Friday, April 13, 2007

Dr. Doug Natelson's Email Conversation with Steorn

Dr. Natelson has posted his email correspondence with Steorn here. Some of the interesting parts are posted below. From Steorn's Email:

Please find attached a letter outlining the jury process and requesting information regarding your availability for a period of four consecutive days between November 1st and January 31st 2007.
These types of conversations and documents present evidence that the Jury process is really happening. From Dr. Natelson's reply, it seems that he was so busy that he didn't even get a chance to read the attached letter. I'm guessing the letter discussed the actual testing of the device. Steorn has made it clear that the jury will be able to test in this manner.
My apologies for the delayed response. Unfortunately, between
my academic and family obligations (which have both grown significantly
since I filled out the form on your website), I won't be able to
participate in your 'challenge'. Please pardon the inconvenience.
I wonder if Steorn consulted any high profile scientists about the jury process idea before moving forward with it. At the end of Dr. Natelson's email, he had this to say:
PS - I still don't understand the "jury" business anyway. Build and
demonstrate a couple of working units, and you can patent and publish
in the open literature.
Note that Dr. Natelson has updated his blog entry with these details. The comments are worth reading also if you have the time.

17 comments:

JTerry said...

Perhaps I'm not reading things correctly, but there seems to be one crucial question unanswered here. The question requires a simple yes or no answer. Thicket has already proposed the question, yet the answer appears neither in Dr. Natelson's response nor in the any of the blog posting I can see made by Steorn.

The question is thus: will the 22 member jury be testing THE DEVICE, the actual, real device (as alleged by Steorn to exist) in an independant laboratory?

Can we please get an answer to this question; yes or no? I can anticipate no reason why this should be a secret; answering this reveals nothing either of the device or any confidential technology Steorn may allege itself to have.

If the actual device that caused this whole thing in the first place (or an exact replica produced by Steorn alleged to have the same characteristics) is not tested, then what is the point? How can anyone consider the very strange "jury" testing concept to be in any way valid without this?

I must really be missing something here. Maybe I'm just one of those evil non-believers who, like Thicket, lives in a world of darkness surrounded by pollution, greed, and hatred as proposed in the "fence" cartoon.

SteornTracker said...

jterry,

I don't have time to dig into the quotes right now, but Sean has stated many times that the jury gets to test in their own labs how they want.

Tundrabog said...

@jterry and steorntracker

There is still confusion about this. Myself and others tried to pin down Sean on this exact issue, and couldn't get a straight answer.

Yes, the scientists can test a device that they themselves built any way they like.

At this point, we simply don't know whether the scientists will be able to see, test and analyze the actual device that Steorn built.

Rhaomi said...

@tundrabog

As I said in another comments page, it just wouldn't make sense to bar the jury from seeing Steorn's device. Forcing them to build one on their own makes it more likely that they'll make mistakes and return a failed verdict. Sure, they could construct one on their own to give credence to the idea (i.e., no hidden tricks), but allowing that only and not letting them see the original doesn't seem like a smart idea, regardless of what Steorn's intentions are.

nleseul said...

Thicket, do you deny that nuclear power is a reality because you can't test the actual bomb designed and built at the Manhattan Project?

Anonymous said...

@Nleseul

Huh? Not sure what you're getting at.

My opinion on how the Jury should proceed is as follows (in this sequence).

1. See, test and analyze the actual Steorn device that is claimed to be overunity.

If the device seems to generate free-energy then,

2. Build a duplicate device to see if the free-energy effect can be duplicated.

Thicket

Anonymous said...

5 and a half minutes of "waffling". Nice update.
Pin Sean down On what exactly the Jury has seen so far.
I expect this comment to be deleted in Five minutes, But i will leave one Clue: Those I have talked to in sean's jury, say they have no hard data as yet,despite repeated requests for it.
If i read the mood right,Those guys were pissed at getting waffled about.

CIAo, Chums

Rhaomi said...

@anonymous

Why would your comment be deleted if it required the blog owner's approval to be posted in the first place? :/

Tundrabog said...

@Rhaomi

... because it's A1Trips/Stormbringer who is banned from these boards.

Anonymous said...

I love the absolute tortured reasoning of the cynics.

Hey geniuses:

What part of "the jury determines how testing and trials will go" do you not understand?

Do you have such comprehension difficulty, you supposed eggheaded geniuses, that you can't understand that this means that the jury can do whatever they want with Steorn's material support to test the claim?

That this would include data papers, seeing Steorn's devices, building their own devices, consulting with Steorn, consulting with Steorn's consultants, doing experiments they design, and more?

No, you don't comprehend that, because your underlying assumption is that this is a con.

Come out and admit it or stop mentally masturbating.

Anonymous said...

And by the way, if the above poster has talked to ANYONE in the jury, my name is Jethro Q. Walrustitty.

Anonymous said...

"That this would include data papers, seeing Steorn's devices, building their own devices, consulting with Steorn, consulting with Steorn's consultants, doing experiments they design, and more?"

please point to where we were SPECIFICALLY told that the jury would or could build the device. My eyes are old and I must have missed it.

SteornTracker said...

JTerry, I rejected your last comment due t o your language. Please try to keep things civil in here!

JTerry said...

Well, Sterntracker, I was not aware that my words were uncivil. If you look at the anonymous posting to which I referred, he first made the reference which you found objectionable. He also posted as anonymous and I thought it was a good way to identify his post. Finally, his post was certainly not civil but something of a tirade without actually answering the question posed. Funny that I should be the one penalized. Why wasn't he censored?

SteornTracker said...

JTerry, it got old the 4th time you mentioned the word... Here is a repost of your message.

Why get mad about it? If it's such a simple answer as the --------- alleges, just come out and say it. So therefore, According to the anonymous ---------, who is claiming to know exactly Steorn's policy, the following is a DEFINITE AND ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE FACT PER STEORN POLICY:

ANY JURY MEMBER MAY, AS PART OF THE JURY PROCESS, REQUEST FOR PERSONAL TESTING AND INSPECTION THE STEORN MANUFACTURED ZERO ENERGY ITEM THAT, BY STEORN'S OWN REPRESENTATIONS, VIOLATES THE PHYSICAL LAWS GOVERNING THEORMODYNAMICS AND THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, AND STEORN FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT IT WILL PROVIDE TO THE REQUESTING JURY MEMBER EITHER THAT ITEM OR ANOTHER, ALSO MANUFACTURED BY STEORN, THAT IS OF THE EXACT SAME TYPE AND QUALITY AND OVER WHICH THE EXACT SAME CLAIM IS MADE REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ENERGY.

Please Mr. Anonymous ---------, confirm that this is official Steorn policy and put all of us skeptics to rest. Would appreciate Sean himself saying this, although I suspect that the anonymous --------- may in fact be Sean given Sean's propensity for rhetorical questions in argument.

SteornTracker said...

jterry, by the way, check out this link about what Sean has said about the Jury:


http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661&page=2#Item_32

Anonymous said...

if your nerves are touched jterry i'd say you probably are admitting you're wrong; also known in poker as a "tell".