The Engadget Interview: Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn
By Ryan Block 
posted Jul 17th 2007 12:12PM
posted Jul 17th 2007 12:12PM
Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. I'm sure that you're very busy, especially after the last couple of weeks--
I've had better weeks.
Yeah, I would imagine. But before we actually get started talking about the technology [Orbo] or anything like that I think that a lot of people would probably like to know a little bit more about the company. So what can you tell us about Steorn that we don't already know? I mean we know that it was a company that was founded not to break the laws of thermodynamics but rather technological means.
The company was founded by myself and three other guys back in 2000 and it was basically three of us had come from a company that I had been working with for a year and the Irish economy was doing well so we decided we'd set up a tech company with no real objective. We started working in the early days just helping people manage some of their big e-commerce spend. So it would primarily be contract management, so for example where corporate would be spending vast amounts of money on e-commerce projects.
But that day was over so we came in to restructure the contracts and try to manage them into a more realistic burn rate. So we did that with probably some of Ireland's biggest corporate e-commerce sites including people like Banks of Ireland and so on. In 2001 we were asked to get involved in the development of some anti-counterfeit technology for credit cards and basically that became the mainstay of our business both in terms of developing anti-counterfeit systems for optical disks and for plastic cards and also doing an awful lot of forensics and expert witnessing for law enforcements across Europe.
I see. So then you stumbled upon this technology by--
An awful lot of the work we would have done would have been done in ATM fraud, which is a very widespread fraud in the UK and in Ireland and across Europe, and from working with the police they have quite a different view on the crime than for example a bank, and the police's prime objective is to catch the bad guys. So we started looking at covert surveillance equipment to monitor high risk ATMs, because clearly what the law enforcement wanted to do was to get evidence of a person physically committing a crime and it was during the development of some covert CCTV cameras that we were looking at basically very mobile devices -- so we wanted wireless image transmission and also not to have to worry about wiring them up to anything. So we initially looked at solar cells and we looked at augmenting solar cells to extend the battery life of the system with winter at the top of these were lamp post sized devices. So it was during that we started really playing around with magnetic systems and that's where we began to notice some strange anomalies and got caught in this weird and wonderful world OU. [Over unity, aka free energy.] Sometimes we wish we hadn't but we have.
So we know you stumbled upon this supposed technology. How long did it take you guys to realize what you thought was going on here?
It took us an awful long time to be honest, because the first thing when you get an anomalous reading on a system in a lab, the first thing that you do is obviously question your test equipment. We obviously went out and we looked out and looked at the way we are testing it and systems we were using to make analysis and so on. And after a fairly extended period of testing in different ways -- I should make the point that when we discovered this we weren't generating, the systems didn't run away with themselves. What we noticed was at certain speeds the speed range for magnetic systems that we were getting substantially different energy results -- which is unexpected.
So we spent a good six months ourselves just looking at the systems and not full-time six months. We wouldn't jump on it and say, you know, this is the solution to the world's energy crisis. We did it in a fairly calm, rational manner and over a course of the six months we began to realize that hey this, these readings are not due to some measurement anomaly and that these readings are real. There are these energy anomalies at certain speed ranges with certain magnetic configurations and that's pretty much how we managed to convince ourselves that it was worth pursuing.
You just mentioned, to quote, that this is the solution to the world's energy crisis. Do you think that is actually the case? Do you think that this will end the world's energy crisis?
I don't... I mean... My own background just to explain to you is providing technology into the UK Royal and gas industries. So I know the energy industry pretty well. I don't think there is a single solution to the energy crisis. I think that certain energy demands have certain needs. We have no doubts that what we have can play a very significant role. However, there is one thing sitting in Dublin here with a claim on a technology that nobody believes. Making that a commercial reality is a long and difficult road. So we are not naive enough to say that we will have a massive impact in the short frame of time, but we can see that it's possible and that's what we're dedicated to.
It's interesting that you mention that it's a technology that no one believes and I've seen some of the videos where I think it was you or one of your colleagues refers to the technology as being "absolutely impossible."
That would be me. [laughs]
Why do you think that this is so difficult to pitch to people?
From the simple point, we're all believers up to the notch of pretty well qualified engineers. You know, we have very classical university training and we've worked months of our lives in a classical engineering and technology environment. And so, the only way I can describe how I would feel about this technology is that if I'd be looking at this technology from the outside I'd be going, "Hocum! This is complete and utter rubbish! This is the most incontrovertible law of physics and if this was untrue then the universe wouldn't work." So I understand the skepticism, I would be very much and like everybody else. I've seen these kind of claims come and go over the years. So I understand it and an awful lot of what we're about is to try and at least erode people's disbelief. Because we can't make this a viable commercial technology without obviously people accepting that it's real.
Right, and in the US the USPTO, our patent office, actually requires people to send in physical working samples of supposed perpetual motion machines because they have historically received so many claims for patents to this system.
[laughs] We work with a pretty large U.S. patent firm. We took the decision that because of the company, we have so many battles to fight, and the last thing we wanted to do was to fight a battle with a patent office. So from the patent perspective we don't make claims that would violate classic Newtonian dynamics. However we have constructed a portfolio of patents that do protect us. So we're making claims that protect the technology... So we're not concerned about our patent position or having to fight because even that statement about the patent office is not necessarily true according true according to our patent agents. But again, we haven't felt the necessity to make claims in our patents of you know overunity or anything that could be deemed scientifically controversial. That doesn't mean that we don't believe in the claim, it simply means that we can protect the technology without having to go through that step.
How many people do you have working on this Orbo technology right now?
Head-count in the company is 21 full time staff and we would have anywhere between probably 5 and 15 people working on the contract at any one time and they would be in partner organizations or direct contracts to the company. It's very substantial for a very little company's operations.
You guys are operating strictly on VC right now? Or what are your other means of income?
Since we went public last August we stopped all works with the forensic and expert witnessing simply because we would not be credible, we'd be too easily -- we're presenting obviously to the prosecution. It would be too easy to be discredited with a claim like this publicly in the eyes of the court. So it's currently no revenues at all and we will attempt to make no revenues until the technology is validated.
How are you paying your employees for the time being? Is this from cash reserves?
We're operating via private investment, which we took through this all last year.
So that's the company, let's talk a little bit more about the technology that you guys have supposedly developed here. Laws of thermodynamics basically state that you can't achieve 100% efficiency in any apparatus and that there are always transfers of heat and energy in any system. But obviously you guys are claiming 100%+ efficiency. Do you have a statistic or number of what you estimate the energy efficiency level of your machine is? Is it 110% or 150%?
