Dispatches from the front, an SPDC Update
There was a lot of relevant activity today in Steorn's forum. Sean provided some interesting links in this post to some of Steorn's previous work, including links to FraudHalt and DiscMatch. Also today, crank started the thread Dispatches from the front to give us all a developer's club update:
Sean produces a test carried out on a €4000 machine, and within a few days people can replicate his results using parts cannibalised from other equipment.It sounds like a lot of the SPDC members are very hands on. Here is part of her analysis of the current situation within the SPDC:
I think it's fair to say that there has been some movement towards the fence by hardened sceptics, and fence-sitters are gingerly lowering toes onto the believer side.pcstru4, an SPDC member and skeptic, mentioned in the thread that he's shifted a bit, from a 0.000001 chance to 0.00000125 chance :-) enginerd, another skeptic in the SPDC, also commented that no fence movement has taken place for him yet.
In the words of one sceptic "I'm only looking at recipes for humble pie, it's not cooking yet! But my skeptical foundation has just suffered a magnitude 5.5 quake."
Make sure to read the whole thread if you have time. Crank goes on to say:
SPDC members now know the identity of the engineer in the Kinetica video, and know more about who has tested Steorn's tech in the past.If you've listened to the interview from Friday, you'll know that I'm a bit fascinated with the whole SPDC model. I think it's great that there are true skeptics in the SPDC, and it's also great that crank is allowed to post updates like she has. The more informed we all are, the more likely it is we'll be able to figure out where this is all heading.
19 comments:
Sean seems exceedingly reluctant to explain the discrepancy between his statements about not accepting investor money, and the “return of allotments” document filed by Steorn with the CRO.
Here’s a list of possible explanations that Sean could use.
1. I’m very busy. You explain it, Crank.
2. I knew nothing about this. The CRO submission was presented by Roger Hatfield and signed by Michael Daly. My name isn’t on the submission.
3. Da debil made me do it.
4. Explanation?! I don’t need to give no stinkin’ explanation! I’m Sean McCarthy and you’re supposed to believe me.
5. The investor money time variance is due to the accounting viscosity as the allotted shares travel around the BS curve.
6. I’m an engineer. I don’t know anything about money.
7. August 2006 ends in March 2007.
8. Oh… you thought I meant investment in ‘Steorn’? Sorry for the misunderstanding.
9. What’s that? We’re no longer using the Justinian calendar? Where did this new-fangled Gregorian calendar come from?
10. If you don’t stop this financial nonsense, I will have another hissy fit, ban more skeptics from my forum and warn Free Energy Watch again.
Subject: The Investors – March 2007 Share Allotment
The Steorn Ltd 26 March 2007 Allotment of Shares has thirteen investors. Eleven of the investors already owned Steorn shares. Two of the investors are new. One is a private individual. The other is Crowley Millar Nominees. All thirteen investors are based in Ireland.
The submission presenter is Roger Hatfield of Unison Consultants. The submission is certified by Michael Daly, a Steorn director.
Michael Daly was allotted 100 shares according to this submission. There is no information on what he paid for the shares.
Average share price paid was 1585.43 Euros per share.
I think the house of cards is starting to sway. Just happens that the bottom card is glued in there pretty tight.
Sean has already began banning lots of people, myself included (I haven't even posted in 3 days)
Probably some sort of preventative measure on his side, before even more outrageous claims are made.
Kent
Who was it that said Hairy was hiding behind CathyC's skirt?
Sean, hows the view from behind Crank's skirt?
But seriously Sean, will you explain the CRO .TIF? If not why?
If there is an error in our understanding, please, enlighten us poor deluded skeptics. Or you could have your lawyers send a letter to Steorntracker trying to intimidate him, that should prove that you haven't been lying about taking post-August investment.
Or you could pretend there is no problem and let the faithful try to explain. After all, Crank's 'recollection' of an 'accountant friend' of her's opinion carries far more weight with me than say the actual written law at the CRO.
Aye Kent. Sean has given up all pretense of a balanced forum of skeptics and believers. He has his hissy fits and brings out the ban hammer.
@Steorntracker
It was a valiant attempt to again allow automatic posting without your review, but as you can see, it gets abused pretty quickly by folks like Eman8.
SteornTracker
Do you have to authorise the pointless insult's made by 2 or 3 mindless individuals ?
If they wish to make a point as well as insult people then great. But this is just drivel.
They have a whole forum and club to play with. Please don't let them try and turn this place into a playground too.
Keep up the otherwise excellent work. It is much appreciated.
Oh.
I see.
Well, at least having unauthorised posts here shows the level of education of the main believers in Steorn's "technology".
