Sunday, April 15, 2007

Sean's Answer of the Day and More!

Sean got back into the Questions discussion again today. I especially enjoyed the answer of the day.

Lister: Have the jurors (or at least some of them) seen the device and if so have they concluded that it works or have they concluded that it doesn't?

Steorn: It would only take a small amount of time see if we had faked a machine - I in fact agree with this statement. lol, there are only so many places to look for energy that is being added into a system in a hoax fashion. However this is of course not what we are doing, you can believe that or not - but it is a fact.

With respect to the current phase that the jury are engaged in, it is as I have said before a form of 'peer' review, despite some of your comments from last night these people do in fact have other careers and other demands on their time. The process is in depth and indeed our presentation of the effects behind the technology, and the Q&A's that follow this address the heart of the matter. It should also be said that I have little doubt that some of the tests that have been presented by us have been replicated by some of the jurors.

Have the jurors yet seen a machine? Ok well I answered this last night, and the
answer is no. Lol, I can already hear the cries of foul and deep intakes of breath as I write this. The physical test phase is scheduled to start soon, but IMO this will involve the selection of independent lab(s) and definition of tests to be conducted.

This was never going to be a fast process, it is going to take a lot of time and those who read stuff into this are mis-reading the situation. Of course these people are going to slow and cautious. I again stress that none of the above should be misunderstood, the core issues behind our technology are being addressed. For those who believe that this could be done in a few days staring into a machine, you are just wrong.

It's interesting that Sean speculates that some of the Jury have built their own machines. If the jury has Steorn's white papers, and they are clear enough to reproduce the device, you'd think the process would move a bit faster.

blue_energy: I have presumed that the forum must serve a longer range purpose for Steorn to have made it worth your while to have spent so much of your time answering our questions, etc. I have further presumed that the reasons would have to do with establishing some credibility with the public prior to the completion of the jury. With that in mind, I have 2 questions:

1.) In as much as the plan for the format of the jury tests, and the number of jurors, were published knowledge at the outset, what is the reasoning behind keeping the change in these things a secret until now?

2.) The web site alluded to you publishing detailed technical specifications at the completion of the first quarter. You acknowledged, earlier in this discussion, that what you published is not, in fact, 'detailed' - and you apologized for the disappointment that this has caused. However, you did not explain your reasoning for not following through with what you said you would do. Would you explain your reasoning?

Steorn: There was no real plan behind us having a forum, we have zero experience with forum life and boy what an eye opener it has been. Again I stress that we like to engage, and so since it is on our site, we will come in and correct things when we have the time. We have also be learning about this whole forum thing as time passes, I think that in hind site we should have moderated the forum better, but hey hind site is 20-20 and all that.

We really are not going to discuss the ins and outs of the process while it is in progress (and to be honest I am trying not to go into this now, because for all the fun that the debates in here are, the Jury process is far too important to mess with). Lets face it no one is watching Steorn at the moment, we do not want to be news and we are not news.

With respect to the 'detailed' technical specifications, this was my fault, we were never going to publish detailed specs and will not until the end of validation. So I have to say sorry for this, if it makes you feel any better I still have the whip marks from our lawyers for even suggesting that I would do it.

Rhaomi: 1) A few months ago, you stated this:

"Due to the fact that the US patent office does not allow patents with this claim we have filed a sequence of patents wich describe various aspects of the technology. "

However, according to the US Patent Office website: A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.

Has the Office's policy changed since Steorn sought an American patent, or were you guys simply mistaken about the process? Or perhaps you did not have a working model that was ready for transatlantic shipping and government inspection?

Steorn: We have of course applied for US patents, and I am not going to go into details on them. We do not see any problems at this time about getting these patents granted.
Sean doesn't come out and say it, but it doesn't seem like Steorn is patenting any claim towards OU, instead it sounds like he's patenting specific configurations of Steorn's discovery. I agree with Rhaomi here, it's hard to believe Steorn wouldn't attempt to show up at the USPTO with a working device in hand if they had one. Who knows, maybe they will on Validation day.

ro2778: What happened to the American demonstration?

