Topic: Energy
Steorn - Why The Controversy? Steorn claims an improbable new technology. Extremely vocal detractors, mostly "In the Name of Science," are up in arms and take the very claim as an affront. Why all the controversy?by creator
(libertarian)
Monday, December 14, 2009
My last article about Steorn [the Irish company professing to have a "free energy" technology they call Orbo] drew some comments out of the woodwork interesting enough to inspire this attempt to address them. Additionally, evidence continues to mount that Steorn's next public revelation is imminent.
Despite assertions to the contrary, almost every major advance in knowledge has been fraught with controversy. The human mind does not adapt readily to new paradigms. Like a large ship, the total body of human knowledge has a degree of inertia that only allows it to be redirected slowly. This is not necessarily a bad thing; there is clearly no need for everyone to adapt to every speculation that may appear on the horizon, at least until a sufficient body of evidence is developed such that adapting becomes a survival issue.
However, I must confess to being considerably puzzled by the persistence and vehemence of those who seem so quick to cry "foul" at any mention of Steorn and its claims. There are people who seem seriously annoyed that I would have the audacity to even write about Steorn. Some of them at least make some effort to raise reasonable objections. Then there are others who just rant and rave incoherently, calling me names. I will gladly attempt to address the former, while disdainfully ignoring the latter.
While you can inspect all of the past installments in this series (linked below) and read all the many comments and ensuing discussions, I thought it would be worthwhile to try and analyze the "core of the controversy" in a separate article. I will try to answer (or at least discuss) the issues raised by a couple of the more thoughtful comments.
Why do people come down on different sides of the Steorn issue? Am I disposed towards Steorn because I find their technology credible, or is it perhaps simply because I have some Irish blood coursing through my veins? :) Are the nay-sayers merely curmudgeons or do they have legitimate reasons to complain?
In a conversation with a reader of my last article (you can read the entire discussion below that article if you wish,) I made the assertion that Steorn "makes no claim that conservation laws are incorrect." My reader took me to task as follows:
"Please tell me what on earth you are on about. From Steorn's own website: "It is this variation of energy exchanged as a function of transaction time frame that lies at the heart of Orbo technology, and its ability to contravene the principle of the conservation of energy."
A point to my reader? Perhaps, at least one that deserves a good answer. My reply is more of a clarification than an argument. When Steorn speaks of an "ability to contravene the principle of ... conservation" I don't think they are speaking quite literally. Let me explain:
If you read the entire discussion of Orbo that Steorn provides here (please follow the link to do so,) you will find that Steorn appeals to Noether’s Theorem. According to Noether’s Theorem, every symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity. The "law" (i.e. "theory") known as "conservation of energy" requires that the conserved quantity be that of time. Orbo technology is, however, "based upon time variant magnetic interactions." According to this Wikipedia article about conservation of energy,
"...theories which are not invariant under shifts in time (for example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time invariant again."
In my opinion, what Steorn means when it says that Orbo "contravenes conservation" is really only that Orbo is part of an energy exchange with some (as yet not fully understood or explained) external system from which it draws energy. I hope that will somewhat clarify for my readers why I've stated that "Steorn makes no claim that conservation laws are incorrect," their statement quoted above notwithstanding.
Hint: If you are really curious about Orbo and how it works, go back and read the last couple of paragraphs with their links again. Time variance is the "open secret" of Orbo, soon to be revealed in greater detail with working examples.
The Wait Is Almost Over
In fact, more information has "leaked" that Steorn is now on the cusp of its next major revelation. As we already know, Steorn has publicly stated and recently re-affirmed it intends to launch Orbo technology before 2009 is over:
"The demonstration will involve a public display of various Orbo systems, there will be a live video-stream from the location that people can watch via our website." - Sean
However, just a few days ago Steorn seems to have created an official You-Tube account, where they (briefly) placed this video. Additionally, people "on the ground" in Dublin have reported that Steorn has rented a building in which they appear to be preparing their next demonstration. Reportedly, that video is also being projected onto the wall of a nearby building. According to witnesses, the revelation could begin sometime this week.
