What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?

[Snadert]

Hashes have collisions. That is my original point. There are far more (infinite in fact) different possible files, yet a finite number of MD5 hashes. That means one hash can apply to more than one file. It is NOT unique.

I know that MD5 has collisions, but that's not the point. I referred to hashing because of the nature of the algorithm.

Sloots invention worked. That is for sure. A whole new venture was built upon it. The ultimate question is how? Software engineers spoke with Sloot about data compression. To their surprise Sloot didn't even know exactly how compression (i.e. LZW) worked, and he had only a vague understanding of it. So it was obvious that his algorithm had nothing to do with datacompression, something that was assumed by many.

Pity that most of you folks can't read Dutch. There is a website dedicated to the book about Sloot, called 'De broncode' (the sourcecode). Many interesting things can be found here, including TV broadcasts. Take a look at debroncode.nl (add www).

So far, Steorn has only laid a claim about its over-unity machine. No description, no demo, no working device... nada.. zip.

 

[Snadert]

Hashes have collisions. That is my original point. There are far more (infinite in fact) different possible files, yet a finite number of MD5 hashes. That means one hash can apply to more than one file. It is NOT unique.

I know that MD5 has collisions, but that's not the point. I referred to hashing because of the nature of the algorithm.

Sloots invention worked. That is for sure. A whole new venture was built upon it. The ultimate question is how? Software engineers spoke with Sloot about data compression. To their surprise Sloot didn't even know exactly how compression (i.e. LZW) worked, and he had only a vague understanding of it. So it was obvious that his algorithm had nothing to do with datacompression, something that was assumed by many.

Pity that most of you folks can't read Dutch. There is a website dedicated to the book about Sloot, called 'De broncode' (the sourcecode). Many interesting things can be found here, including TV broadcasts. Take a look at debroncode.nl (add www).

So far, Steorn has only laid a claim about its over-unity machine. No description, no demo, no working device... nada.. zip.

 

[CFLarsen]

From what I've read is that he repeatedly said that his invention was easy to replicate and he was very afraid that someone else would grab the money and run.

And yet, he lends the invention to someone else?

 

[Snadert]

And yet, he lends the invention to someone else?

Yes.... because of the dangling $20.000.000,- above his head. In fact, the device was sealed, but the seal appeared to be broken after Pieper returned form his businesstrip. So someone took a sneek peek. It remains unclear who and when.

 

[SirPhilip]

Why are scientists even required. They claim to generate power, or at least motive force, greater than input. Let it run something indefinitely, or at least generate power to light a bulb continuously.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.... because of the dangling $20.000.000,- above his head. In fact, the device was sealed, but the seal appeared to be broken after Pieper returned form his businesstrip. So someone took a sneek peek. It remains unclear who and when.

But, whoever peeked, has not come up with a similar device.

Red flags, everywhere.

 

[Horatius]

But, the issue was that a Patent does not necessarily contain enough details to reconstruct a device or algorithm and still can be valid. Therefore I brought up the Sloot case. I think if we want to discuss Sloot and his invention we should do so in a separate thread.

By US patent law, a patent must describe the invention fully, or it is not considered valid. You can't partially describe an invention and still be granted a defensible patent. I suspect this is true for most other countries. The fact that the patent doesn't actually work is more evidence that Sloot was a scam artist.

Why do I continue with this side track in a thread about Steorn? Because it is so similar to what Steorn is doing. They are claiming to have done something that is impossible, yet other no evidence. Everything screams scam, right down to hiring "experts".

Well, by law, a good patent is supposed to enable a skilled person to reproduce the patented technology. Of course, for those who are trying to scam people, there are ways around this, and if you go looking, you'll find lots of patents for questionable devices that don't meet the requirements for an enabling disclosure.

However, such methods are almost always used only by those who are scam artists. A legitimate inventor won't do such things, because they would make the patent invalid, if ever it was taken to court. That would leave them with no protection to their invention at all. So if Sloot's patents really don't give enough information to reproduce his methods, than I'm inclined to say, he was either a fraud, or very badly mis-informed as to how to write a patent.

 

[SirPhilip]

So far, Steorn has only laid a claim about its over-unity machine. No description, no demo, no working device... nada.. zip.

Steorn's efforts do for all practical purposes, look to be on the up and up.

"Steorn states that post validation, irrespective of the results, Steorn will publish the analysis of the jury on its website. It will then seek to license the technology in various markets and will also launch its own products that it is currently developing."

I can't otherwise figure out what they'd be trying to accomplish. But matter having arised out of space, conceptually, if such a thing were possible, it would involve a type of spacial configuration. Matter can't generate energy out of 'nowhere'.