It varies from configuration to configuration. I think the largest efficiency that we would have physically measured would be about 485%. These numbers can be misleading. For example we might be getting 485% per joule, which means were getting 4.85 J out, but there could be a configuration that's could be delivering 130% efficiency yet delivering 10 joules. So, the technology itself is pretty well researched in terms of punch line efficiency it's 485%, but that wouldn't be the optimum output of the system. Obviously we're more focused on direct power output of a device than the punchline numbers. 485 to 1 is 4.85, but we could easily say, 10 to 12 joules off of a system is going to have a lower punch line efficiency. And power output is obviously the key factor, energy output is obviously the key factor.
So you guys have been trying to bring the scientific community into the fold. Obviously kicked off by the full page ad in The Economist and there's the open invitation...
[laughs] It was a brave decision.
Well, it definitively opened you guys to a lot of criticism. My publication is definitely not excepted from that. I think it's one of those claims to where you're just going to have to put up with the lumps.
We knew it. Again, the only way I can describe this is that we didn't set out to do this. We stumbled upon it. I wouldn't believe a word of it if I wasn't working here and so in deciding the best route for the company was to go and do this, what they call a slap in the face of science. We had no illusions at all of how it looked or how it would be conceived, what we would be called and so on. But at the end of the day we have to face that, but it's a relatively easy thing to face when you know what you have is real because, you realize there is an end to it and we can get on with the business of business.
I think part of the reason why people didn't and don't take it seriously is partly because there is no [credible] university affiliated with the research. The fact that you guys were not out to actually invent this new science and that there was no big name physicist behind it at the time is, I think, what is most damaging to your credibility.
To be fair, I don't think of there's an awful lot of what we could have done with respect to credibility. But the other thing to recognize in terms of the August thing [running the ad in The Economist] is that we achieved our objective, and our objective was to get qualified scientists engaged. As much as we get an awful lot of criticism, and obviously the event the last couple of weeks haven't helped, the bottom line for us is that process has started and that process will end with very qualified people doing the analysis. So were quite happy to sit here -- happy is the wrong word -- but we're quite willing to sit here and take the smirks or the laughs or the cries of fraud and so on because August was a big victory for us because our biggest concern in doing all of this, is, well, what if no scientist responds? That would have been a disaster for us. The fact that we got ridiculed, that was going to happen anyway.
Since this open invitation to invite scientists to review the technology under their own means and their own circumstances, that they see fit--
We're obviously covering all of their direct costs and paying them a nominal fee to do it. But they're deciding the details of the process. It is and will be seen to be at the end of it, a fair process. We're not paying them massive consulting fees, which is one of the concerns that we had. We tried to structure it in such a way that when the results arrive, and obviously we are very confident in what the results are going to be, that people could look at the process and say, it was a fair process. Although we're obviously keeping it pretty non-disclosed, but in the end of it when these guys report, people will be able to see how much they were paid, the level of testing, and where they've gone through. And so they can see that the report, whatever it says, was fair.
I understand that some 5,000 scientists applied to be a part of this.
No, we had 5,000 total applicants. It was an online thing. So when you rule out the Bart Simpsons who had applied we had 1,000 qualified people, of which about 500 who would be qualified scientists, and 500 qualified engineers.
And so how many people have actually accepted this challenge and are currently working on this?
We've signed contracts with 22 of them. There is a copy of the contract on the website, and 22 of them are involved in an analysis of the technology.
Do you know when they are expecting to publish their results? Because I know that was one of the requirements as well, that they publish once they've made their conclusions about it.
The straight answer to it is no. We're not in control of the process. All we can do is facilitate it. So, while I think a lot of people will say, well this should easy, it actually isn't a simple process and also it's not a simple process on the technical level. There are a lot of energies that need to be looked at. It's also such a big claim that these guys need to be 100% sure about what they do, whether they prove us right or wrong. It's a thorough of process, it's a slow process, and we haven't set a time limit on it, and neither do we know how long it's going to take.
So, I'd like to talk about the demo.
I wouldn't. [laughs]
Yeah. Well you knew this was coming. [laughs]
[laughs]. I've done nothing but talk about it, but go on...
I'd like to know why you think it failed -- and not the reasons that you've already given. We've definitively heard that it was ball bearings, or it was mechanical failure, it was the heat from the lights. We heard all that. We know. I want to know why you think it failed, in the sense that why did the other two backups that you guys brought not work? Or why were you not able to relocate the demo to another location that didn't have these issues? Or why was it not thoroughly tested enough, and so on...
I'm not going to tell you anything that if you have read some of this stuff that you haven't heard. The simple fact of the matter, just to state, is that this is not production technology and so you know anybody who works in the prototype world will understand that there are always issues. But with respects to what happened, we brought three systems to us from Dublin, three component systems, we don't move them in their operational way, we stripped them down. They are very, very simple and there is not huge configuration to them, but they are very sensitive configurations because there are lots of magnetic loads and so on. We got one of the systems working on the Tuesday night which was the Tuesday before we were going live on Wednesday evening. We started to install that in the demo case and began to notice problems. It wasn't working. That being the prime problem.
We then took the classic engineering process of stripping it down and testing, testing, testing, and what we found was that in that prototype was that the bearings, while not visibly damaged but the friction had more than quadrupled in them, which would have been a killer in a this type of system that we were planning to show. And under pressure we just kept plugging in all the spare bearings we had. Now, these are not standard bearings you might buy from your local hardware store. These are very, very low friction bearings used in the watch industry. Our analysis of what happened is that the heat allowed play in the system that damaged the bearings to the point where the extra friction in the bearings didn't allow the technology to happen. Whether people believe that or don't believe it, there isn't a lot that I can say other then that's what happened.
As this is supposedly scientific phenomena that -- by your terms -- redefines the laws of physics, shouldn't this be demonstrable consistently? Of the machines that you brought, which by all appearances looked like a very simple closed system, why did only one machine work?
First of all, we only planned to get one machine working just in the time frame. The spare bearings that we had we took from the other systems, so at the end of the day we ended up on Thursday morning with six bearings of which we had damaged five for whatever reason. We were pretty sure we know the reasons whether people believe them or not. I then had to make the decision to defer because the reason that actually happened has nothing to do with the bearings, the reason it happened was just the ridiculous time frame that we were doing it in. So we will be doing a demo, again. Obviously people will believe it when they see it and I can understand the skepticism about that. It is a deferral, our guys are currently in the process of rebuilding some more robust systems and changing some parts to prevent the engineering thing from happening again and we'll be back out in the near future with it.
