Do extraordinary claims require exceptional proof? We explore what will be absolutely necessary for anyone to believe Steorn this time around. by creator
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
♣15 December 2009 Orbo Launch - Will Orbo "Get Real?" You Decide!
That persistent little Irish company known as Steorn just won't quietly go away. They adamantly refuse to relinquish their claim that they have a "free energy" technology. The long promised and awaited day has finally come, and Steorn has now re-launched Orbo in a very public demonstration. Many scientists worldwide (and a possibly even larger number of lemming-like science groupies) seem divided between outright mockery and vocal outrage at Steorn's cheek, vehemently insisting that Orbo is just so much dreck, without a snowball's chance in hell of being "real."
In my last article on the topic, "Steorn - Why the Controversy?," I tried to address some reasonable comments from a couple of my scientifically oriented readers. While the practice of "science" generally appears to the average man to be a rather stuffy round of research, publication, discussion, and incremental progress, the really exciting progress has historically been unexpected, seemingly heretical at first, and always steeped in heated debate, public stunts, and protracted controversy.
I call this column Truth Realm because I value truth highly in all areas of life. Some readers have accused me of accepting Steorn's claims without evidence. For example, this comment from a reader merits a serious response:
"If you're wondering why people get so angry about Steorn then you need to read about fallacies, evidence, scientific method, and burden of proof etc. The most fundamental lesson in life is not to believe anything without evidence yet for some reason this rule seems to go out of the window sometimes."
In the same vein, another faithful reader has said:
"I take it as an affront when pseudoscience is paraded as real science, and in such a way that people who are not particularly literate from a scientific perspective are led to believe that there's a real debate when the preponderance of evidence--including the laws of physics as we understand them--cries "fraud." Frankly, I applaud those who are not "content with simply going about their business," but who are instead willing to come out publicly and say that the Emperor has no clothes. Otherwise, there would be no pressure at all on companies like Steorn to actually try to prove their outlandish claims."
And so I would like to explore the question of what, exactly, will constitute sufficient evidence to justify belief in Steorn's claims? I will lay out my own understanding of appropriate criteria, and will give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your ability to discern whether or not there is a "real debate" and what the "preponderance of evidence" actually shows.
I will briefly mention the field of epistemology - do you remember Pilate's question, "What is truth?" - and then I'll make the blithe assumption that most readers have already advanced in their own thinking beyond the infantile stage of solipsism.
Next I'll take a moment to ridicule postmodernism, along with those who vainly cling to some hope that "truth is relative" and that one may "believe in anything" and it will thereby become valid for you. Rubbish!
Levels of Evidence
What, then, constitutes "proof" of anything? Here is my list of "levels of evidence," presented in "layman's terms" for your consideration. I hope you find it helpful in forming your own opinions, both about Steorn and about the motivations and sincerity of those who comment on Orbo, both positively and negatively.
Hearsay
This level of evidence is simply indirect reports, the sort of "he said - she said" reporting that is not much more than a rumor. Surprisingly, much of what the average person accepts as "historical fact" also falls into this category of evidence. Sadly, most students simply accept what their professors tell them or what they may have read by someone simply reporting about the testimony of others.
Testimony
Direct reports from first-person witnesses is a universally accepted form of evidence. For example, all courtrooms rely upon the testimony of first-person witnesses, either in person or by deposition. Evidences for the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are in this category, attested by the original writings of many eye-witnesses as recorded in documents passed down through a strong chain of evidence.
In biblical times, the standards of evidence were even higher than those of modern jurisprudence, requiring at least two eye-witnesses who were willing to submit themselves to the identical penalty of the one against whom they testified.
As another example; Do you personally accept historical records? Legitimate history is based primarily on eye-witness accounts of "what happened." Historians rely not only upon physical evidence that persists to this day (buildings, photographs, motion pictures, geological features) but also and often to a greater extent upon the recorded testimony of people that were there when events occurred.
Other issues, such as "chain of evidence" and the quantity and reliability of all witnesses in that chain, I won't expand on in detail here. I do however think that eye-witness testimony is a "reasonable level of evidence" at which to begin to believe that something is "real." People do so every day when they accept history as factual.
This is also still a level of evidence subject to disproof. Contradictory evidence may certainly come to light at this point. Refutations and better sources may become available. The mix of the reliability and quantity of witnesses may change, and if and when it does, an individual's working conclusions may also change.