 

[Snadert]

Matter can't generate energy out of 'nowhere'.

Isn't that exactly what Steorn is suggesting?

Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.
The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

... it would involve a type of spacial configuration.

What do you mean by that? A huge device, brought into space?

 

[SirPhilip]

Red flags, everywhere.

They can't themselves 'unveil' it yet, so if someone "peeked" how would that out it one way or another..

 

[SirPhilip]

Maybe. But why lie about how his contraption works?

They directly lied?

 

[Darat]

Well, by law, a good patent is supposed to enable a skilled person to reproduce the patented technology.

...snip...

And if the excuse is that he was so paranoid why did he apply for a patent in the first place? As you said you only apply for a patent for protection and if you describe your technology/idea/device so badly it doesn't work the patent is hardly likely to offer any protection. Anyone could then rip-off your idea... doesn't make sense which ever way you look at it.

 

[SirPhilip]

Isn't that exactly what Steorn is suggesting?

The device apparently works by principle of a rotating thingamabob going around inside a triangular arrangement of gigawhatsits, whereby something, either out of the atmosphere or space is extracted, and converted into electrical power, then mechanical force. The process resembles, cutely, an occult ritual.

What do you mean by that? A huge device, brought into space?

Not exactly. Hypothetically, an actual mathematical or spacial configuration of matter, taking two intractable absolute concepts as engineering terms, and making several assumptions:

1) Matter as just a characteristic of order, and mathematics being intrinsically non abstract.

2) Order spontaneously arising out of chaos by a fundamental ordering process.

You then have a hypothetical 'pre-mechanism' involved, the only indication of which was at the instant of the big bang. Apparently a curious dot.com company has brought the sexiness of the middle ages back.

This ain't your dad's dirty bomb
You don't see these thermodynamic shackles baby I'm not your slave
But I'll let independent scientists whip me if I misbehave
It's just that no hybrid engine makes me feel this way

[Chorus]
Come here girl, go head be sold with it
Come to the back ages, go head be bold with it
Pub, drinks on me let our forum see what you're working with
Look at that inefficience
That don't make me smile
Go ahead child and get your occult on

I'm bringin' the middle ages back
We don't want suckers so they don't know how to act
Girl let me make up for all the things your car lacks
Because it's churning in stuts but after 2007 it's gonna go fast
Like an unlimited source of cash..

I'm bringin' the middle ages back
You motherf-ckers watch how I'm urged to throttle it back
I'll show you what I mean by that
Because when it whirls baby watch your back
You'll know It's turning electricity into money and that's a fact..

"You'll shoot your eye out, kid.." -

 

[Aepervius]

Shannon theorem

Hi Snadert, I am sure you are well aware that there were ALREADY scams (one cited below, others with compression better than what shannon predict) of people successfully making a demonstration of being able to output more info than the Shannon theorem predict can be in a digital info of specific length. And those demonstration were done to industry giants. You have actually no way whatsoever to say that this Jan person had a way to actually generate a movie from a 1kbyte key. And actually all we knows demonstrate that this is impossible, and only a "trick" (like the video cable in the power code trick or ethernet cable) can be used to simulate it. But still you are adamant into saying it was successfully demonstrated. I have to ask : why ? And I would ask, do you realize that compression in an analogue way (frequency compression I think) is not even akin to what we mean with digital compression ? There is no way whatsoever due to the fact related in that thread that Jan Sloot had anything remotely usefull beside an hoax.

 

[Grimoire]

I know that MD5 has collisions, but that's not the point. I referred to hashing because of the nature of the algorithm.

The nature of it is that a limited sized key can not be used to produce an infinity of files. Not just for MD5, but ANY algorithm.

Sloots invention worked. That is for sure.

That is not for sure. I've not seen it, no independent body has seen it, and there is no product made based on its design. There is no evidence that it worked. Restating the claim does not make it true.

A whole new venture was built upon it.

Whole ventures are built on lots of invalid assumptions. They also tend to fail when people realize they've been "had".

The ultimate question is how? Software engineers spoke with Sloot about data compression. To their surprise Sloot didn't even know exactly how compression (i.e. LZW) worked, and he had only a vague understanding of it. So it was obvious that his algorithm had nothing to do with datacompression, something that was assumed by many.

And yet we are to believe that he came up with a revolutionary algorithm and he didn't understand something as simple as LZW?

Pity that most of you folks can't read Dutch. There is a website dedicated to the book about Sloot, called 'De broncode' (the sourcecode). Many interesting things can be found here, including TV broadcasts. Take a look at debroncode.nl (add www).

There are books on how "wishing" can make your dreams come true. There are websites dedicated to the timecube. There are TV shows about people who can talk with dogs. That doesn't mean that it is true.