I think authorised posting would probably be the way to go though.
Many thanks Steorn Tracker. That was quick.
Sorry Folks, it's been a while since I had to reject a comment, so I figured I could disable comment moderation and see what happens. Well, that lasted about 3 hours.
I think the 'clueless' post should have stayed. I loved the fact that the poster thought Kent was talking about this forum and not Sean.
It is unfortunate that moderation is required. I'm sure that this will be big news among the Steorn forum and SPDC.
"Steorntracker censors comments!"
Is there any way to set up a hall of flame? I think all posts should be available somewhere so others can judge their worth for themselves.
btw - Great work here ST
@anonymous
The posts removed were by Eman8. Go to the Steorn forums and you'll see many like it. They were personal attacks with zero content.
I don't support the idea of having a hall of flame for the amusement of voyeurs.
You might recall Sean personally asking SteornTracker to ban A1Trips from these boards. You could also call that censorship, but just about everyone, including myself, felt that the ban was appropriate.
Thicket
I tried to call Sean on why the banning of some while 007, eman8 remain unbanned. He first tried to call me on why ping was banned , then he simply ignored me totally.
This is not a new tactic from him, throw unhelpful comment like the one on financial (hey Sean, instead of saying "you are wrong" how about adding a BECAUSE X,Y,Z in your post...). Or even answer beside the question, or ignore the question altogether. Don't get me started on the 550 bhp, or the static rig test.
Hey Sean, what about the critic on a static test not being useful for a dynamic rig ?
Anyway to be short : I gave up posting on their forum. See ! I spare work for Sean, he won't have to ban me !
Anyway I was getting bored there, which was a sign that this free energy scam/hoax/measurement error/whatever has reached the point where it lost all entertainment value, and even the UFO nutter there do not entertain me anymore... Time to move on.
I'll come from time to time on this blog to see if there are some progress. At least beside the stupid post of "anonymous" threat or name calling, the comment here are mostly insightful.
Quanten, which dientangle from Steorn and collapse his wavefunction on randi.org and this forum ;).
Hiya Quanten. It'd be cool if you dropped in once in a while.
Yeah, the Steorn forums have gotten quite bland. Heck, even some of the threads that Sean posts on don't get much attention. The Eurovision thread got more exposure than Sean's long interview on Free Energy Tracker. There was a time when anything Sean said would be analysed to death for clues and insights.
I think that boredom and fatigue has set in for quite a few folks.
Perhaps it's different in the SPDC.
"FreeEnergyTracker" AKA "SteornTracker" AKA
"ThroughAnORBODarkly."
Thanks for the entertainment, guys.
I see that there are PKD fans here.
Off topic, but :
"Do believer Dreams of eletric orbo while they dream" ?
Steorn tracker you can delete this if you find it too much offtopic :).
That was the real point of the SPDC. Seperate those who Sean wishes to converse with from those whom Sean does not wish to converse with.
Anyone who has followed Sean/Steorn's comments all the way since August 06 must have at least a small thought that this is being made up as it goes along.
There are many points that persuade me this is the case, i might get round to collating them soon.
While I do enjoy making a mockery of you clowns every now and then I can assure you I have never posted on this blog before now. Your ego may be getting the best of you if you think I would waste my breath trying to communicate with a brick wall.
But you seem to have all the answers don't you Thicket? pffft
Keep on keepin on and please, by all means keep up with the unfounded theories and misinformation. It's what you and others here seem to do best.
Tootles,
E8
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=56981&page=2
Steorn:@ pcstru4 - happy to discuss the static rig with you on the 'other side' and also the power density.
pcstru4 :I've given this some thought. Seems to me that both issues are fit for discussion in here. The energy density claim is a matter of public record and, apart from the magic switching of the magnets, my analysis is just normal newtonian physics aimed at calculating the absolute maximum power that a PM only system can develop. However, on the energy density claim I will take you up on the invitation at some point.
On the static test rig, the original discussion with Pennies, where you made your claims as to why Hysterisis was not an issue, was in this forum. You bought the contradictory Sv claim into this forum in your earlier post in this thread. Unfortunately, as far as I can see the claim is a total contradiction, so either your earlier statements were false or your most recent statement is false. Essentially, this means the debate is as much about your credibility as it is about facts and figures. To my mind, that does not make it a good candidate for discussion on the other side, so I think it is wise to refrain from discussing it there. I'm quite happy to discuss it here though. We might start with how your claimed calibration data is of any significance when measuring Sv changes will inevitably mean you need to read multiple torque changes at each dataum - how then do you eliminate ringing since you can't leave the rig to settle before taking readings?
Post a Comment