So do you have a time-frame that you're looking at for the next demo?
What we've decided to do this time, is rather then beating ourselves with a stick, we're going to get it running in a location and then we are going to announce that people can watch it online. So we are actually physically getting it operating, it will be the same. The principle behind London, which was clearly a failed demo, was that it wasn't for for a sequence of webcams to people to watch, but it was equally physical, so that people could go there. We put in some PCs so they could chat about it and so on. So the principle will be identical, that it's both a physical location where people can go view it. Obviously not everybody can do that, so people can watch it online and chat directly with people there and discuss theories of where batteries might be hidden and so and so on. It's a deferral, we have decided that we will only announce it when it's actually live and in place this time which is a mistake that we made last time. We should have done that but didn't.
I think another thing that might have raised some eyebrows about the London demo was that it was taking place in an art gallery of sorts. And, again, as I mentioned earlier, this kind of level of scientific community credibility that I think maybe some people had expected this demo to show up in the university setting with a far more controlled environment then what you would think of as your normal London art gallery.
I mean the thing about Kinetica is that it's a kinetic gallery. So that the stuff they do is kinetic art, and obviously our technology is kinetic in nature. The other thing about it is that is very open plan. It's glass on three sides, the demo case was suspended five feet in the ceiling, and we had invited some skeptics to come along and test it because if you've seen the device there is virtually nowhere to hide a battery, and there are obviously ways to transmit energy, but they are relatively easy to resolve. So the intention was to be open, and that intention will remain. The other thing that people need to understand is, to be honest, if it had gone as planned I would be expecting to have the conversation with you now and you going, "How did you trick us? How did you hide the batteries?" So, no demo is ever going to be deemed as conclusive proof of this kind of requirement and neither should it be because it doesn't answer all the questions.
But for us it's only a process of erosion where we're saying, look we will demonstrate the technology. Obviously we didn't last time, but we will be doing it. We don't expect that to be a slam dunk for anybody. We do expect it to at least erode some people's views of why we're doing this, and how we couldn't possibly have what we claim to have. But at the end of the day, our general analysis was that at the heart of the Steorn general watching community, the people who think that we're a fraud would use it as a definitive proof we're a fraud, and the people who believed us would use it as definite proof that they believed us. The audience was intended to be wider then that. But there is no demo that is going (and neither is it designed by us) to be perceived as conclusive evidence. Conclusive evidence is the views of the scientific community and that's an issue that's in hand with us and that's ongoing.
You mentioned inviting skeptics to come to the demo and I've actually read one of the reports of one of the skeptics that you invited, someone who identifies himself as Doctor Mike.
Doctor Mike, yes.
His quote about the technology was: "My conclusion..."
I believe that it was all spinning my head. [laughs]
Right... what he said was that, "My conclusion after going through all this is that Steorn is neither hoax nor scam. It is delusion. The reason it seems surreal is because it is surreal -- we are the real part of someone else's imagination."
How can I criticize. We invited the guy to come from Canada to see something. He didn't see it. It's his opinion. He has no other basis, he has nothing else to work on, other than sitting and having a chat with us. I can't possibly criticize, Doctor Mike for what he said. It's exactly what I would have said, I probably would have been harsher if I had been in his shoes.
I don't necessarily want to talk specifically about Doctor Mike, but I feel that is probably what a lot of people feel at this point. You've been very open about your process, which is more than what you can say about a lot of snake oil salesmen who might try to peddle a perpetual motion machine. But at the same time that I think that a lot of people just seem to think that what it really comes down to is that you guys have convinced yourselves that these are true phenomena, and that you actually believe it, whereas it's not necessarily the case.
Again, obviously if I'm delusional, whatever answer I give is going to be based on my own delusions. The only thing that I can say -- I can say a couple of things about it. First thing is that the answer that anybody looking at us and wants to know will ultimately be delivered contractually. It's going to happen whenever it happens from a bunch of scientists. So unless they're delusional as well, if they agree with us then we deal with that at the time. If you stand back from the failed demo and say ok, I don't think anybody should believe this -- I wouldn't believe this in the circumstances, demo or no demo -- there is a process that's in place that's a real process where real scientists are going to draw a conclusion and that conclusion will be made public.
The other side of it which I think is why people have taken the delusional route is because an awful lot of people had expected us to rig the demo. They expected us to have a hidden battery or whatever it is. If we were in that business, believe me, there would have been a spinning wheel. But we're just not in that business, the business of scamming people or rigging demos. It failed, it's prototype technology. Huge disappointment to us. We'll redo it. But the answers to the question -- the demo doesn't answer the question, it provides some thoughts from supporting evidence when it happens. But the answer to the question will be done by professionals and then were either be found to be delusional or not.
So what happens--
I mean, I was expecting a lot more criticism [from everyone] to be honest.
So what happens if you can't prove this supposed technology? If you can't figure out a way to convince people.
But we have. We have. There are lots of tactical things that we'll be doing, such as demos -- and obviously we'll have to respond to the failure of that demo and probably do more than we've intended to. We're a small company and maybe we're slightly overstretched in doing it, but we have to do it. But the jury process is happening, they will have to report -- they will either have to say yay or nay. Ok, so you can say how long will it take? I don't know. But the point of the matter is that there will be an end to the process and an answer will be provided. Now that answer, if it's what we think it will be, will obviously raise more criticism and so and so on. But we've got lots of other things that we are doing to address that. There is going to be no defining moment in my opinion where people go, "It's true!" Even if these 22 scientists -- who are really top scientists -- turn around and say, "By Jove they've done it!". We as a company will still have to drive that message home in other ways.
The purpose of the London demo -- which has clearly backfired on us -- was part of that process. We're going to have to do more things like that in a more creative way and a more convincing way. But none of these things and themselves are going to convince anybody. People are still going to think we're delusional or scam artists, or whatever the latest theory on it is. But, again, the answers will come. I know an awful lot of people have said to us, that's an excuse to raise more money and drag this out. We haven't raised a dime since last August and we've said quite simply we will commercialize this is no way, we are not going to sell film rights or book rights whatever the latest scam theory on it is. We're sitting here like everybody else waiting for the results of the jury and we will do other things to try and support the premise that we've made -- understanding completely how ridiculous it sounds.
So then assuming that your technology does then proves itself to be true. What happens then?
