We're asking that they release it to scientists as a whole. No litmus test. Toss it out there and let MIT and Stamford and the JPL have at it. Sure it'd bankrupt Exxon, but who cares. It would make flights to Mars a daily event, FOR FREE!

 

[Grimoire]

Best to hold off judgement until actual facts are in.

There are actual facts.
Fact: Steorn claims to have invented a free energy device.
Fact: Steorn has yet to release a free energy product to the public..
Fact: Steorn is hiring scientists so that they will "validate" their technology.
Fact: It doesn't matter what any number of any type of scientists say. If the technology works, the market WILL buy it. Did the Wright brothers go out and hire scientists to validate their heavier than air work? No. They built one and flew it. Game over, it worked.
Fact: As soon as a scientist is paid by Steorn, they are no longer independent.
Fact: If the results are release by or through Steorn, they are not independent results.
Fact: Results that are not independent cannot be viewed as reliable.
Fact: All good scientists are skeptical.

Who cares if a bunch of scientists hired by Steorn says their product works? I certainly don't. If it works, it will be pretty damned obvious, no scientists needed. "Hey look, it keeps spinning faster and faster, even when unplugged." If they build one that works, I will be the first in line to buy it, no matter what the cost.

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi - stop constantly referring to "skeptics".

I referred to challenges from organizations in the skeptical movement, which is the million dollar challenge is one of. If you don't like that factual terminology, there's not much I can do about that.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There are actual facts.
Fact: Steorn claims to have invented a free energy device.
Fact: Steorn has yet to release a free energy product to the public..
Fact: Steorn is hiring scientists so that they will "validate" their technology.
Fact: It doesn't matter what any number of any type of scientists say. If the technology works, the market WILL buy it. Did the Wright brothers go out and hire scientists to validate their heavier than air work? No. They built one and flew it. Game over, it worked.
Fact: As soon as a scientist is paid by Steorn, they are no longer independent.
Fact: If the results are release by or through Steorn, they are not independent results.
Fact: Results that are not independent cannot be viewed as reliable.
Fact: All good scientists are skeptical.

As I pointed out before, members of the skeptical movement tend to leave out the very important

Fact: They say they will make their results available for public scrutiny, so regardless of perceived biases in their process, anyone will be able to critique it.

 

[Dancing David]

It looks like Steorn is asking for independent scientists (not biased skeptical organizations) to review their work.

A few people are just suggesting it is only PR.

So what does one have against independent scientists reviewing work instead of paying attenting to a challenge from the skeptical movement?

(not biased skeptical organizations)


You so silly Tai Chi, you go and be on comedy show, make lots of people laugh! You make big money.

I challenge yopu, and you can't answer the following questions:

1. What bias could a sceptical organization have that would effect the outcome of a study?

2. What level of independance does someone have who is answering a newpaper ad?

3. Will the researchers be chosen independantly?

4. Why not just send the thingee to UL and MIT or whatever other equivalents there may be?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I referred to challenges from organizations in the skeptical movement, which is the million dollar challenge is one of. If you don't like that factual terminology, there's not much I can do about that.

Ah, I see. It's not the question that they are being challenged on their Bad Science that you're concerned about, it's that a skeptic organization has deigned to question them?

Why? Steorn themselves threw out the challenge in their advert for the panel of 12. They did not specifically ask for James Randi to make a tongue firmly in cheek prediction of their intentions and ultimate demise, but they specifically DID ask for "the most qualified and the most cynical", though.

http://www.steorn.net/media/downloads/steorn_ad01_screen.pdf

If you haven't seen it, that's their advert in the Economist. A hundred thousand pounds in an organ known more for its readership of investors than scientists, I'd say. They could have posted two lines on a couple of scientific blogs and found as many applicants, and they'd have had the hundred thou left over to build about seven of their devices, too.

Sorry, but something doesn't wash - you're normally far more analytical and detail oriented than this string. Why are you willing to suspend belief on this topic so readily?

 

[CFLarsen]

As I pointed out before, members of the skeptical movement tend to leave out the very important

Fact: They say they will make their results available for public scrutiny, so regardless of perceived biases in their process, anyone will be able to critique it.

The most important of all (which you won't talk about):

Fact: They haven't published anything that anyone can look at.

They claim that they have these results, but where are they?

 

[Horatius]

As I pointed out before, members of the skeptical movement tend to leave out the very important

Fact: They say they will make their results available for public scrutiny, so regardless of perceived biases in their process, anyone will be able to critique it.

Fact, you ignored:

Fact: If the results are release by or through Steorn, they are not independent results.
Fact: Results that are not independent cannot be viewed as reliable.

If the results are only available through Steorn, we have no way of knowing if they are accurate, or complete fabrications. From what we've seen so far, these guys look more like con artists than scientists, so why would we trust their integrity?

Why have all their public appearances been by the CEO and accountant, and not the engineers who allegedly invented the device?

 

[T'ai Chi]

So if the result are poor, then people will see they are poor, regardless of the leadup (and politics and debate and frustratedly ignored organized skeptical movement) to how the results were obtained.

 

[CFLarsen]

So if the result are poor, then people will see they are poor, regardless of the leadup (and politics and debate and frustratedly ignored organized skeptical movement) to how the results were obtained.

Why should we believe the results, if they are not poor?

 

[T'ai Chi]

That is just how things are I guess. How would you improve it?

 

[CFLarsen]

That is just how things are I guess. How would you improve it?

Wait a minute. Are you saying that if the results are not poor, you will believe them?

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you believe so.

Now, to get this thread back on track, what is wrong with ignoring the challenge, any challenge by the organized skeptical movement, as having anything to do with the standard scientific process that everyone is entitled to?

 

[Horatius]

If you believe so.

Now, to get this thread back on track, what is wrong with ignoring the challenge, any challenge by the organized skeptical movement, as having anything to do with the standard scientific process that everyone is entitled to?

So, why don't we just bend the track back on itself. I've told you what's wrong, so let's not go through the same process again.

Why don't you tell us what's wrong with doing it the standard, scientific way, rather than the "Steorn Special" way.