I wanted to point folks to the Forums over at Randi.org. There is a long discussion about Steorn, which started back in September and is still active. Back in September Horatius made this statement regarding the Jury process. I still think it applies until proven otherwise:
The problem is, with thousands of people applying, if they're not honest about their belief in their results, but are instead frauds, they can select the ones most likely to either screw things up, or actually bias it in their favour. Without having a public list of who's volunteered, we have no way of knowing if the people they select are really the best to test their claims.
I mean, you read Randi's Commentaries, right? How many "scientists" has he profiled who accept any and all claims without reservation? I'm sure there's more than 12 of this sort in the list of volunteers. Free energy attracts them like bugs to a flame.
If I was them (and really believed I had something, rather than being a knowing fraud), I'd want the worst (and thus best) skeptics to be on the panel, and I'd want that to be public. That way, if they end up validating my claim, there wouldn't be nearly as many accusations that I had stacked the deck in my own favour. Because, as it is, any positive reports will be critisized in just this way. <---(can I claim that as a prediction for the Challenge? No? Oh, okay....)