What happens then is that's in many ways is the smallest hurdle for us because obviously we believe it's true -- whether we are delusional or not will be found out ultimately. What we have to do then is actually make money from it and get it into the market. We've chosen a kind of open-source model. We do have a developer forum for people, were putting in learning modules about how you go about doing this. The concept is very simple, but once it's validated this released in an open-source way with a very comprehensive database of e-learning, designs and so on.
So people can go off and do this for themselves from a hobbyist level through to a commercial entity level. And the purpose of that is just to understand is to ensure widespread adoption. Typically if you believe this kind of stuff is possible you expect people to run off to the biggest company in the world and to do big fat licensing deal and retire off to the Maldives. We believe that there is a far more effective way to get it into market which is to release it to everybody in exactly the same way. Whether you are the biggest or the smallest company in the world you get access to it, and if you can go off and you can develop products to market fast, then you'll win, we'll win.
So then I guess the only other thing I'd like to know is what you have to say to everyone in the technology community who feels as if they have been toyed with or led astray.
I don't think that anybody in the technology community ever believed it. So I don't think we've been toying with them. I think it would be an unfair assessment, I think people in the technology community would probably scoff at how naive we were trying to do the demo in such a short time frame and we failed the thing. But we haven't toyed with anybody. If we were toying with people we would have rigged the demo and we were never going to do that. We're genuine about this. We fundamentally believed in what we have and we fundamentally believe in it's impact and what it can do. We just move on, it's as simple as that. I don't think that anybody in the technology community will believe this until it is validated and until they can build one themselves or buy one in stores.
Well whether or not they believe it -- and I do agree that almost everyone does not believe it and that everyone has been extremely skeptical about it. But the fact between the ad, the demo, and the PR campaign that has gone on inbetween those two bookends, Steorn has raised a lot of awareness and attention--
I don't think we have done any PR in between. To be fair, I have no problem marketing what we believe in. I'm not going to be apologetic for August because it was hugely successful for us. We went out to attract the attention of a critical world of science -- a rightly critical world -- we got it and now they are off doing their job and they'll deliver an answer. With respect to the demo, yeah we can't complain. When you shoot yourself in the foot, you don't ask yourself was the gun loaded, you just ask what were you aiming at. We can have no complaints.
But I don't accept that we were toying with people. We have a technology, we're putting more than our money behind this. We're putting everything behind this, our reputation and everything behind it, because we believe. That doesn't mean that other people believe, but we do believe, and we do believe in the medium term that this technology will make it to market and that is what we are interested in. The rest is noise.
So what are you guys planning to do going forward that will improve this process for the general public who is paying close attention to what you're up to?
Obviously we are going to have to redo the demo. There is no question that we are not going to do the demo. We will, as I said before, not pre-announce it this time. We will get it set up properly, but the ground rules will be identical. The ground rules will be physical public access to the device, online webcams so it will be as open as possible. If anybody has seen the intended device and then realizes that it's, well, not impossible obviously to hide a certain energy source, it becomes quite a convoluted process. So we are going to try and demonstrate the technology in it's simplest, simplest format in a place with public access where people can watch online and talk to people there.
That will be one thing we have -- and to invite skeptics along. We have to do that. We have to embrace the skepticism. But equally to understand, these are not intended to be slam dunk results, because they won't be. There will always be issues and rightfully so a simple demo, no matter how long it lasts, isn't proof of the claim. Proof of the claim is scientific analysis. But we are going to have to do other things as well. I won't go into details, but the biggest mistake that we've made and obviously we have to learn from our mistakes was to pre-announce the London demo. We've paid the price for that, we won't do it again. But we will be doing probably an awful lot more than we had intended. Basically when it happens we'll be letting people know. It will not be that far away.
Sean, I really appreciate taking some time to talk to us. And I appreciate you being very candid in speaking about this stuff.
No problem Ryan, I know how crazy all this stuff sounds. [laughs] I don't know what to say to people other than... I guess all that I can really say is that at the end of the day the key issue outside the demo and marketing and all that stuff, the answer is coming and we'll know. And it is never our intention to toy with people, and that's the first time I've heard that said. It just doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
I don't want to accuse you of toying with people. But I think that people feel as though they have been toyed with, and I'm asking on account of that.
Which is a fair point, I guess. I've met an awful lot of disappointed people. People who came, who believed, who wanted to see history made. Disappointed skeptics, people like Doctor Mike who we dragged half way around the world -- and all I can do is apologize to them and say look it didn't work, but we are going to do it again. It's not the end of the Steorn story. Unfortunately, I'm sure that many people wish they've never heard of us again but we'll be back and we'll be back in the not to distant future.
Well, we'll be waiting.
Alright. Cheers Ryan.
Thanks.
Mmm. Delicious snake-oil.
Deluxe,
The guy kinda reminds me of Peter Venkman from Ghostbusters.
I have already developed a machine which works without any input.I powered my house using that.I generatad 10KW output without any input.
liar liar pants on fire!
my two fav lines...
"We started to install that in the demo case and began to notice problems. It wasn't working. That being the prime problem."
"You know, we have very classical university training and we've worked months of our lives in a classical engineering and technology environment."
months? wow!
Seems like BS to me
That's an awful lot of words
I really hope he proves everyone wrong.
Great interview.. seemed to be honest answers, I don't think there are many people who could lie that well so the only other option for me is to believe the guy, not only because I WANT to believe him, but because i think he is telling the truth.
it takes suckers to make anything like this profitable. i blame people like you for enabling this bullshit.
For a science guy he sure isn't very sciencey.
Bummer about that simultaneous play/friction not "allowing the technology to happen".
That's a ball buster every time man, and I'm sure it's why my Hot Dog plantation failed.
-and now I feel like I have to wash my hands for some reason.
you know, it might be good if Engadget can do what Slashdot does for interviews, canvas the readers for some questions they'd be interested in getting some answers for.
I don't mean to say that you don't ask good questions, it's just that I can think of a few burning issues that can replace some of the "safer" questions in there that seemed to be almost just PR.
I don't think there was any "safe" stuff here. It's really difficult to ask reasonable questions about an unreasonable technology. I think people probably want us to just yell at the guy and tell him off, but that's not the point.
We don't do the Slashdot model because their interviews reflect their editorial: it's all written by the readers. If you want reader-written posts, /. is your place. But if you want editor-driven content that's why we're here; we write our own stories (for better or worse!), conduct our own interviews, and perform all our own stunts. Kind of like Bruce Willis.
And those questions would be??
Why are you giving publicity to this clown?
Everyone loves a circus.
BS or not, the guy has the balls to come here and speak to us and face the music after failing to prove the world wrong. He could've disappeared leaving no traces, but no, he's still here.
