Monday, May 7, 2007

Sean Interviewed on The Last Word, May 3rd 2006

This past Thursday, Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, was interviewed by Matt Cooper of The Last Word, a radio talk show on Today FM in Dublin, Ireland. Here is a link to the audio. The interview starts at around 11 minutes into the show, and it's about 7 1/2 minutes long. Thanks go to the reader who pointed this out to me! Here are some of the more juicy excerpts:

On the Jury:

13:02 "Their mandate is to basically come in and prove us wrong"

13:16 "They started the 9th of January"

13:32 "The names of one of the jury names did actually leak on the Internet"

This is another confirmation that Dr. Jeff Bechtold is one of the jurors.

On the funding of Steorn:
13:54 "We're privately funded by private Irish investors"

Back to the Jury:

15:06 "It's safe to say that if it didn't work, the jury would have delivered already"

I wonder how the Jury feels about that! As far as this being a scam or hoax:

17:15 "This is not a question of you know it be a small joke... We have put our family futures on the line"

And finally:

18:18 "The deepest reaction we've had, we've had threats from scientists, and I'm not joking, we've had threats of physical violence from scientists"

18:32 "We are not a scientific organization, I mean the validation is fundamental in something that is such a large claim, but for us we are a business. We want to get beyond this and go on and get this technology in to the market"

If you didn't catch Matt's original interview with Sean back last August, here is a link.

32 comments:

skeptical said...

Sean: "It's safe to say that if it didn't work, the jury would have delivered already"

Except for the tiny problem of the jury not having seen one! Or built one! And that maybe due to Steorn not having built anything more than unreliable "prototypes".

Anonymous said...

IIRC, Sean has stated that in the first phase the jury is merely presented with test data.

Anonymous said...

Welllll, with test data, I can show particule going with speed highier than speed of light (group speed AND phase speed) in vaccum, I can go back in time, I can genetic-engineer mice jumping 100's of feet in air, I can genetic engineer real fire breathing dragon from chicken, I can make a motor which function on thin air, I can power a *nuclear* central with 1 bier-glass of *petrol*.

I think you get my drift.

Looking at data is next to useless. What can they answer else but "if the data is real you are onto something" but this does not say ANYTHING about whether the FE device is real or not. For one I am not even sure it can be shown that the data was measured correctly (remmember the static test ? Remmember the various "extrapolation" they made ?).

Nothing short of a working FE device to be measured by the jury is acceptable. Giving only data to the jury is a real shame, delaying tactic. And using a delaying tactic is a good indication at them being a scam.

Anonymous said...

This is great news, the jury is obviously very real and Im anxious now to see the demo in London.

Exciting times for the world!

Anonymous said...

Sean: "We want to get beyond this and go on and get this technology in to the market"

So why bother with this farcical jury approach? Never has a company gone to such lengths to prove that it had a working product. Did the Wright brothers get together a bunch of anonymous scientists to show that they had created a controllable, heavier than air flying machine? Hell no, they built one and flew it.

Smells more and more like a scam.

Father Luke Duke said...

"15:06 "It's safe to say that if it didn't work, the jury would have delivered already"
----
It's safe to say that the jury haven't yet tested a device!!

As the other posters are pointing out: this is Sean being highly disingenuous again.

ben said...

(hairykrishna)

Have they reported the 'threats of physical violence' they received from scientists to the police?

What a load of crap. It's Sean (yet again) painting himself as the plucky victim standing up to the unreasonable men of science.

Anonymous said...

Sean:
18:18
"The deepest reaction we've had, we've had threats from scientists, and I'm not joking, we've had threats of physical violence from scientists"

Do anyone believe this ?
A real scientist would know that Steorn is a hoax/fraud and there would be no reason to make any threats about physical violence.
Sean is not joking, but he is bullshitting again...

Anonymous said...

Guys, use your brains. Any jury member (assuming they have any brains whatsoever) would have demanded to see a working prototype before spending more time researching it.

Anonymous said...

And Thanks for posting this bit of "news" ! Your blog is wonderful.

nleseul said...

Any jury member (assuming they have any brains whatsoever) would have demanded to see a working prototype before spending more time researching it.

So, Anonymous, are you alleging that, since HK demanded to see test data and white papers before considering looking at a working prototype, HK has no brains? ;-)

Father Luke Duke said...

"Have they reported the 'threats of physical violence' they received from scientists to the police?"
----
Apparently Stephen Hawking threatened to give him Chinese burns if he didn't shut up. Can't report Hawking though as he is well connected with the security services.

JTerry said...

One thing to keep in mind about the "jury"; the jury is essentially acting under contract to Steorn. If you read the contract very carefully, the jury is to perform "services" for Steorn. Those services are dictated by Steorn. The contract gives Steorn full and free reign to direct the process in any way it sees fit. Furthermore, it is set up such that Steorn chooses what to supply/not supply to the "jury members" at any given point. Steorn also decides what they will work on at any given point.