I call this column Truth Realm because I value truth highly. I perceive that some of the Steorn detractors also value truth highly, although they perhaps lack the same degree of patience that I may have. Some have accused me of accepting Steorn's claims without evidence.
I think if you go back and examine my entire series of articles on the topic, you will see that I don't as yet accept the claims fully in an absolute, 100% sense. I am, however, quite optimistic about the likelihood of said claims. Why? Partially based on the evidence comprising the testimony of those who have seen, those who have built, and those who do know.
When the day is done, truth is what it is, not what we want it to be, and I will patiently wait for all the results to be laid out before making my own final, personal conclusion; however, in the meanwhile, I will also maintain my optimistic outlook and choose to (for now) believe the testimony of those who claim to have observed "free energy" from Orbo.
There is another inevitable analogy to be mentioned here: When Thomas heard the testimony of all the other disciples that Jesus had physically, bodily, risen from the dead, he had perhaps a very "rational response." Thomas said "Unless I see... I will never believe," and has forever become known as "Doubting Thomas."
If the expected imminent Steorn demonstrations are preponderantly persuasive, many more will begin to believe in the near future. However, for the most thoroughly dyed-in-the-wool skeptics of Steorn, it may take nothing less than having an Orbo-powered version of Occam's Razor held in their own hand before they will be willing to accept the evidence. If the claimed effects are true, if Orbo is real, there will certainly come a time when large numbers of implements worldwide will be Orbo powered, and at that time, Steorn's claims will finally be undeniable.
In the more near term, at such a time as I may have personally replicated and observed Orbo in action, I intend to report the results and my observations here, good, bad, or indifferent. I believe this is part of my charter and purpose as one of "The Steorn 300" and I hope you'll stay tuned as the adventure continues.
Note: Please follow the links below for previous articles in this series.
The views expressed in this
article are those of creator only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. creator is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I guess this is your last post of relevance on the subject of steorn? three months - nada, two weeks two posts? Thanks for your opinion. Let's hope they have something to advance mankind (and then eventually, probably kill it....)
I didn't think there was vitriole toward you on this, just some bemused commentary. I for one am somewhat bemused; you are of course aware of how many free energy (i.e. perpetual motion machines) were invented and touted and demonstrated, and always failed, due to ignorance or fraud.
But there really is nothing to get excited about, when all we hear are words of success, and some abstruse physical theory that has not been demonstrated on its own - and that is peppered with many "we don't know the mechanism" commentary.
It's certainly not something to get angry about, it is just amusing to see so many people being taken in with enthusiasm, when all we have are claims.
It may be exciting when they have their demonstration, and then it would be very exciting when that demonstration is thoroughly vetted for trickery or fraud. At that point, I would be VERY excited. Just not now.
I am somewhat embarrassed for you. I am sure your are well versed in physics, and a bit of science history. You really should know better than to throw your bias in favor of their claims. A brand new physical theory is always exciting, but that excitment should truly come out of the successful desposition of the theory.
Believe it Walt, I am in your propositional court of thinking, so I truly emphathize. I just love theories and scientific developments that challenge orthodox science. Especially when they challenge currently accepted scientific fundamentals.
Among some my beliefs that the current scientific consensus does not believe in:
Anthro Global Warming, Cholesterol/Statin/Cardiovascular & health connection, steroid use & health connection, second hand smoke & health connection, the Pons/Fleischmann experiments, and a few others.
But note, none of these challenge fundamental scientific precepts.
To wrap it up, and to show that am in your camp, philosophically if not practically, I am right now working on a physical theory that logically expands upon Einstein's theory of relativity. It demonstrates (!) mathematically a whole slew of physicsly unintuitive results, like acceleration maximums, temporary unilateral shifts in momentum centers, possible explanation of the Dark matter controversy (of which I am skeptical that any exists), and the temporary (but actual) disappearance of mass from the universe (for certain postioned observers of that mass).
So, you see, I am nut too. But I counsel those propositional physics excursions with poise, it is exciting to run down those forbidden paths, but realize they are only exploratory excursions, which more likely than not may not yield fruit.