This is the level of evidence where I am presently with Steorn - the level of "accepting the testimony of others." As of today, the "eye-witness testimony" level is one that Dubliners (and anyone willing to go there!) can come to. Now that anyone in Dublin can "walk in and kick the tires," there will be an ever increasing number of eye-witnesses.
Direct Observation
Suppose that now YOU are the witness. What did you see? What did you hear? How did you measure the device or demonstration upon which you base your conclusions? How long was your continuous observation of the phenomenon that you observed? Did you look for the "usual suspects" of internal or external hidden power sources?
At this level of evidence, having the direct experience of your own senses, you may become either even more convinced of the claims or you may start to abandon them. Your own ability to discern and evaluate will weigh quite heavily here if the demonstration is not "iron-clad."
However, it may be that "the holy grail" (see below) is before you. Even the most severe skeptic (if honest!) will be hard-pressed to deny a "holy grail-caliber" device after reasonable "due diligence" is exercised to insure that there is no "hidden trickery" involved.
Repeatability
Further suppose that now YOU have built and/or used and/or measured Orbo yourself. You have personally witnessed behavior that either supports or contradicts Steorn's claims. What physical evidence do you have to support your report? Does the device work every time? Does it work if you take it down the street, or to another town? Does it work when other people are present? Can other people make copies that also work?
Measurements alone can be quite tricky, especially when the question of power output versus power input is being considered. Test equipment must be sensitive, reliable, in calibration, and even then must be properly set up and rigorously interpreted to produce valid conclusions. Even "experts" are sometimes fooled by measurements alone, and so consider "holding out" for the "holy grail" (described in more detail below.)
Pervasive Presence
This is the level of evidence at which "everybody knows" that Orbo works. However, even at this stage, propaganda may play a significant role... consider what "everybody knows" about money and political parties, for example! Nevertheless, real-world science is MUCH harder to falsify at this stage of evidence, and so when Steorn achieves this level of "proof" it will be virtually impossible to deny the reality of Orbo. Here's why:
There is an Orbo in every cellphone and in your laptop computer. The Orbo under the hood of your car takes you as far as you want to go with no refueling whatsoever. Neighborhood Orbo substations, or maybe your own backyard Orbo, provide all the electric power you need to run your home.
If Steorn actually arrives at this point in the development of proof of Orbo, all the past controversy will seem just silly, and the "scientific" dinosaurs that ridiculed Steorn in the early days will have become laughable footnotes in history. They may all just die out from terminal embarrassment and/or justified ridicule as they attempt to maintain their self-righteous position!
What Is The "Holy Grail" of Free Energy?
What do I consider "The Holy Grail" of evidence that will put the dispute "to bed" for me (and hopefully for anyone that I might show it to?)
I have long maintained that the "Holy Grail" of free energy will be a self-running system that produces some demonstrable amount of "surplus power," no matter how small, in addition to the energy used to run itself. Said self-runner should be able to run "perpetually" even in a Faraday cage. Should I come into possession of an Orbo device, this is what I will be looking for.
Such a "self-runner" would eliminate all possible argument based on "measurement error" because any device capable of both running and supplying surplus power continuously is very obviously self-validating. Is this what Steorn actually has and is now demonstrating? We will see.
It will be interesting to see how "The truth" about Steorn progresses through the "levels of evidence" that I've described above, and where it "falls out" (if it anywhere...!)
Are you still a "Doubting Thomas" regarding Steorn's claims? Even at this late date, doubt is still a quite rational response - but enjoy it while you can!, because it won't be reasonable for long if Orbo is real. Be prepared for what may come. It just might be time to "Get Real. Get Orbo."
I hope that it won't be long before I will be able to personally witness Orbo in action. I will then, God willing, report the results of any observations here, and will let you know if and when I arrive at my own personal "point of certainty." It's been a real "kick" being 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.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-12-15 15:41:04
Hi Dann,
 I think there is only proof, no exceptional proof. :-)
While I have an extensive background in physics, chemistry and electro-magnetism, I take it on faith, not proof, that no such thing as free energy is possible. I do believe that energy might be generated from sources I cannot fathom but I do not believe it will be free.
I view free energy as a power that has orders of magnitude more destructive potential than fiat currency. Especially if there is a way for it to be kept from common usage by the government. I see it having fare more potential for moral hazard than our cancerous welfare state ever could.
