| Nov 11, 2006 @ 8:01 PM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,142
|
http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx?p=1
|
|
  |
|
| Nov 11, 2006 @ 11:22 PM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,251
|
Made me look 
I've got it!!!
|
| |
|
| Jan 2, 2007 @ 12:21 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
Monsterboy
Posts: 287
|
Anyone heard anything new on this? The website's still up. I'm always up for changing my view of how the universe works. 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 2, 2007 @ 1:15 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,251
|
It's MAGNETS.  (wasn't this an old standby/perennial Science Fair project?)
Here's the video interview -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDA0oyAtNBA
(It's also been accused of being an April Fool's day hoax...)
And wouldn't this sort of "motor" only work up to its theoretical potential in a vacuum?
Where's Mr. Null?
|
| |
|
| Jan 2, 2007 @ 3:19 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
null_geodesic
Posts: 678
|
At the moment, I'm staring at 4.75 hours of sleep for tomorrow. Need to get to bed. I'm fairly certain we're not closing for President Ford's death, despite what the NYSE is doing.
I'll be back tomorrow and explain:
1. Why this can't be correct from a scientific standpoint.
2. Why the fact that it can't be correct technically doesn't discount what the company is claiming.
3. Some subtle indicators that suggest this guy is a fraud from the language he uses.
4. Why I think he's doing this in the first place.
First order of business is get some sleep. Good night!
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 2, 2007 @ 3:47 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
Always_Striving
Posts: 7,596
|
I learned early (13-15 years old and later in high school electrical lab) that you cannot maintain perpetual motion electrically or chemically because of the heat factors and molecular breakdowns. University physics courses and labs pretty much locked down those thoughts.
I think the original intent is a pipe dream, but I wouldn't discourage any studies because energy efficiencies can be discovered by tinkering around this way. 
You'll get more energy by dropping 4-5 white mentos breath mints into a 2 litre diet coke than using their machine.
Check this one too
[Edited on 1/2/2007 4:26 AM]
|
| |
|
| Jan 2, 2007 @ 6:49 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
T_i_m
Posts: 809
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 2, 2007 @ 8:19 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,142
|
Reportedly, the jury of a dozen or so scientists has been selected from around the world and will begin work after the first of the year. At that time, they'll be given access to all of Steorns internal data and will have carte blanche to set up an experiment/s to either prove or disprove steorns claim. Their final report will be made public before the end of 2007.
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 12:42 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
null_geodesic
Posts: 678
|
The guy talks about point charges in a magnetic field as generating the energy. Current science (when I say current I mean as of year 1870) says that a charge in a magnetic field can never have its kinetic energy increased.
According to current science (and here, when I say "current", I mean as of year 1700) the change in an object's kinetic energy is equal to work done on the object. This is the "work energy theorem". It applies to electromagnetic systems as well as mechanical systems.
Work requires that an object move in the direction of force. So if I push a book forward and it moves forward, I've done work on the book and its kinetic energy increases. OTOH, imagine the unlikely scenario where I push the book forward, and for whatever reason it moves sideways. I did no work on the book and its kinetic energy does not increase.
Having an object move in a direction other than the direction of applied force is a funny thing. You would think that if I push something left, it goes left. If I push it right, it goes right. And for many things, this is true.
Magnetic fields are kind of funny. A charge moving in a magnetic field will always feel a force which is perpendicular to its motion. There are no exceptions to this rule. If the magnetic field points "up", and the charge moves "north", then the force will always be to the "east". That's called the right hand rule.
As a result of this property of charges in magnetic fields (force being perpendicular to motion), it's well known by science that magnetic fields can do no work, and therefore, cannot raise the kinetic energy of a charge.
It's pretty easy to demonstrate with pencil and paper that if Steorn's claims are true, then their claim is logically equivalent to heat spontaneously traveling from a cold area to a warm area. Imagine you put a pot of water on the stove. You turn the stove on. You come back 5 minutes later and find that thermal energy has traveled from the water to the fire, rather than vice versa: The water is now ice and the flame is blazing hotter than it ever has. Steorn's claims can only be true in the universe where this is a possibility.
The man in the video claims that they've found a new result that nobody has seen before and which cannot be explained by science. So what I just mentioned above is supposed to have no relevance to what they're doing. That's why the man claims his infinite energy source works. What he is in effect saying is that science doesn't apply here. Quite a statement!
Steorn appears to be a fairly typical "pump and dump" dot com. I urge anyone with interest to read their Wikipedia page, paying close attention to the "Financial history" and "Inconsistencies" sections. The only thing that makes them stand out, to me, is the fairly public stance they've taken.
The whole thing reminds me of the Infinium fiasco. For people who are interested in the canonical "pump and dump" dot com, this article on the Infinium Phantom is probably one of the best researched and most scathing exposes on a pump and dump I've ever seen. Very humorous. The punchline to the Infinium story is that they finally did release a product: a keyboard. And not a very good keyboard at that.
I believe that Steorn is another Infinium.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 1:25 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,251
|
~grin~ I've been wracking my brain ever since I saw this the first time to figure out what the "product" is...I keep giggling at the thought of one of those WoolyWilly toys
or the old "Scotty" trick magnets
My first picture that I'd posted, which isn't online anymore, was of those perpetually water-bobbing birds 
(yeh, I get a bit leary after idiotically falling for the whole Dihydrogen Monoxide announcement   )
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 2:31 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
Monsterboy
Posts: 287
|
To be fair, the Steorn guy did say it involved changing our whole view of how the universe works. You should be rooting for them, Null: if they do prove we've been wrong all these years, imagine the sudden surge in demand for theoretical physicists. It'd be like what 9/11 did for the security industry.