Steorn: Good question - the answer is that we are going to try and get media attention. Only a few of us are prepared to stand in the public eye and it is just not practical for us to try and split this 'event' across two locations. I should point out that this does not mean that we will not be doing a demo in the US, its just that doing two at the same time would be too much of a stretch on the company, I doubt if the July thing will be the only demo that we do.

Spiritual Beggar: If (hypothetically!!) Steorn did not release it's technology (or pretend you never discovered it!) What do you think the chances would be, of another company/individual/university/boffin discovering the effect by accident? Is it so incredibly obscure that it could go unnoticed for another 100 or 200 years??

Steorn: Well first thing to say is that there is nothing that is going to stop us releasing our tech, whats going on at the moment (the validation and the development of a developers forum) is really about ensuring rapid and widespread deployment. On the other point, what one man discovers another man can.

rubentherat: How do you explain to yourself how a couple of hundred years of science and engineering could have missed the effect.

Steorn: I do not think that they did. Gosh now I am writing this I know I am going to get a forum beating, but thats how I see it.

salvnaut: This is the winner for The Sean's Answer of a Day.

Sean, I remember you explaining how you thought that discovery of this technology wouldn't had been possible without todays technology of precise measuring instruments and easy access to information (Internet). Has something changed with your understanding since then? Or should we understand those two as not at all contradictory statements?

Steorn: The point that I was making is that a group of people like us could would not have made this type of discovery 20 years ago. It is simply a question of money, the type of measurement equipment, computing power and so that is necessary to rule out measurement error would simply have priced us out the the possibility of discovery 20 years ago. If we had the initial measurements 20 years ago with the type of equipment that a normal company could afford I have no doubt that we would just have written it off to measurement error.

granthodges: Any more on "I do not think that they did?"

Steorn: Well I think that it is a question of mindset, once we discovered and proved to ourselves the initial anomaly, we got very interested. After some research we found that we could explain the results with known effects, i.e. the result itself could be expected. But we went one step further, which is rather than just accepting classical explanations of these known (if little known) effects (and there are indeed many views on what causes these effects over the years) we decided to do what our engineering educations taught us to do, which is to design tests and make up our own minds on the matter. We did this by the way because we could not find a consensus position on what drove these effects within the third party white papers, the approach seemed very much a 'rule of thumb' approach and so we got at it.

I read this as saying Steorn believes that the discovered phenomena is right under scientists noses, that it won't be some new form of energy like ZPE or quantum foam that explains what is going on. Fascinating!
ro2778: Do you foresee, sometime in the future, orbo, on an industrial scale, being able to compete with standard power generating technologies e.g., solar, nuclear, fossil fuel, wind etc. in terms of useful energy output?

Steorn: Yes, we are a small company and can only take the development so far, thats why we are releasing the technology in the way that we are, the more, smart, fast companies that work on this for their own commercial interests the better for everyone.

Dovetailed: 1) What are you going to do if/when the jury comes back divided or unwilling to accept your claims without even further testing? Have you given them any time constraints or other forms of constraint to deal with potential (for want of a better word) filibustering or wilful obstructionism?

2) Psychologically, how does it feel to believe/know (you’ve said you 100% believe your claims before) that you will go down in history?

Steorn: On (1) I guess that I do not see this as a real possibility, if it happens (and I do not think that it will) we will face the issue at that time.

On (2) - its embarrassing to be honest, I want this to be over so that I can go off and work on some other stuff.

I hate to do this to Sean, but if what Steorn has is real, they could be the next Google squared. It's embarrasing to hear the CEO say "I want to move on" and "we're just a small company". Google started off in a garage, and all they started with was a clever way to rank search results. Now they have a market cap of $150 billion. ARG!
Fez_2007: With out giving away the configuration can you tell us the exact elements (period table) that interact to produce the effect. I presume a soft magnetic element of Fe and Neodymium magnets? Will the device only work within a particular temperature range? (Discounting the fact that it will stop working above curie temp) Does the device involve the principle of magnetic saturation? In particular over saturation of the soft magnetic material?