The only real freedom the "jury members" have under the contract is to test/analyze/evaluate whatever thing that Steorn gives the jury at any given time. For instance, the "white paper" and associated Steorn provided data. It is not the jury who is directing this but Steorn.

To give an example, consider a person who buys land and decides to build a house on it using himself as the primary contractor. The owner acquires the plans and hires the laborers. The owner then says, "today we'll start by building the foundation." When that's done, he may decide to start raising the walls, etc. At all times, the laborers use generally acceptable methods to build whatever part it is upon which they have been directed to work; but laborers are not building the house on autopilot. It proceeds step by step but only at the owner's direction and never without his specific input on what will be done next.

This is a far, far cry from anything resembling either credible scientific inquiry or a genuine attempt at "validation".

It must be reiterated, although I have said this many, many times, that the jury members HAVE NEVER SEEN A WORKING DEVICE. Furthermore, the mouth of Sauron Sean has never, never said he will provide the device Steorn allegedly has to the "jury" for testing. In fact, he avoids this question each and every time it is asked. The believers will claim that Sean has promised to provide THE DEVICE to the jury for testing but that the jury members have so far refused it. That is complete and total BS and I challange any believer to provide proof of the same.

Father Luke Duke said...

"So, Anonymous, are you alleging that, since HK demanded to see test data and white papers before considering looking at a working prototype, HK has no brains? ;-) "
----
Wow, as disingenuous as Sean. You well know that if Steorn had offered to send him a device over to test he would have jumped at the chance. As it is he didn't want to waste his time travelling to Dublin (where, no doubt, the machine would be in the repair shop that day). So instead he said "well, lets at least have a look at the data then". The "jury" members are meant to be able to ask for a device at any time, are you sure none of them want a look at the device they are validating? Hmm..wake up and smell the guiness.

No member of the jury can make decision until they have a device in front of them - the data doesn't mean anything. I could send you data that showed I was 8 foot tall and three arms -something that is more likely than OU - and you would not be able to prove it wrong.

Chili Fries said...

Here are a couple recent Sean quotes about the jury;

April 10:

Steorn: well the Jury process is long and very indepth - as it has to be, our original estimate is that it would take a couple of years

April 13:

Steorn: Well I guess that the first thing to understand is that our original view of the process was modified based on input from people who where applying. Basically the suggestion was that an additional phase was added to the process that in effect involved a 'peer review' of white papers, test methods and test data provide by Steorn. This will not of course be the basis of the final evaluation report but was included, by request, so that they have a very clear understanding of what the technology is about. This is reflected in the jury contract posted on the main site, part I being, in effect a form a peer review and part II being selection of independent labs (by the Jury), definitions of tests and so on.

Kent 767: Sean, will you be dropping a word to us when the jury actually begins constructing and/or analyzing actual devices?

Steorn:The whole point about the Jury process is that it is not conducted under any form of pressure, hence we will not be in the business of predicting when, how and so on. So I guess that the best that I can say is that we will give another update at the end of Q2.

Steorn: We said from the outset that this would be a long and involved process, others of course have views that this could all be over in 10 mins, this was never going to be the case and we have repeatedly stated this from the very start . No credible scientist is going to throw out hundreds of years of experience in the blink of an eye. The process will be must be in-depth and run at a pace dictated by the Jury.

Anonymous said...

I am beginning to think that Sean has some serious mental issues. Some form of dementia maybe? He seems out of touch with reality, spouting contradictory statements left and right, never explaining them.

I really wonder how the employees at Steorn view him.

Father Luke Duke said...

"I really wonder how the employees at Steorn view him."
---
No idea, and I bet they are all under NDA. I wonder how many are applying for jobs elsewhere...you wouldn't want to put Steorn on your CV now though. Putting previous job as "crack dealer" would do less damage to your career.

"He seems out of touch with reality" - I think he maybe a serial fantasist.


"Steorn: well the Jury process is long and very indepth - as it has to be, our original estimate is that it would take a couple of years"
----
2 years...why we try and work out what the hell to do next. An applied physicist, given full access, would take a maximum of a day to say whether it generated excess energy or not. Explaining this magic effect is a different matter, but that's not needed for validation.

I wonder how the investors feel about taking 2 years? After all they will be billionaires when it's validated. You would think they would hurry the process along...

nleseul said...

No member of the jury can make decision until they have a device in front of them - the data doesn't mean anything. I could send you data that showed I was 8 foot tall and three arms -something that is more likely than OU - and you would not be able to prove it wrong.

But the really cool thing about science is that---unlike arbitrary claims about three-armed people---scientific experiments are reproducible. That means that, assuming proper documentation from Steorn, the jurors can easily build their own devices/test rigs/whatever and proceed to perform whatever tests they desire. And it makes absolutely no difference at that point whether they've been "allowed" to see Steorn's original device or not.

ben said...

(hairykrishna)

@nleseul

I never asked for test data. Quite the opposite - I said that test data without an experimental description was worthless.

If Sean has provided the jury with a proper experimental description (as might be submitted to a journal) that's different than providing them with test data. He refused to provide me with this, even if I agreed to an NDA. He seemed to change his mind on this after I began talking to his lawyer and it actually seemed that I might be about to remove his 'you're not under NDA' excuse.

ben said...

