I actually did communicate with Steorn last fall; while the had some interest in talking to me, they did not come close to answering my questions about how their jury process was supposed to work (e.g., would scientists actually be able to play with the gadget in an off-site laboratory; did Steorn really mean that their machine produced energy, or were they trying to finesse conventional jargon by talking about "coefficients of performance greater than one" (which may mean nothing for a refrigerator, for example)). I'm willing to wager that they have not discovered a loophole in the first law of thermodynamics. It will be interesting to hear what they report, and whether any actual scientists would be willing to stand up and back Steorn's claims.This got Sean's attention:
Interesting, I will pull the correspondence on this person (Doug) tomorrow (if they did in fact apply) and post back on the matter.And Dr. Natelson replied on his blog:
They asked me; I declined. There isn't much correspondence - two emails from me, IIRC. Discussion was done over the phone. Believe me, I would love it if I were wrong - it'd be the biggest scientific news of the century. However, having an open mind doesn't mean believing everything people tell you uncritically.Finally, Sean had this to say:
Well all our calls are recorded so I will check these also, I would not like to think that the guy was treated unfairly.Both Sean and Dr. Natelson will most likely post more details tomorrow, including emails and possibly even the telephone conversations between the two.