Will there be a second round of SPDC entries, I'm dying to talk with other engineers scientists on the idea. - I' have emailed you my details

Steorn: Ok, temperature (other than the curie point) is not important and its based on hard magnets - mail Cathy on the SPDC comment!

Dovetailed: "Steorn: Again I cant comment on how long the process will take, if we feel that we are heading into many years then we will discuss with the Jury ways to deal with this, but again I do not see this as being a problem."

Is there a reason why you are so confident this won't be a problem? Or is such a reason un-commentable again?

Steorn: Ok, well I think that people need to think about the details of our claim. In essence we are saying that it can be proven experimentally that magnetic forces are not in fact conservative. While such a claim must be treated cautiously, it is also not an overwhelming task to deal with the claim. But again its really not up to me how to do this, time will tell.
Sean has said the jury will take a long amount of time, and then he goes and says that it's not an overwhelming task to deal with. Do these two points jive? As you can tell from some of my comments, I'm a bit frustrated. I'm guessing we all are. I feel like I'm watching Lost or 24, and have to wait till next week, and then another week, and so on. Oh how I wish I could just rent the DVD set and watch the whole thing unfold over a weekend!

16 comments:

skeptical said...

Thanks. Your blog provides an excellent summary of what is happening at Steorn.

Reading it I noticed ... not sure if anyone else has commented ... Sean's comment:

"Well I can't in fact 'tell' the Jury what to do. They will not rely only on Steorn data, who would? They will not only do tests in Steorn, who would? I doubt that they would rely on Steorn provided systems (the ones with our hamsters in them!), who would?"

He says this a day before he says that the jury has been involved in Phase I which is a "peer review" of data. Data supplied by Steorn I presume! And yes I know it includes the word "only" but it still strikes me as odd! Then again, just one more to add to the list.

Anonymous said...

nleseul - "Over on SteornTracker, the skeptics seem to be posting an absurd number of blatantly nutty ideas recently—even skeptics like Thicket and HK, whom I've usually found to be pretty sensible."


Can you point to three?
Which is the Nuttiest in your opinion?

Anonymous said...

His ability to keep this scam going is completely falling apart. His clever answers for everything are looking more and more transparent by the day.

Rhaomi said...

SteornTracker: "As you can tell from some of my comments, I'm a bit frustrated. I'm guessing we all are. I feel like I'm watching Lost or 24, and have to wait till next week, and then another week, and so on. Oh how I wish I could just rent the DVD set and watch the whole thing unfold over a weekend!"

That's almost exactly what I said in my first post on the Steorn forum. Sean & co. seem to be painting themselves into numerous corners -- both in terms of what they'll be able to claim next and how it could logically be considered a hoax. That is, the more they say and do, the fewer and fewer rational ways there are to explain what they're going for. It feels exactly like watching Lost -- intensely interesting and maddeningly frustrating.

Tundrabog said...

Of course there are all sorts of nutty ideas floating around. Whenever there is a lack of real information, folks will speculate.

The way to stop nutty ideas is to provide information. Steorn has been unwilling or unable to provide any verifiable information on their free-energy device, which just fans more speculation.

Nutty speculation is not the sole preserve of believers.

Father Luke Duke said...

Is it just me, or does everyone else grind their teeth every time Sean puts "lol" into his posts. If he really was laughing out loud that much, while answering the most straight forward questions, he would be a loon. lol.

His pronoucements are increasingly bizzare - the so called "jury" stuff is looking especially weak. So because the jury members have "busy lives" (though obviously not too busy to take part in this nonsense) they only get Steorn supplied test data to start with?