So, I both believe and hope that free energy remains the pursuit of folly it has always been. However, to your point, if there is proof, there is proof. Nothing more is needed.Â
I would love to see you expand your arguments against free energy in an article sometime. :) It is my opinion that governments should certainly quake at the possible advent of free energy because, along with it, personal liberty will be greatly expanded. And so I think our views are diametrically opposed; but I would certainly like to better understand why you see free energy as a danger!
Posted By: Michael Ferrier
Date: 2009-12-15 16:52:54
Hi Dann,
Thanks a lot for keeping up this always-fascinating blog! Just a comment on your statement that:
"As of today, the "eye-witness testimony" level is one that Dubliners (and anyone willing to go there!) can come to. Now that anyone in Dublin can "walk in and kick the tires," there will be an ever increasing number of eye-witnesses."
Dubliners can walk in and see something spinning that is attached to a battery. That certainly makes them an eye-witness that Orbo exists, but not that it generates more energy than is put into it. We're still relying on testimony for that, either from within Steorn or from any 3rd party successful replicators that those in the '300' may know about but that the rest of us don't.
To become an eye-witness that Orbo generates free energy, would at least require measurement equipment at the demo, to show that it is using more energy than the battery is providing. Better yet would be a battery-free version that we could inspect, spin up ourselves, and watch it keep running indefinitely.
I think if you re-read my description of the various stages of evidence, you will see that I am "in violent agreement" with you. Please re-read the discussion of evidence, and my description of "The Holy Grail" of free energy.
You're right, the walk-in observers can testify only that they've seen something spinning... there is clearly more hard work to be done before we're all "on the same page!"
Regarding the battery: a rather simple voltage meter, a Faraday cage, and some as yet to-be-determined "perpetuity of run-time" will still make this sort of "rig" an unequivocal proof... the debate on "how long will it run?" is even now going on at the Steorn forum... :)
Thanks for commenting. How do I square science with faith?
Truth is truth, wherever you find it. "Science," another word for "knowledge," comes from evaluating the world through observation, hypothesis, experiment, and validation. "Faith," another word for "belief," comes from listening to what God (aka Jesus) said. Once I've recognized that the universe is an artifact that I didn't create, it's not too hard to see that I want to find truth not only from observations of the universe, but also from the person who designed and built it.
Think of it this way: who better to consult about "how something works" than the person who designed it?
I'm sorry, but after going to the Steorn site and watching their production and "live" feeds, I very nearly injured myself laughing.
Let me get this straight -- they're using a battery to power a primitive , magnetically driven turbine, to generate eletricity to feed back into the wire, so power it, and it produces more energy than the battery puts in. At a 3 to 1 efficiency ratio.
I got your hundred bucks right here : this is absolute, total bullshit. This guy wants 300 engineers to develop" the technology? Really? There are literally so many ways one could pull this stunt off and make it look like it was right to an untrained viewer not doing a careful examination that the possiblities are endless.
Here's my challenge - if I can take their published technical specs and build this myself and make it produce more electricity than I put into it, I will believe. If they don't ask for any money or investment up to the point independant researchers develop and prove this thing I'll be delighed and buy a license myself.
If, though, as I expect, they will want license fees to release such specs and put limits on testing allowed without such non-refundable license fees, well...runs on blarney is being kind. Time will tell, no?
Logical Premise, the mental image of you almost injuring yourself laughing is worth the price of admission... thanks for gracing the comment section under my article. :)
I readily stipulate that the demo "as-is," in and of itself, is inconclusive. As I've stated in my article, I'm waiting for "holy grail-caliber" proof, as I have described.
Presently, I am also waiting for some answers from Steorn regarding what I may or may not disclose about the Orbo... however, I'll point out (in an attempt to guess at an answer to your challenge) that they've already published an exploded view of the demo device (granted, not with full technical details) and that gives me some measure of optimism that they will disclose more next year so that "garage tinkerers" can play with this.
As for money, they have not (up to this point) asked me for any... and so we should soon see if there will be independent replications. If I should become an "independent replicator," you can be sure that I will apply the evaluation criteria that I've sketched out in this article.