I can only respect that.
I don't respect madmen for being consistent in their delusions.
It doesn't take balls or dedication to be ungrounded in reality. Shame is not for the mentally ill.
The whole "demo failure" would be a great way to get people to believe that it is a legit technology rather than a straight-up scam.
The Rapture is coming! Santa will save me!
man as soon as he gets it up and running and starts broadcasting online, you'll all be sorry. thats evidence that can't be faked!
You're right! The Internet is the best hoax-proofing system ever created. Nobody could possibly deceive people using the Internet.
and how!
hahaha I noticed that too. I thought he was gonna say something more reasonable like "we'll get it running and invite people to come see it at that point." This guy is so full of it.
"I thought he was gonna say something more reasonable like 'we'll get it running and invite people to come see it at that point.'"
Well, that's exactly what he did say, in two separate places in the interview. He said people will be able to physically visit the demo, or will be able to see it online (and while watching it online will be able to communicate with people who are physically visiting the demo).
He is allowing public access, aside from just Internet access. Operative word being "physical".
"We will get it set up properly, but the ground rules will be identical. The ground rules will be physical public access to the device, online webcams so it will be as open as possible."
I'm frankly disappointed that the vast majority of commentors are so eager for this man to fail. Are you always inspired by failure? Do you hate the Prius? Would new forms of energy production bother you so much?
I welcome the notion of this potentially successful offering. It would give science a new set of tools, opening many new doors. Is that scary?
Let's try to foster a bit of optimism. Put down your torches, townspeople. Let's hear him out.
he's not making a better Prius. he's DEFYING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. supposedly.
"seemed to be honest answers" vs "laws of physics"
I will take laws of physics anytime of the day. Charisma has no place in science, except for maybe getting grant money.
It may even be possible that they toy does what it seems to do, i.e. do more lifting work than they put in energy for. But the fact that they claim this violates physical laws even without understanding how this is happening is pretty dodgy.
How the hell do they know it's not something non-apparent? like perhaps it's just using varying magnetic fields of say, nearby powerlines, which probably explains why it's so erratic.
This is exactly like the thousands of nutcases who writes to university research departments every year who claim they've solved whatever mystery out there, when they are either completely wrong or they failed to perform the absolutely essential control tests which would have told them that their results don't mean what they think it means.
Emerging scientific field can do without theory for a while (see photo-electric effect), but cannot possibly be taken serious without reproducibility, and that's universal reproducibility, not just by the same band of people who are trying sell this stuff.
So then all of our physics that is based around gravity is false? Last I checked physicists don't know 100% how or why gravity exists/works, but alas it IS there.
Somebody's off their lithium !
Shane.fry - are you trying to say gravity isn't reproducible? Cos I just dropped a pencil. Twice. Gravity is a curvature in space, caused by mass. How it relates to the other forces isn't yet fully understood, but we do understand it conforms to all known physical laws, and can measure and predict its effects very accurately. To equate our lack of a quantum theory of gravity with a device that breaches the most fundamental laws of physics is misleading.
The Law of House applies here, without question: "Everybody lies."
I will also take physics any time. The only way you could possibly measure 485% efficiency is if your software has a decimal point in the wrong place somewhere and your brain has a similar one allowing you to believe your equipment.
What if their device is "sucking" energy out of some orthogonal dimensions that we normally cannot access? Hah; perhaps it's killing people on parallel Earth by causing their nuclear power plants to melt down. The shame of it all is that even the lay community should know better than to just 'believe it when they see it.'
But will it power the UAE base on Mars?
Whoa. The United Arab Emeriates has a base on Mars? I knew they were making a killing with the oil, but damn!
I think what Steorn is trying to do is to build a perpetual flywheel using the repulsion of like magnetic poles as the motive force. i.e. A set of magnets on a rotor and another set on a stator and with a 'properly' designed set of mechanical levers, pushrods, cams or what-have-you on the magnets, then their positions can be shifted just enough to harness the repulsion and thus keep the rotor going forever.
It is a seductive idea because you can get a simple rotor (with permanent magnets mounted on it) to rotate just by holding a magnet against the magnets on the rotor and shifting the magnet manually to pushing the rotor along. Anyone who doesn't know Physics will then think, oh I just need to replace my hand with a mechanical device running off the rotor's rotation then I have my perpetual flywheel! This is of course impossible in our universe. Maybe there's an alternate universe somewhere where the laws of Physics are different but not here.
nice interview. made a great read thank you.
Not sure about the tech, it shows that he is the front guy to this and not the head engineer.
I dunno about it all though, just would like him to be able to show us something. einstein showed floors is newtons principles, so maybe there are a few more to be discovered.
Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong; he just gave us a theory. One that many consider to plain wrong in fact.
Still, it is possible to create a system that is highly efficient, but will not go on forever. Or it was getting power from some nearby source through the magnets.
Or the guy is a brilliant liar.
i stand corrected. It's maybe just to easy say we have all the answers, when you are only a few difficult questions away from stumping the greatest minds. Quantum theories anyone?
what a load of BS...
It's a trick... get an axe. No wait, he's a witch, burn him! Yah, thats the ticket.
the earth spins perpetually... maybe he can harness that somehow...
Ray, the Earth is spinning slightly slower every orbit. Entropy effects us all...
/hibernates to conserve energy
I got $100 bucks that when they set it up in their lab and we can only view it via web cams that it works without a hitch!
I wish someone had asked Sean why if the "technology" boasts an efficiency of 485% above overunity, it's so difficult to test! Elsewhere, these jokers have claimed a power density of 0.5 watt/cc. That's comparable to AA batteries! Anyone have a problem proving that an AA battery makes electricity? Why is it such a difficult task for Steorn's gadget?
Overunity on a scale claimed by Steorn is extremely easy to test. It would take a few physics/engineering graduate (aided maybe my a magician to help rule out trickery) a few days at most. It requires no jury. I can do it in a vacant parking lot on a weekend if they would simply produce the machine!
What we have here is very clever misdirection -- the problem isn't that testing is difficult, prototypes are unreliable, the public won't believe... none of that crap. The problem is that Steorn has been unable since the start of this farce to produce a single credible document, device, video or other evidence that they actually have anything. All there is are videos and interviews with the CEO. And those are obvious baloney-- very clever and engaging baloney but purely silly.
Oh... and Dr. Mike is from the USA, not Canada. And what he was SPECIFICALLY promised BY SEAN that he would have two days to examine the device before the Kinetica demo AND HE WAS ENCOURAGED TO "BRING A SCREWDRIVER". What's Sean's lame excuse for why that didn't happen? And here is a blatant bald faced lie by Sean:
"He [Dr. Mike] has no other basis, he has nothing else to work on, other than sitting and having a chat with us."