(As usual, I am interested in this primarily for the possible ramifications in science fiction.)
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 9:53 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
null_geodesic
Posts: 678
|
To be fair, the Steorn guy did say it involved changing our whole view of how the universe works.
Did I not say this?
You should be rooting for them, Null: if they do prove we've been wrong all these years, imagine the sudden surge in demand for theoretical physicists. It'd be like what 9/11 did for the security industry.
I think if Steorn turned out to have merit and we created infinite energy sources, it'd be totally tits. But I feel SO strongly that the chances of there being merit to their claim is, for all practical purposes, zero. It's hard to root for something you know with every fiber of your being is wrong.
(As usual, I am interested in this primarily for the possible ramifications in science fiction.)
I met Majel Barrett a few times at various Star Trek and scifi conventions I've been to over the years. The first time I met her, I told her that I was pursuing an undergrad degree in theoretical physics (partly) because I was inspired by her husband, and she gave me hug.
Years later I told her her at another convention that I was pursuing a PhD in theoretical physics (partly) because I was inspired by her husband, and she gave me a kiss.
I've often wondered what she'd give me if I ever told her that I finished the doctorate (partly) because I was inspired by her husband.... 
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 10:23 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,142
|
It's just as well that Null is probably right on this--such a device would probably collapse the world economy.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 10:31 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
lell
Posts: 1,442
|
 Im learning
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 6:11 PM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
null_geodesic
Posts: 678
|
I had a paragraph saying something to the effect that it would almost be a tragedy if their claims were valid -- talk about a paradigm falling around your ears. We'd have to reinvent science from the ground up.
Then I was thinking --- what am I saying? Free infinite energy? How could that possibly be a bad thing? Think of all the lives it would improve.
And then I was thinking that, like nuclear technology and every technology before it, it would probably cause a whole lot of pain, suffering, and death.
I think before humanity goes around playing with free infinite anything, we probably need to do a good deal of growing up first.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 8:26 PM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
Martin666
Posts: 2,142
|
It would all make interesting speculation for Monsterboys science fiction...?
Every part of our culture and economy is built upon an equilibrium between all the constituent parts, arrived at over millions of years of evolution. What happens if one componant of that equilibrium was suddenly changed so radically as to throw the entire system out of balance? When big, balanced systems start to wobble, it's difficult to predict where they will end up: it can be hell just as easy as it can be Utopia, at least in the short run.
And not just by one "steorn" over-unity machine, that would be just the opening shot: what technologies would cascade out of that first glimpse of a new universe where Isaac Newton suddenly became irrelevant, even laughable?
Isaac Asimov's novella "Nighfall." comes to mind. What happens after a thousand generations of living in one kind of world, another kind of world suddenly presents itself?
The computers would shut down the NYSE within minutes of the opening bell...
Could we be to the stars by 2029?
That's what I like about this steorn thing. No, it almost certainly isn't going to be anything in the end, but for the next several months, while everything's pending, it offers interesting tidbits for the imagination that otherwise wouldn't be there.
|
| |
|
| Jan 3, 2007 @ 8:49 PM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
Monsterboy
Posts: 287
|
When big, balanced systems start to wobble, it's difficult to predict where they will end up: it can be hell just as easy as it can be Utopia, at least in the short run.
Just as easy? I think that's seriously underestimating the powers of humans to work hell.
Anyway, convenience factor aside, it'd probably be damaging to SF plots in the long run; handy to explain what powers your starship, but once you get free anything, questions of economics come up, and you wonder why people need to go anywhere, etc. Kinda why Star Trek eventually had to come up with "gold pressed latinum", so they could have an economic standard (and not coincidentally greed as a character motivation) after years of making the point that poverty didn't exist in the Federation anymore.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 4, 2007 @ 6:40 AM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
T_i_m
Posts: 809
|
If the work being done by Steorn is what they claim and not pseudo-science, the fact that the source of energy may be free, utilizing and maintaining it will not. In less than 100 years, the world's coal and oil reserves will be dangerously low. By then, if the Steorn device is for real, the Earth will be in need of a new source of energy to compliment solar, wind and others. Considering the half life of nuclear waste, all other (clean) alternatives are preferable.
(=•_•=)
[Edited on 1/4/2007 6:55 AM]
|
| |
|
| Jan 4, 2007 @ 12:16 PM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real?
|
|
MrMikey
Posts: 108
|
Very interesting thread....I've heard numerous interviews on the radio here with the Chief Executive of this company and am following it with interest (since they're based here in Dublin). When I've heard him interviewed, he sounds genuine and admits how implausible the claims seem - hence their call for scientists to evaluate it.
I'm no physicist, but it's a fascinating story. Imagine if it were true...wow!
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 5, 2007 @ 8:47 PM |
Is the Steorn energy challenge for real? |
|
T_i_m
Posts: 809
|
Since Star Trek was brought up. . .
Star Trek Tech
Real technology prompts ideas about gadgets in "Star Trek'' stories.
The History Channel
Mon 1/15 1:00 PM
Mon 1/15 7:00 PM
|
| |
|
|
|
|