Thanks very much for your extensive commentary. I am more amazed with the "righteous indignation" against Steorn than any against myself. I would have replied here sooner, but I've been busy writing my next article (now submitted - watch for it!) in which I describe reasonable criteria for believing (or disbelieving!) Steorn's claims.
As a Steorn "insider" I have been privy to more than the average man, and perhaps have had more reason to find their efforts credible - but even so (as perhaps clarified in my next article) I have still only reached a certain "level of belief" based on the evidence I have so far. Now that they have gone public, I hope to soon be able to say even more.
Also, I would like to Thank you, but Please!, there is no need to be embarrassed for me! Should I "know better?" You may think so, but I will be quite content to "take my licks" should Steorn ultimately be proven wrong. However, at this stage, I strongly believe that you and many others will soon be quite surprised. I take it you've been conversing with Walt about this? (Hi Walt!) and, yes, I am quite aware that Walt is less than thrilled with my ongoing articles about Steorn because he also finds the technology less than credible. All of this notwithstanding, I am still very "bullish" on Steorn. I wish I had taken you up on the $100 bet you tendered... and still would, if your suggestion still stands? :)
I would enjoy hearing or reading about your own "offbeat" concepts should you ever care to expand upon and share them. Thanks again for your comments.
There are three basic questions to be addressed here:
Why are people upset over Steorn's claims
Is there any value in Steorn's claims sans verifiable, repeatable proof?
Is it appropiate to post this kind of article on the site?
In answer to the first, the outcome should be obvious. You have a company making a very extraordinary claim, with a product that seems to contravent the laws of physics as we know them as well as common sense. The most common rejoinder to the fact that people are dismissive and skeptical seems to be "Well, people believed X a while ago and it was proven wrong, so Steorn may be onto something." This is, of course, several logical fallacies in one.
It's conceivable Steorn may be on to something, but today's understanding of science is not some nut with no real world experiences just sitting on a chair and stating what he thinks the truth is. It's been tested and retested by legions of scientists and people who want to believe scientists are wrong. The number of claims simlar to Steorn's in pitch and "feel" if not details is high, the number of them that proved true is , well, zero. People are upset because this is being plugged almost as an advertisement, as if there was something really here important.
Of course if Steorn could produce low-cost energy we'd be "Free" of the energy companies. But unless and until this is demonstrated, what seems to be happening is second-order hucksterism on the part of Steorn.
To part 2, is there any value to the claim? No. The fact that they have rented a building, set aside a YouTube channel, etc, means nothing. All they really need is gullible, guileless investors who will lap this sort of thing up. If I had an invention of this nature my primary concern would be the blasted patent office and trademark concerns, not stirring up publicity. To use the example of the doubting Thomas is , of course, yet another logical fallacy -- NO ONE, including you, can point to ANYTHING that supports a single claim they've made. This is not a case where someone has done something remarkable, seen by others , and people refuse to believe until they've seen. This is someone claiming they're about to do something remarkable, which has no one else supporting their claims, and people expressing skepticism.
To the last point, is it appropiate? Oddly enough, yes. If my statist mind can understand libertarian thinking, something like free energy without all the trappings of government regulation, taxation, etc would seem to provide a way for invidivuals to experience, if nothing else, energy liberty. Companies not in the limelight with fresh and bold new approaches to long-standing problems are not so different than libertarian solutions from members of our nation not in the media limelight with fresh and bold new solutions to our nations long-standing problems.
I'm not "angry" at this set of articles, I simply fail to have any faith in a product such as this. Nor will a YouTube video assauge my disbelief. I need to see the theory,the math, and the ability to make this fit with the rest of our knowledge of science. For now, it's vaporware. Until it can be proven independantly of the company, it's a hoax.
Your questions are excellent; your logic is, well, logical; your conclusions are generally refreshing. I'm glad you see the potential for "energy liberty." :) We'll make a libertarian out of you yet!
As to whether or not to have any faith in Steorn, I also agree (as you may see in my next article in this sequence) that we have not yet seen "proof," spinning devices notwithstanding.