That's bullshit! Dr. Mike is a member of the Developer's Forum and has received documentation and supposedly propriatary information under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Dr. Mike can't reveal that information but he reviewed it and he says it makes no sense. So Sean is simply not telling the truth when he suggests that Mike's opinion was based only on "sitting and having a chat".
In addition, Sean had every chance to show Mike and others "the corpse" -- the device whose bearings had failed so that it could be independently duplicated. But he didn't. And there's no "NDA" disclosure issue there-- that device was to have been shown in public! And Dr. Mike was to have been allowed to "take a screwdriver to it".
The only possible conclusion I can see from the above obvious misdirection is that Sean is a subtle, capable, high skilled and complete liar and that this is probably the main skill he has demonstrated in this entire time-wasting and money-grabbing endeavor.
Once more: large scale overunity if it existed would be easy to test by electricity generation and/or calorimetry. It does not require a jury. It can be done in a few days by reasonably expert people who are not difficult to find. There's nothing to suggest overunity here and there is much to suggest deliberate lies and misdirection by Sean McCarthy.
I wondered where pennies_everywhere went...
"I wondered where pennies_everywhere went..."
You'd have to ask her. You're not the only psychic genius to conclude I am her. But I'm not -- not that it would matter.
"No engineering or physics harmed in the writing of this article or during the course of this interview."
If I had a network engineer or system administrator walk into my office and talk in the same vague, apologetic terms for a server farm as McCarthy did about Orbo, it would be a very short interview. Either people understand engineering and physics much less than networking and hardware, or people want to believe in the fantastic.
If I told you I had a 3TB/s wireless connection to my house, you'd ask for both a hardware demonstration and the science behind it, or dismiss me immediately. If I told you I have a machine running at 485% efficiency that produced more electricity than it consumed, only I don't have any working model and I can't explain the science, I'd have an interview with Engadget?
Anyone else (besides McCarthy) would have kept quiet, produced a working model, and at least demo'ed a working machine even if they didn't understand the tech. It's as if the Wright brothers were incompetant mechanics, didn't understand aerodynamics or propulsion, and announced to the world they had an airplane before they had a working machine or understood the science.
Not that I believe Steorn's claims, but it does worry me that most serious research is guided by our accepted "laws" of nature. At one point in time, it was considered 'scientifically heretical' to claim that the Earth was round, that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the opposite, or any other number of beliefs which flew in the face of what we "knew" to be true at the time.
In the case of the Orbo technology, I agree that they probably believe they have something that they really do not. I do wonder, however, how many breakthroughs have yet to be made simply because no one with the proper means pursued the research, not wanting to waste their time or unable to garner support in the face of one of our accepted "laws" of physics.
Think about what humans -knew- concerning reality a thousand years ago, and imagine what we'll -know- a thousand years from now. Very little that we know is certain, and it is arrogant to think otherwise.
nope, it was not science, it was the Church.
Ok... Dan Brown.
Hell, 60 years ago, plate tectonics was considered vodoo science.
I whole-heartedly agree Haniel. These guys probably haven't found anything significant. Most likely they are unknowingly harnessing power from some other source. But the true spirit of science requires that we keep an open mind and evaluate their claims based on objective facts and not dogma. It sounds like there really are legitimate tests of this device going on by trained scientists and engineers. When those results come in then we'll know a lot more. But until then, while you can have any opinion you want, its unscientific to dismiss it categorically, or at least with the kind of vitriol that some posters' comments have been saturated with.
Public demos are a bitch. I've been there and I understand how Murphy's Law can screw up the best laid plans. If these guys were grifters, they would have faked the demo. The fact that they took their lumps and admitted it was a failure tells me there might be something to their claims. It all reminds me of Einstein and his doubts about the validity of the cosmological constant in general relativity, doubts which later proved unfounded. I suppose we'll soon see if Maxwell's original EM theory was right, as opposed to the "simplified" version taught as gospel in universities today.
Lets not forget Einstein used math. People said it was impossible to actually prove what he wrote, but the mathematics did not lie. It is very complicated for most people, took me a few weeks to partially follow the general theory, simplified is easy. If he could show some sort of equation then science might beleive him.
I can't believe you are buying this crap.
Have you looked at Maxwell's original theory? It was modified and all asymmetries were removed to simplify the mathematics. Over the years people working with extreme-high current systems reported deviations from what "modern" EM theory predicts. These results are always dismissed as measurement errors and that's the end of it - if the engineer or scientist wants to stay employed. I don't believe or disbelieve Steorn's claims for Orbo, but I think they should be given a chance to demonstrate them. So far it's "strike one" for the batter.
Well if you look at history man has never believed anything to be true if it did not have concrete evidence. People were pretty much torn to bits if they went against the norm. People for hundreds of years believed the sun rotated around the earth, when in fact it was the opposite. As knowledge progressed it proved the theory of the earth rotating around the sun correct. Do I believe in this new technology? umm not quite yet, but I am incredibly open to it. Advances in technology would not have been possible unless people took the leap and believed in them. If we were going to question every idea that was deemed nonsense then man would be in the same place as it was hundreds of years ago. I am not saying to believe in it, but dont write it off so soon.
Actually throughout history man has always been willing to believe without any evidence at all. It's called 'superstition'. Most people euphemistically refer to it as 'religion' or 'faith'.
"Well if you look at history man has never believed anything to be true if it did not have concrete evidence. "
I assume this sentence is a mistake...People believe all sorts of crazy things without evidence. Gods, faeries, dragons, the inheritance of acquired traits, et al. Moreover, unless you can produce evidence for a claim, you are at best betting on being right and at worst deluding yourself.
ECREE, people. ECREE. So far, no "Extraordinary Evidence" has been produced by Steorn for their extraordinary claim. If it does, I'll line up to see it. Until then, I'll continue to have a mind closed enough to keep my brain from falling out.
Léon Foucault theory of the earth rotation was much different from this his construction of a 20 stories high pendulum prove his theory, basically conclusive evidence was shown, unlike this company that can't even explain there theory thoroughly so a person with a slight understanding of science could understand
What i had meant is the scientific community has not accepted anything so easily. Ideas that may seem outrageous right now may not be so in the future as our understanding of the universe progresses. We can not be so foolish to believe we know everything there is to know about the universe when in comparison we are a young civilization/species/culture. Who is to say free energy does not exist at all. Can they prove it conclusively with out a doubt having reason beyond our current understanding to prove this. I highly doubt it. All i meant is be open to the idea.