They haven't asked for money? That is a good sign. I'm presuming (though you've NDA'd yourself to not talk about it) that they must have showed you something more convincing than a flash of "magnets spin with magical power", or you'd hardly be willing to start a long series of articles to make a fool of yourself if they had nothing to show.
I think getting upset with you is , well, illogical.
Jaffre also makes a good point. With free energy comes, well, weaponization potential. A LOT of it. Libertarians are going to see the good coming from this, whearas if I sit down and think about it I can imagine fleets of UAV's hovering 24/7 monitoring populations or power-armored police officers. A point to consider.
Oh, I know somewhat more than I can say in so many words... What I've learned about the "theory of operation" of Orbo makes me think that it is plausible without as yet having utterly convinced me that it's real. At times I fall asleep contemplating that...
For anyone curious, I think I've dropped enough hints within my series of articles that the principles of operation could be figured out... in fact I think that Steorn has pretty much let enough slip so that it could be figured out... especially now that you've all seen photos! However, it would take someone brighter than me (or just lucky) to work out the precise details.
As for weaponization -- yes, a distinct and perhaps regrettable possibility. But if that means that you and I have our own "equalizers..." well, so be it. A well armed society is a polite society, and I think I'd rather trust in "common grace" among the majority of a population to suppress evil rather than tyranny. Besides, access to energy will be one of the enabling technologies for my own development of the Flying House. Solar system, here I come! :)
Regardless of any arguement about the implausibility that Steorn have a true 'over-unity' device, it is the way they have gone about this that simply screams 'SCAM' at the top of it's lungs.
If they really had a working device, they could simply make it and sell it. People don't care what scientists think about how things work; people buy crystals to cure cancer and buy distilled water to fix their arthritis. You can talk all you like about epistimology, but marketers know that consumers don't care.
If the thing works you could sell it today like hotcakes. There is simply no need to hold a 'public demo' in order to market a new device. People didn't buy microwaves beacuse someone held a public demo demonstrated that this new machine cooks your food using invisble rays; they simply said the thing worked and let you buy it to find out. If it cooks you pasta and cheese most people don't care what a lab coat wearing scientis would say about it.
The fact that Steorn have used this approach is what demonstrates they don't really have a working device. The whole approach to the NDA 300 club, licensing model etc is all crazy and not the way any sane company would go about bringing a device like this to market, if they really had a working model.
On the other hand, it is an approach you would take if you didn't really have the tech, but wanted to stretch this thing out for as long as possible.
I've been following Steorn since the Economist ad, and I still can't work out exactly who it is that they're scamming (I suspect a few wealthy investors for whom all this show is aimed at, but it's not clear).
But really, what do they think will be achieved by the demo, what does it prove? If the thing works it will sell when and if you bring it to market, and if it doesn't it won't sell. The demo has no purpose if you assume the thing really works, but has a clear purpose if you assume it doesn't.
Your Levels of Evidence might work for philosophy or law, but they don't bear much relation to science. Certainly, your second highest level, the "everybody knows" or "lots of things have one" criterion is not a scientific consideration. As you note, there are many things that are widely believed, even widely used, which have no scientific basis. It is not even a useful starting point for scientific inquiry, since scientists are more interested in finding new science, rather than debunking popular beliefs.
Your "Holy Grail" level is actually more like where a scientific inquiry would start - i.e. with a careful controlled experiment.
If people think basic science experiments are the "Holy Grail" of evidence this either says a lot about the rigor of scientific method or illustrates the shockingly low standards of evidence people accept as proof of something. My experience suggests the latter.
Also when considering validation, Steorn had a good starting point with the jury of scientists they appointed. How convenient it is that this new "demo" is only launched after the jury have disbanded...
Like every other OU scam, what Steorn publicly demonstrate does not prove anything, but the "truth" about what really makes it work is kept secret. The only way these scams can keep going is if they limit the evidence to a core of uncritical "believers". If the evidence was transparent and public, it would not survive truly critical examination.
You're effectively raising the question of how can anyone prove anything?
It's pretty obvious what constitutes proof in this case. A Steorn demo isn't proof and in fact is only more evidence that Sean is less delusional and more fraud but no one is sure about that yet. I'm fascinated by the story because I want to know how much of it is fraud and how much is delusion. I think there's been a steady shift from almost total delusion to fraud to pay for delusion's high costs.
"Even at this late date, doubt is still a "rational response" - but enjoy it while you can!, because it won't be reasonable for long if Orbo is real."