So far, Steorn has only laid a claim about its over-unity machine. No description, no demo, no working device... nada.. zip.

Oh, they've given demos. They've shown a little device hooked up to a laptop, and the laptop shown a percent in a big bold font. Hmmm...sounds a little familiar...

 

[Horatius]

And if the excuse is that he was so paranoid why did he apply for a patent in the first place? As you said you only apply for a patent for protection and if you describe your technology/idea/device so badly it doesn't work the patent is hardly likely to offer any protection. Anyone could then rip-off your idea... doesn't make sense which ever way you look at it.

Exactly. We do occassionally get private inventors who are so paranoid, they want a patent, but they don't want to follow the rules. We try to avoid letting such bad patents through, but it can and does happen. But such cases more usually deal with frauds rather than honestly paranoid people. The truly paranoid usually give up trying to get the patent when the examiner insists that the patent disclosure has to be complete.

The fraudlent patents I mentioned earlier are really only sought by those who know they'll never take anyone to court over infringing it - that's not the reason they want the patent. They really want the perception of "Patent Office Approval", which can be used to scam consumers or investors.

 

[Grimoire]

The fraudlent patents I mentioned earlier are really only sought by those who know they'll never take anyone to court over infringing it - that's not the reason they want the patent. They really want the perception of "Patent Office Approval", which can be used to scam consumers or investors.

Like how the Q-Ray commercials state that their product "holds a US design patent". It doesn't actually mean anything, but it sounds impressive to the uninformed.

 

[Horatius]

Like how the Q-Ray commercials state that their product "holds a US design patent". It doesn't actually mean anything, but it sounds impressive to the uninformed.

That's even worse! A design patent doesn't even address the functionality of a thing, it only protects the shape of the thing. It's like a trademark to the shape. It's for purely decorative items!

Which, of course, means they're using it properly. Not their fault if ignorant consumers misunderstood, is it?

Is their a word for lying without technically lying?

 

[Grimoire]

Is their a word for lying without technically lying?

prevaricate^dict

 

[Snadert]

Hi Snadert, I am sure you are well aware that there were ALREADY scams (one cited below, others with compression better than what shannon predict) of people successfully making a demonstration of being able to output more info than the Shannon theorem predict can be in a digital info of specific length. And those demonstration were done to industry giants. You have actually no way whatsoever to say that this Jan person had a way to actually generate a movie from a 1kbyte key. And actually all we knows demonstrate that this is impossible, and only a "trick" (like the video cable in the power code trick or ethernet cable) can be used to simulate it. But still you are adamant into saying it was successfully demonstrated. I have to ask : why ? And I would ask, do you realize that compression in an analogue way (frequency compression I think) is not even akin to what we mean with digital compression ? There is no way whatsoever due to the fact related in that thread that Jan Sloot had anything remotely usefull beside an hoax.

Hi, you are right. I have no proof the Sloot device worked according to the explanation. But, in order to judge by distance, you should be aware of many more details of this case. I hope that there will be an English translation soon of the book, which is written by a journalist. And about the demos? Yes, there have been many detailed demos, not only in Holland, but also in the US, as I wrote about earlier.

And yet we are to believe that he came up with a revolutionary algorithm and he didn't understand something as simple as LZW?

Yep. That's why I doubt it was based on digital information. Sloot was a very experienced TV repair man, not a diehard programmer.

His original idea was to create a database with all known TV failures. Any repairman had than just to key in the problem and his 'RepaBase' came up with the answer. But, in 1996, it was not so simple to distribute a huge database. So he looked for ways to compress the data. Obviously being not aware of digital datacompression, he looked for other ways in doing this.

Remember that Sloot was a shy, simple person, with low education and everything he knew about electronics came out of his job.

Like I wrote before, the Sloot case was very mysterious, his untimely dead, the huge amounts of money, the involvement of Roel Pieper. A very big issue in Holland! Pieper was christened as the coming Philips CEO by Cor Boonstra (at that time CEO of Philips). Yet Pieper resigned, and started with some other investors the venture to start selling the Sloot licenses. Pieper was not a stupid guy, he studied Computer Technologies, had been CEO of Compaq and was fully aware of possible fraud. That's why he let Sloot demo the invention for the Philips tech guys, Oracle, HP, etc. If Sloot was a conman, he was a very, very good one, which didn't match his personality and education.

This is the description of the algorithm, unfortunately in Dutch, but maybe you can make something out of the schemas (it will take too long for me to translate). And look, I'm not trying to convince you. I just wanted to bring up a similar case where the desription in the Patent is not sufficient to reconstruct the algorithm.