The dude at the photo have the "Trust me, I'm for real"-pose and should not be trusted.
Bearings were damaged, yeah right. This guy is just trying to keep the funding going for as long as possible. He probably thought he could get some of that easy money back when it was being tossed around during the dot com bubble, but now he is worried that he will go to jail for defrauding investors. Because of this, he is probably just keeping up the charade, buying time, hoping that later he can find a way out.
I know this doesn't really matter, but "phenomena" is a plural noun. "Phenomenon" is the singular form. Forgive me my pedantry.
Thanks, but why does it have to be singular? Who am I to assume there is only one supposed phenomenon at work here?
You need not assume that, but the noun and verb ought to agree--e.g., "we don't know what this phenomenon is"; "we don't know what these phenomena are."
This admittedly minor error leapt out at me when I read "[a]s this is supposedly a scientific phenomena that -- by your terms -- redefines the laws of physics, shouldn't this be demonstrable consistently?" and "a lot of people just seem to think that what it really comes down to is that you guys have convinced yourselves that this is a true phenomena, and that you actually believe it, whereas it's not necessarily the case.
Yeah, nice try Ryan ;)
Of all the horrible grammar and typographical errors here, you picked that? I don't mean that to be rude... but you guys took the time to interview the guy, and you're presenting as journalism, so a little clean-up would be nice...
Why don't they just show a video of the supposed thing in action? Doh.
-DJ
The really important question was NOT asked. What exactly was the "demo" supposed to be, what exactly means to demonstrate that they have a device with an efficiency of 400%? If they are simply going to have a wheel spinning for a long time... what would that prove? You do not need a device working for 3 days straight to show that kind of efficiency! You need a device operating for \mere seconds seconds doing 4 times more work than the energy you put in.
But this guy doesn't even talk (and wasn't asked) about what it was that they were planning to show in the "demo" to convince people. What was the idea of the demo? Is their idea of a "proof" of a violation of physical laws to have a wheel spinning for a long time?
Delusional indeed!
I think the conversation about Steorn has to change. Maybe it's too early to pull down the curtain, but I'm starting to realize what this really is: very large scale performance art. Sean McCarthy is a sort of modern-day Andy Kaufman. The fact that the demo was to occur in an art gallery was a nice touch. 22 scientists / engineers chosen to play foil to McCarthy - essentially, chosen to challenge McCarthy's position in the scientific community - sounds like an audition for the role of Jerry Lawler, doesn't it?
Why everybody (including Sean McCarthy) keeps calling it "PERPETUAL MOTION"???
The energy might just come from the Earth itself in the way that we did not know about until Shawn's invention. It will not break any thermodynamic laws, since this energy was collected during terraforming (or Big Bang) and now just gets slowly wasted into the outer space (in the form of volcanoes, magnetism, etc.)
If this is the case, then Shawn's device is no more "perpetual mobile" than a water mill. It is just a new type of engine to utilize a "green energy".
now bash me ;)
If he has found a viable way to tap into the earths magnetic field to produce useful energy then it is a breakthrough, but he doesn't seem to think so.
The idea that it produces 458% efficiency is getting pretty silly. It should then increase in speed until it ripped itself appart. He is claiming to create energy magically to overcompensate friction. Why then would friction stop the machine? He never said he needed to operate in a vacuum, since air friction would be present.
The beauty is that he has managed to sucker a few of you in to feeling sorry for him. He says, if I was on the outside I would call it preposterous, but I see it works now. He is coming from the side of the skeptic, the engadget reader, to a convert, himself. That way we can relate with him and follow him like lambs to a slaughter to his side.
To dwaede:
I think, the analogy with "follow him like lambs to a slaughter to his side" is not appropriate (at least for me). The guy did not convince me that "perpetuum mobile" can exist.
IMHO, if the device is working, then he does not know what he invented. He thinks that is some sort of "perpetuum mobile", but this is most probably just another sort of engine working from Earth magnetism. The guy is not a scientist, that's at least is obvious.
Of course, the guy can be a liar, then he has succeeded already, since he got the publicity he wanted.
I will just sit and wait for the proofs from either side. :)
lambs to a slaughter? oh my god, they're going to attach giant, gnashing metal teeth to this thing and use it to very efficiently kill us all! :)
Ryan, since you interviewed the guy, what do you think about the whole thing? Believable or not?
Glad you asked. Sean seems like a really nice guy, very on the level. I don't think I'll ever look back for being skeptical about a free energy machine, so if you asked me to put my money down, it's going to be on Steorn having stumbled upon a confusing and mistaken phenomenon that caused them to think they've created something they haven't. Ultimately it's hard to say, they have nothing but claims out there right now -- no proof, no demo, nothing to support their hypothesis.
Do I want to be proven wrong? Do I want there to be a free energy machine that solves the world's energy crisis? Absolutely -- that's why we're all here discussing this. Do I think that's the case? Not right now I don't. Do I think it's even possible? Well, if people can believe in God, I don't see why a free energy machine is so out of the realm of possibility.
" Sean seems like a really nice guy, very on the level. "
Yup. All good con men seem that way -- and their victims love them (while the con game is still in progress).
But don't you think it overly convenient (to avoid the "L" word) that Sean forgot (again avoiding that "L" word) that Dr. Mike was a member of a work group which received extensive briefing and documents under an NDA? He received plenty of information on the operating principle and even suggestions on how to build a test stand to prove it. Mike built it but couldn't prove anything approaching overunity. And Dr. Mike was promised two days advance access to the demo device before the demonstration and invited to "take his screwdriver" with him. All of this is amply documented in Sean's own posts (and Dr. Mike's) on the Steorn forums. So it's simply disingenuous (to once more avoid calling Sean a rank liar) to suggest that Dr. Mike had no basis for writing his considered and professional opinion that Orbo is at best a delusion.
Thanks for the reply Ryan. I feel the exact same way; i want this tho be real, but what i've read (in the short time since this first hit engadget) points to it not being possible. At least on earth.
Hey, I hope to meet you at tc20 (that would mean we were selected *crosses fingers*)
They have had several years of "chances". They disturbed a lot of people and wasted lots of money and time with this failed demo. How many chances do you want to give them to prove something so easy to demonstrate (if, of course, they had it)?
The flat earth analogy, by the way, is silly. Even in Greek times many people had deduced that the earth was round. People make mistakes all the time. That's no excuse for Steorn!