This is just insanity. What possible reason do you have to believe Orbo could be real? It cannot be more of a reason that to believe you should believe me when I tell you that fairies exist. Why put quotes around "rational response"? Why insult it?
You're trying to add value to irrationality. There isn't a case to. You're just not an intelligent being. I'm sorry.
You present some very plausible interpretations of what's going on. I can only speculate on counter arguments, and that only based on Steorn's already public business plan. If you suspend your disbelief for a moment and stipulate that there is an "effect" that Steorn has discovered which is real, then you can see that the market for Orbo is so large and so diverse that no one company in its wildest dreams could ever possibly hope to satisfy it.
While you might argue that one tiny slice of the market alone ( e.g. perpetual power for cellphones ) would prove the validity of the technology while being more than enough to satisfy the financial needs of Steorn, they've chosen to do no more than "proof of concept" engineering and to license the use of the technology to the myriad and diverse companies that will be necessary to satisfy the global market.
Your observation that you've been unable to identify the "scam-ee" in this scheme is a brilliant counterpoint to your own complaint. Perhaps there is a set of folk they are scamming; perhaps it includes themselves? We should all know within the coming year as this plays out and verifiable replications either occur or do not.
@bc,
As stated in the article, my presentation of "levels of evidence" is in "layman's terms" just to help readers evaluate what is going on to a greater degree than "I'm for Steorn" or "Steorn's a fraud." And, while scientific inquiry might start with experimentation, real-world engineering tends to "cut to the chase" and begins building product at the earliest stage possible. In that sense, Bogdanovist is absolutely on point to wonder "where's the beef" so to speak.
Regarding the jury and etc., I am not aware of any records or reports beyond a general statement (paraphrasing) "We see no excess energy." I hope that a real report will someday be published, i.e. what exactly the jury did during that span of time while deliberating. Did they actually build test rigs? Did they push them to the threshold of usability? In physical science, there are "boundary effects" that don't even begin to be imagined, much less to be measurable, until certain, sometimes extreme, thresholds are reached - for example, consider Newton v. Einstein.
@Chris Owen,
Sir, I will most certainly reserve my right to be silly! :) Most real learning is a byproduct of play, don'tcha know?
But seriously, I agree that the Steorn demo is far from proof; it is merely the next salvo in a battle for recognition. As to recognition of what, we each have our own interpretation and expectations about that, and you've stated yours as I have mine.
As to your complaint about quotes around "rational response," point taken - you've mistaken my meaning and I see how you could do so - and so, if you check, you'll see I've removed the quotes because I had no intention of insulting rationality (please be sure to refresh your browser.)
In the spirit of appreciation for your interaction here, I will likewise assume that you denigrated my intelligence in the heat of the argument, and so I'll overlook that as well. I'll even go so far as to say that I feel we could probably have some enjoyable discussion over a pint of Guiness were we only in the same place, at least until one or the other of us becomes so apoplectic with frustration that we fall off of our stool! :)
If these folks had truely invented a free power source, the government would have killed them by now and stored the device next to the Ark of the Convenant in a vast warehouse somewhere.
LOL, you're right, I have totally ignored the "no-government-suppression" evidence so far, haven't I? Thanks for the smile. :)
@Dr. Kathrine M.,
Thanks for the suggestion... I would love to go back to Dublin and have a look-see myself. Care to fund my trip? :)
Actually, I don't think it would help with the issue as I doubt that Steorn would allow me to modify the demo setup according to my own requirements (i.e. the "holy grail" requirements I've described in this article - Faraday cage, "surplus" power-tap of some sort, etc.)
In any case, I have reason to believe I may before long have my hands on an identical (or substantially similar) setup, at which time I will make all the necessary modifications right here.
Posted By: Michael Ferrier
Date: 2009-12-16 23:02:40
Hi Dann,
You said that "As for money, they have not (up to this point) asked me for any." However, according to their own site, they will soon (February) be asking anyone who wants a shot at replicating Orbo for 419 euros ($613) per year. That puts it out of the range of most interested hobbyists (myself included), and seems counterproductive to their goal of generating a groudswell of enthusiasm and replication efforts. I don't think it fits in well with the notion that it's a scam either, because I would expect they would get so few members at that price. I don't understand their motive there.