My only point in referring to Thomas is that skepticism is legitimate and logical up to a point... the specific point will vary from person to person. At the moment, you doubt; I believe. I admit to not yet being 100%, but I'm optimistic. You admit that "It's conceivable that Steorn may be on to something," but you're pessimistic. I think we're in agreement - one of the "glass half-full, glass half-empty" variety (although maybe it's more like "2/3 full vs. 2/3 empty." :)
Steorn, according to his website's "engineers" video, did something that no one has thought to do.
Take a magnet, attach it to a revolving spindle, and run it past a second, fixed magnet. Carefully measure the energy change as one magnet passes the other magnet. Apparently, this obvious, simple, even dull idea, has not been done before.
Careful measurement shows a small increase in energy. The revolving spindle gains energy from the spindle magnet passing the fixed magnet (if I understand what he says). An increase in energy.
A wonderfully simple idea, no? Measure what happens.
Many years ago, everyone knew things fell. Newton carefully measured and found that all objects fall equally fast. Big DUH. So we have Newton's laws of motion.
Steorn has carefully measured what happens when one magnet passes a second magnet. Another big DUH.
You're very welcome creator (small c). for one appreciate your articles.
Simplicity, may I observe, is not so easy.
Take a object that spins easily and attach a magnet to it. Place another magnet so the two pass each other. The spinning thing (magnet attached) gains a little energy with each pass.
This is so simple that no one thought to observe it carefully.
Steorn has gone out of their way to flaunt their claim at science without being scientific themselves. No peer reviewed papers, no third party validation that is documented, no replications, etc. You do not taunt an entire profession without getting pushback for failing to back up your claim with anything resembling accepted procedure. This has been going on for three years and yet it has not advanced beyond just them claiming something without proof. How can anyone take them seriously on that basis?
There are so many crackpots out there making similar claims that have never produced anything worthwhile so why would scientists all of sudden suspend what they know and jump on this without having substantive proof? It would be like stepping off a cliff because someone told you that there was no such thing as gravity.
And despite Steorn's assertion that no scientists would look at their claim they did manage to acquire hundreds if not thousands of applications to be on their jury. They settled on 22 qualified scientists who deliberated for two years and found nothing to their claim. So this handpicked jury which was to provide the essential validation necessary for Steorn became irrelevant. Do they also ignore their doctors and lawyer's advice? If they do, who in fact are the fools?
For any discovery it is not desirable to attack the very group to which you are trying to get legtimatcy from. As it stands all they have is a big fish story and wonder why the professional fishermen are not impressed.
For their current demonstration they only had six hundred people looking at their live stream. Is this the level of interest they have acquired after three years? It is kind of pathetic as most of the people watching had been following this for years so it was nothing new.
Steorn will have to start employing tried and true science if they want to advance their claim beyond just bravado. No one can say with confidence that the approach Steorn is taking is successful or even will be unless they start to reveal what it is that they have and let it be examined with all of the rigors that science can bring to bear.
Until then it will remain a minor story without substantiation and on that basis science will never give them credibility and they shouldn't.
Thanks for your quite clear answer to the question raised by this article, complete with excellent analogies. I very much appreciate your "weighing in" on this.
There seem to be some indications that, as you've suggested, Steorn has begun to "reveal what it is that they have." Inevitably, they will have to "let it be examined" if they ever expect to sell licenses... if not with "the rigors that science can bring to bear" then with the even greater rigors of a commercial market.
The bottom line (as I see it) is this: if it doesn't work, if there is nothing there, then there is nothing to sell. If it does work and if it can be engineered into useful devices, then Steorn's highly irregular approach to validation will not prevent the market from adopting it in huge numbers.
By commercial I assume you mean with large companies and not the licensing to hobbyists as the initial offering in February.
The large commercial licenses will be kept secret due to NDA. You will probably not even know who they are. On that secrecy basis all manner of hanky panky can occur.