Nice interview, but it could use some proofreading.
Back when Steorn paid for the ad in the economist someone posted a comment suggesting that if Steorn´s office was plugged into the power grid, then this whole thing had to be a hoax. I believe that to be true. If Steorn could truly scale their invention to power airplanes and buildings then they would surely be doing so. It is like Ryan said: "Typically if you believe this kind of stuff is possible you expect people to run off to the biggest company in the world and to do big fat licensing deal and retire off to the Maldives.". I think that hits the nail on the head. If you own the rights to such a powerful invention there is no way you will waste your time trying to prove to the world that it works. You set up a licensing deal with a huge manufacturing company with a great reputation for building electrical machines like Mitsubishi, then you simply start popping the little free-energy-generating gizmos on planes, you use them to power entire cities, hell, you could even have electric cars run off of the little bastards. Would anyone here not spend say 50,000 bucks for a car that would run FOREVER? Steorn is taking advantage of the fact that:
(a) a sucker is born every minute
and
(b) a fool and his money are soon parted
I am now as jaded as can be after reading this interview.
Doesn't [laugh].
If you were trying to correct my "don't"... better try again.
The guy is clearly either deluded or a con-man. If he had anything at all, he would at least be able to explain a little something about how it works. There are ways to do that without giving away the secret, if there is one. But not once in any interview has he ever shown any understanding at all of anything technical. It occurs to me that maybe it is more than coincidence that the demo was at an *art gallery*. Could this be some very bold piece of performance art to see how many people he could fool? Or maybe he is trying to start a cult...this is one way to screen for people who are very suggestible. Probably his motives are related to having taken money from his confidential investors. He now needs some way to weasel out without giving back the money, and he needs time to figure out a good excuse. Of course he won't promise any deadlines...since what he claims can't possibly be delivered, that would actually put an end to his game! This whole fiasco smacks of desperation. Steorm is grasping at straws to stave off some calamity that only they know is imminent. Maybe the investors are applying pressure, or something else. It will all come out eventually. Probably someone will end up in jail or with his legs broken.
Now I see how this thing has gotten so far. He is a hell of a storyteller.
Hardly. This guy does not have the gift of the gab. He stumbles a lot and his back-story is utterly weak (they were fooling with magnets to try to make a power source for a wireless security camera... c'mon).
Actually I think he's a poor story teller, and this lends him a touch more credibility. Not enough, though.
yep, and maybe SCO owns Linux IP.
The difference between open-minded people and close-minded people is clearly shown here. Furthermore, most people who make such claims as "BS" most certainly don't know a thing about what they're commenting on; clueless.
[tundraboy] - Your mind is open, that's good. However, your doubt causes you to fall short of figuring it out. Try again. Everybody else... pay attention.
Did you get in lots of fights in high school when people told you Santa is not real.
You tell them. The Easter bunny is also real, and George Bush flew the planes himself into the towers.
Does no one find if funny that a small company contracted out to install security cameras decided the current power options were insufficient. How did they accidentally create a perpetual motion machine? Did they put two magnets together and see they repelled? Then go hey, that could create power for security cameras.
If I contracted them to create some security cameras, I would have dropped the contract and sued to get my money back.
Imagine it, he walks into your office and says, "we are on the verge of creating limitless power for your cameras, just give us more money and a few more years. Then you won't have to pay the high cost of installing solar cells with battery power for the night."
Last time I checked the UK is doing pretty good with there camera surveillance.
What? No "Shyster-Sean" comment from Engadget?
The one question that should have been asked, which Sean cannot give a good answer to:
If the technology works, why not produce the machines and sell it. If it truly works, and is cost effective, people will buy it. End of story. I would buy it immediately if it produced electricity out of thin air, and I wouldn't even care how it works. But that isn't happening. Why not?
"The difference between open-minded people and close-minded people is clearly shown here"
Yes, morons confuse gullibility with "open-mindedness" which is evidenced by the twits and schizoids who pop up in pretty much every thread on Steorn.
Whether this breaks laws of physics or not, this needs to be heard and I think it's a good thing we're hearing about it. These people aren't making a ton of money in this and they didn't rig the demo. They seem to be fairly credible and open which is reason enough to at least hear them out. Laws of physics can be broken, it's happened before. It doesn't happen often but it would be pretty horrible if this was it happening again and we all ignored it.
Laws of physics have not been broken before unless you are refering to the first few seconds after the big bang when the second law of thermodynamics was forming. It has been well established.
No laws of physics have ever been broken!!
"Steorn's accounts for the year ending December 31, 2003,[6] show that the company's Profit and Loss Account had an accumulated loss of € 192,661, while its cash reserves were € 94.
An update to the company's web site on February 9, 2007 includes an informal summary of the company's accounts as of 2006.[7] The summary shows pre-tax losses of €779,047, €1,815,666, and €3,247,938 in 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively."
"The investments amount to €3 million in total."
HAHAHA, real honest people, you invest money and they continually lose it with nothing to show for.
dwaede: Thanks for doing the legwork in digging up the numbers! That's exactly what I was talking about above. He's now out of money trying to run a company that has hopped from one job to another and has never been able to turn a profit. By talking this up as the hugest scientific revolution in history (which it would be if it could be done), he is playing poker against his investors. He is bluffing that he has a royal flush, and trying to get them to put in more money. If they do, his company survives, and he can live another day/month/year. If they don't he can always claim that he couldn't develop the technology because his investors pulled out! Very clever! But ultimately stupid. He is just postponing the inevitable. I wouldn't be surprised if he suddenly disappeared from the country under mysterious circumstances, or found some big conspiracy to blame for this failure...
From his photo it looks like he has a big brain... so I believe him.
Never been in a fight in my life. Though, I have been smart enough to walk away from a couple. Totally irrelevant.
We have no idea if Steorn will produce anything significant or not. However, we all need to realize that a new source of energy is immanent. Unfortunately, this world will always be riddled with fear, doubt and incompetent critics.
It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. New energy forms are coming, fusion is the next step. Possibly down the line cold fusion and much further, manipulation of dark matter and antimatter.
The thing about everything I said is they follow physics. A true perpetual motion machine would increase in speed and energy output until it created so much energy it would collapse on itself forming a worm hole.
We still exist, so they did not create perpetual motion.
Remember they are not proposing a new form of energy, they are proposing new energy.
I would just like to point out that dark matter has not been proved to exist yet. It is thought to exist in order to explain certain problems with a universe that is ~4.5 billion years old. But nobody has proved yet that it exists. If anyone has evidence, I'd like to know.