In fact some have suggested that the 419 Euro price is a nod to the "419" Nigerian scams, and that Steorn is trying to build bad publicity by asking such high fees and showing a demo unit that includes a battery. Their idea is that next month, Steorn will belie expectations by dropping the fee and removing the battery. This would be entertaining, but I don't think they'd purposefully squander what trust and goodwill for them is out there, or seek to make an initial bad impression. Again, I can't guess what their motives are. Looking forward to finding out.
No, sorry, you're incorrect in your speculation... but, keep on thinking about this! :)
Michael, I could be wrong, but I think that "hobbyist-level" licenses will be available cheap or free? AKA "non-commercial." But, that is just an impression / vague recollection I don't have time to research at this moment...
Your last speculation is interesting, but somewhat illogical (as you yourself point out) or at least counterproductive.
OK, I've had a few minutes to check... I was wrong about the hobbyist license, here is the Steorn site info where the fees are stated plainly:
http://www.steorn.com/skdb/licenses/
So, unless you're a "well-heeled" hobbyist, I guess you stay watching from the sidelines...
This seems to me like a very bad and limiting policy on the one hand; however, on the other hand, if it were "free" then the SKDB servers would certainly become overloaded immediately...
I guess my "two cents" would be that Steorn ought to offer an "affordable" non-commercial license for those who want to experiment. How about it, Steorn? Charge a fee that would be more in line with what a garage tinkerer could afford... or have "student" pricing...
Of course, if Steorn reaches the "holy grail" level of proof... then the current fee structure would be seen as a real bargain.
"And, while scientific inquiry might start with experimentation, real-world engineering tends to "cut to the chase" and begins building product at the earliest stage possible. "
I am a real-world engineer, and I tell you that is not how we work! We only work with things that have sound scientific principles. It's hard enough getting things to work even then, if I told my boss my plan was based on "impossible physics" he would throw me out. Engineering can only start where science leaves off. So I don't buy this idea that professional engineers start work on things that are supposed to be scientifically impossible. Back yard tinkerers and hobbyists maybe, not what I would call professional engineers.
If you are asking readers to evaluate a technology discovery, you need to describe scientific principles of evaluation, "laymans terms" are useless for evaluating such products.
Having looked at the video available as of 12/22 I'd like to feign a hypothesis; it's an asymmetrically regauging magnetic motor. Â A device which ought to be possible and has been played around with in the past but hasn't come to much on account of its poor torque. Â I read a nice paper on the subject, you can too at http://tinyurl.com/yexcembÂ
Â
Such devices are speculated to draw energy from their environment, not thermal energy, rather energy sufficient and suitable to maintain the magnetic moment of the electrons in the permeant magnet material, that is, energy directly from the universe itself.
Â
I'd like to suggest an experiment to shed light on the origin of this extra energy. Â The experiment's aim is to look for the creation of energy in the machine's system. Cosmologists say that the universe is mostly energy and that this energy is responsible for the observed expansion of the universe, so if our machine is indeed creating more of said energy maybe we can look for it the same way the cosmologists look for theirs; red shift, or rather, since we don't have billions of years of expansion to look through; wave interference. Â
Â
Fire a laser through a beam splitter, send one path through the gap between one of the machines electromagnets and the rotor, thence onto an interference detector; send the other directly to the detector staying well clear of the machine. Â With the machine off, adjust the paths so that they are of equal length and in-phase at the interference detector. Â Turn the machine on, if it is creating energy than that energy ought to have an expansive effect on the universe hence lengthening the path of that beam, this would throw the two beams slightly out of phase, a condition which would be picked up by the interference detector.
Â
Over all, creator, I'm with you; I think there onto something.
People, people, people! I mean really! 5 years later and what do we have?
Folks really want to drink this poison and I certainly get that. They have charts and graphs and talking heads and videos of videos. Steorn website is hilarious. That's all they have on their website. Not one second showing a running device. Uh, what? Steorn keeps youtube from being easily researchable by posting dozens and dozens of their own talking head videos. They have a couple of their stooges posting under different names too.
Lets be serious. An over unity device should not require a battery. Period.
Face reality. Who wouldn't buy this if it worked? Mythbusters asked hundreds of people to demonstrate their device on the show and not a single person stepped up to the plate. Mythbusters pays too.
In the 5 years since this was announced has anybody seen this pig run without a battery?
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.