Hmm, surely if they are busy they would want to get the device itself, the test data and the blueprints all at once? The jury members apparently dictate the process, but not one of the 22 has asked for a look at the actual device yet? How likely is that? It's like volunteering to test drive a new Ferrari and then saying "don't bother sending the car yet, I'll just have a good look through the specs for a few months."

Tundrabog said...

@Father Luke Duke

Lol (couldn't resist).

Sean doesn't grate on me. He makes me laugh.

I often picture Sean as a glad-handing, smiling, syrupy used-car salesman telling me with a straight face that the used clunker he's trying to pawn off is a real bargain because it was owned by a little old lady and only driven to church on Sundays.

Tundrabog said...

Dagnabbit!!

I just re-read Sean's explanation of the Jury seeing and testing the Steorn device and realized he did it again! He didn't provide a straight answer.

Here's the quote.

"Have the jurors yet seen a machine? Ok well I answered this last night, and the
answer is no. Lol, I can already hear the cries of foul and deep intakes of breath as I write this. The physical test phase is scheduled to start soon, but IMO this will involve the selection of independent lab(s) and definition of tests to be conducted."

Does this categorically state that the Jury will see and test the actual Steorn device. You can 'assume' that meaning, but it's NOT what it says. Let me 'assume' that Sean's statement means that the Jury will NOT see the Steorn device. They are free to have one built and tested by independent labs.

It's almost as if Sean is carefully crafting his written response for some kind of future legal challenge. "Your honour. I never once stated that the Jury would see and test the actual Steorn device."

Can't you give a straight answer, Sean?

Will the Jury see and test the actual free-energy device built by Steorn. Yes or no? No mumbo-jumbo please.

JTerry said...

Thicket: In regards to your last posting on this thread, I have asked that question twice now: will the jurors be allowed to inspect and test the Steorn created device, etc. Each time, I have been met with derision and been offered links that are supposed to prove to me they will be testing the device. Yet you are right, I can find not a single, simple statement affirming either yes/no on this subject. I believe this issue should continue to be pressed as it strikes to the very core of the Steorn claim.

Anonymous said...

Thicket "I often picture Sean as a glad-handing, smiling, syrupy used-car salesman telling me with a straight face that the used clunker he's trying to pawn off is a real bargain because it was owned by a little old lady and only driven to church on Sundays."

In this scenario, I have to assume you have seen an actual car. No?

Tundrabog said...

Lol... good point.

15-India-Street said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Father Luke Duke said...

"It's almost as if Sean is carefully crafting his written response for some kind of future legal challenge."
-----------
I've often thought that. He is very clear, for example, that they have never generated a joule of electricity from any of the devices they have built (at least when pushed he was clear). Presumabley that means the only evidence they have that their device is OU is in the form of data gathered from mechanical test rigs.

It will be much easier in the future, should it come to a court case, to claim that is was all down to genuine measurement error than if they claimed they had been generating KW of electricity without fuel.

Sean's pronoucements on the 550bhp motor were (in)famously from "extrapolating test data".

Plausible deniability I think they call it.

Of course this is all speculation and my own opion.

Anonymous said...

Sean is playing with words againg :
"In essence we are saying that it can be proven experimentally that magnetic forces are not in fact conservative."


What is a "conservative magnetic force" ?
In my childhood I learned that non-time-varying magnetic fields are conservative, and they still are.

But if you have a rotating magnetic field it will be non-conservative.

In order to create a rotating magnetic field you have to spend more energy than you can harvest from the magnetic field.

How does Sean create his "non-conservative magnetic forces" ?

Anonymous said...

Sean :
"The physical test phase is scheduled to start soon, but IMO this will involve the selection of independent lab(s) and definition of tests to be conducted."

Does this mean that the jury never will test the orbo device on their own? They will just review measurement from the testlab ?
Let me guess that they hire a lab to do a classic "static test".

Anonymous said...

@father luke liar

"Sean's pronoucements on the 550bhp motor were (in)famously from "extrapolating test data"."

Sean said the forces were measured and the speed was estimated. Sean never said the data was extrapolated.

Liar.