Steorn had said from the beginning that they were working with an outside company to manufacture things for them and yet none of that information has ever surfaced as to who it was or what it was they were manufacturing exactly. I would say that the devices that they do have for sale (i.e. Hall probe, Magnetic Torque Measurement System, Zero-F bearings) are in fact made by third parties as Steorn has said many times they are an IP company and do not manufacture anything themselves. Yet even those companies making non-Orbo products have not come to light and there is nothing to keep that information secret as it is not proprietary per se. At least it is not revolutionary technology warranting cloak and dagger secrecy.
As far as revealing what they have they have already shown it to eight universities and 22 scientists and yet in neither case has anything favorable been forthcoming. No one from any of their development groups has replicated that is known. You would think that such a favorable outcome would be something Steorn would take advantage of to bolster credibility if it were the case.
If Steorn does not have what they claim then I doubt seriously any public information about corporate licensing arrangements will ever see the light of day as they would be a fiction. They can make nebulous statements that some very large corporations are looking into their tech or that they signed agreements with some unnamed companies but that they are precluded from revealing due to NDA. This just buys more time while they are selling hobbyist license agreements and garnering other private investment money.
If they do have what they claim then if I were a large corporation I would be a little concerned about entering into an expensive license agreement with a company that has made the exact same tech available for a few hundred dollars to hordes of hobbyists scattered all over the world. Policing that would be a full time job for Steorn. The chances of the tech getting out with or without NDA would be astronomically high. Since Steorn does not have a patent on exactly what Orbo is that I or anyone else is aware of, the chances of it getting stolen with impunity are very high. China is notorious for stealing IP and suing them is virtually impossible. If the underlying principle behind Orbo is a force of nature then it cannot even be patented anymore than trying to patent the speed of light.
Also, the one thing that is missing from this "if it is real" scenario is governments themselves. Such technology could be construed as a national security issue as it effects the entire energy infrastructure. The thought that hundreds of thousands of people could be put out of work and entire industries with trillions of dollars in capital investment would be idled would of great concern to governments worldwide (mass unemployment, losss of tax revenue, Bonds voided, investments lost, chaotic currency fluctuations, etc) . It is hard to predict exactly what they would do but it may certainly impede Steorn's grand plans. I'm not talking about MIB either but rather the reaction of more mundane bureaucracies who can enact restrictive legislation or place high tariffs or taxes on the tech making it less attractive.
The devil is in the details and in Steorn's case it is damned if they cannot and double damned if they can.
Bobotov, thanks for your additional further discourse.
You are correct about what I mean by "commercial," i.e. real-world practical devices in widespread use, available everywhere.
Your observations about existing and possible licensees are interesting; however I think that policing something as obvious as an orbo-driven car would not be too difficult. Not that I would want to do that, mind you - a patent lawyer I once worked with used to say that while patenting something may be expensive, patent litigation is the "sport of kings" because only they can afford it!
If Orbo is real, then the "corporatocracy" issues you speak of -- even minus MIB -- will be VERY real. My impression is that Steorn's strategy to deal with that is to stay on the periphery and not attack the larger more disruptive applications like home power generation... after all, how threatening would an Orbo-powered shaver be? Additionally, the mindset of humanity being the almost unfathomably large flywheel that it is, adoption of any radical technology by a substantive number of people always takes a very long time.
Thanks again for weighing in. If you don't already write for Nolan Chart, you might consider signing up? :)
You said, \" after all, how threatening would an Orbo-powered shaver be?\"
Imagine a world of horse, mule and oxen driven devices and someone invents the internal combustion engine and what do they do with it? Make a leaf blower.
It would be ironic to have the greatest discovery since fire relegated to a really trivial application.
You also said, \"adoption of any radical technology by a substantive number of people always takes a very long time.\'
I think the use of fire caught on like, well...fire. Once the tech genie is out of the bottle its deployment can be pretty rapid. Typically with new technology the impeding factor is usually cost. The first radios, TVs, computers were affordable only by the very wealthy. That is what kept the tech deployment low not the technology itself.
However, I do not believe OU is possible in this universe so talking conjecture is like imagining being the richest man in the world. Amusing but pointless.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
