The Irish technology company, Steorn, has made the claim that it has achieved over-unity; the ability to get more energy out of a device than is put in - a clear violation of the laws of physics as they are currently understood.
In spite of making this claim, inviting scientists from around the world to prove Steorn wrong through testing of their technology, and setting up a forum for the discussion of said technology, the company has yet to show the world a working device.
Some have criticized these actions and questioned the logic behind not showing the world a working over-unity device yet.
To me, the logic is simple.
Let's say that you, the reader, develop a start-stop purely-mechanical device that produces over-unity. It's unlikely, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume you do.
One can patent technology, but not the scientific principles underlying it.
If you patent your start-stop device and start selling it, you'll make money until someone develops a continuous-motion device based on the aforementioned scientific principles.
At that point, you'll make no money at all, because the continuous-motion version is more desirable and marketable.
The developer of the continuous-motion device will make money until someone develops a solid-state device, at which point the continuous-motion device will be as worthless as the start-stop one.
You could go ahead and market the start-stop version and hope that you're lucky enough to develop the continuous-motion and solid-state devices before anyone else, but that would be risky.
Your best bet would be to not reveal your technology until you developed the solid-state device yourself.
Let's speculate and assume that Steorn developed a start-stop over-unity device and wanted to develop the solid-state version, but was unable to work it out.
The thing to do would be to hire scientists to figure out the underlying principles so as to facilitate the development of more advanced versions of the technology.
But, maybe what Steorn claimed was true; getting scientists to work with them was harder than they originally thought... hence, the placement of the advertisement in the Economist last August for scientists to figure out the principles behind their admittedly-accidental discovery.
The ad generated enough interest to form a "Jury" of scientists to study the technology under non-disclosure agreements.
Some have questioned why the Jury results have been taking so long to be made public.
Speculating again, maybe Steorn needed time to work the kinks out of the continuous-motion and solid-state versions of the technology using the input from the Jury.
Thus, Steorn's actions are consistent with their claim of an accidental discovery of ground-breaking technology and difficulty interesting the scientific world in the discovery. And, the company is showing good business acumen.
It's be stupid to let the cat out of the bag and end up famous, yet poor.
In spite of making this claim, inviting scientists from around the world to prove Steorn wrong through testing of their technology, and setting up a forum for the discussion of said technology, the company has yet to show the world a working device.
Some have criticized these actions and questioned the logic behind not showing the world a working over-unity device yet.
To me, the logic is simple.
Let's say that you, the reader, develop a start-stop purely-mechanical device that produces over-unity. It's unlikely, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume you do.
One can patent technology, but not the scientific principles underlying it.
If you patent your start-stop device and start selling it, you'll make money until someone develops a continuous-motion device based on the aforementioned scientific principles.
At that point, you'll make no money at all, because the continuous-motion version is more desirable and marketable.
The developer of the continuous-motion device will make money until someone develops a solid-state device, at which point the continuous-motion device will be as worthless as the start-stop one.
You could go ahead and market the start-stop version and hope that you're lucky enough to develop the continuous-motion and solid-state devices before anyone else, but that would be risky.
Your best bet would be to not reveal your technology until you developed the solid-state device yourself.
Let's speculate and assume that Steorn developed a start-stop over-unity device and wanted to develop the solid-state version, but was unable to work it out.
The thing to do would be to hire scientists to figure out the underlying principles so as to facilitate the development of more advanced versions of the technology.
But, maybe what Steorn claimed was true; getting scientists to work with them was harder than they originally thought... hence, the placement of the advertisement in the Economist last August for scientists to figure out the principles behind their admittedly-accidental discovery.
The ad generated enough interest to form a "Jury" of scientists to study the technology under non-disclosure agreements.
Some have questioned why the Jury results have been taking so long to be made public.
Speculating again, maybe Steorn needed time to work the kinks out of the continuous-motion and solid-state versions of the technology using the input from the Jury.
Thus, Steorn's actions are consistent with their claim of an accidental discovery of ground-breaking technology and difficulty interesting the scientific world in the discovery. And, the company is showing good business acumen.
It's be stupid to let the cat out of the bag and end up famous, yet poor.