(hairykrishna)

@nleseul

Thought I'd add that I totally agree with your point that a real experimental description removes the need to see a machine Steorn have built. Science is worthless if it isn't repeatable.

Obviously it leaves open 'you built it wrong' as a get out clause but only a weak one if there are really 12 independent jurors.

Someone (a 'believer' possibly) should try again to pin Sean down on EXACTLY what their 'jurors' have been given.

I have to say I still don't get the point of a jury 'dog and pony show'. Either publish or sell products.

skeptical said...

"It's safe to say that if it didn't work, the jury would have delivered already".

Is Sean claiming that the "no-verdict yet" means (1) it works; or, (2) they haven't been able to prove it doesn't work?

If (1) then why the continued delay?

If (2) then they are certainly not looking at anything physical. It wouldn't take months to determine that a (200% - 400%) OU device is nothing of the sort.

In otherwords, more verbal sleight-of-mouth by Sean.

JTerry said...

Except nleseul, if there is already a "working" device in existence, why go through the pains and expense of creating copies when one can just test the original to determine if the claim is at least, prima facie, true? Testing the original will not destroy it. If the original measures up to the claims, then build others to replicate the phenomena. It's that simple.

Furthermore, even if we adopted your argument, Steorn hasn't provided the plans for the machine, nor has Steorn provided the machine itself for testing. As has been said over and over again, all they have done is provide "data". So your point is completely moot; nothing can be built without the plans (If I am correct that you were seeking to imply that Steorn did not need to submit their device for testing because they would allow the scientists to build their own with Steorn plans.)

At this point, I would be satisfied if Steorn just provided the plans and said, "ok, make your own and replicate our data." But they haven't done so and don't appear likely to do so anytime in the near future.

Anonymous said...

What you are all failing to realise is that a claim of this magnitude needs a multi-pronged attack. Jury. SPDC, Orbo machines, London Demo, Replicators etc etc.

The jury is just another mechanism to prove the device works. Stop focusing on that solely, you are missing the complete picture by standing to close to the painting.

JTerry said...

@ Anonymous:

What you are saying is certainly NOT consistent with the mouth of Sauron Sean's many pronouncements. According to Sean, the point of the "jury" is scientific "validation". It is supposedly the holy grail of truth; the thing that will reveal the skeptics to be nothing more than obvious lap dogs of the big oil companies who can no longer suppress the wonders of such a device.

Re-read your history. Steorn said that the London "demo" is NOT for purposes of proving their claim. The SPDC is another sham; it lacks substance of any kind and is given none by Steorn. As to the "orbo" devices you metion, THERE ARE NONE ANYWHERE THAT ANYONE HAS EVER SEEN, except for Steorn people of course. There are also no "replicators", etc.

Steorn has repeatedly said that the jury "validation" is the thing that will give their device the credibility it deserves. So you're completely wrong.

Anonymous said...

The university presentation is on youtube.

skeptical said...

"The jury is just another mechanism to prove the device works."

Not correct! Steorn have maintained from the start - no investment, no sales, etc. - until it is validated by the jury. According to them it stands or falls based on the jury decision. Everything else is froth. The jury only need to decide if it 'works'. They don't even need to work out "why" or "how"; or come up with a new "definition of energy"; or redfine whole areas of physics! Just answer "Does it work?". Answering that shouldn't take weeks (let alone months or years). The fact it is taking this long just demonstrates that the only thing Steorn have shown so far is how to drag this out for a long time - froth included.

Anonymous said...

I have talked to 3 small college professors about this and all of them are engineers. Not one of them can think of any reason that any normal scientist could not prove that Orbo is OU is under a week. 40 hours of lab work would be enough for any scientist to prove it. There is some major weird thing going on with this deal. Th elonger it goes on the less it is believable. The demo will be delayed or a boring event with nothing shown!

Anonymous said...

http://www.goodgravydesign.net/evoilweb3/tech.html

"If you are forced to demonstrate some device, consider the following important tips: bore the skeptics right out of the room with long discourses on elementary science; claim you have some adjustments to make, yet; say it worked yesterday; run your machine for just a few seconds and move on to some other important point. - or do the Newman trick of openly hooking up input power and just promising it's less than what comes out."

Anonymous said...

A free energy device which just need a carefull kickstart and then continues to run forever is very easy to test. This is in fact the most easy device to test if I could be sure that the device contains no energy sources or if I could be sure that the device is not under any remote influence from energy sources....

qAPLAh said...

Where does the knowledge come from that the jury has still never seen a working (or any) device??

Tundrabog said...

@qaplah

The source is Sean McCarthy.

Ericc said...

Hairy said :
What a load of crap. It's Sean (yet again) painting himself as the plucky victim standing up to the unreasonable men of science.

You had an invitation to come over and see for yourself, you showed us just how "reasonable" some scientists are...

In comparision with Drmike you sure come across as highly unreasonable.