Comments on: Seven reasons why Steorn’s perpetual machine will never work

By: Inept

Inept — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:54:24 +0000

I would pay money to see Steorn’s office’s electricity bill.

By: TCN

TCN — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:38:56 +0000

Stop all these commentings.I have already made a free energy machine.I’m able to generate100KW without any iput.Hey, it is real.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:11:53 +0000

2 reasons why this write up is utter bollocks:

1) “Changing the laws of physics, that’s impossible.”

‘laws’? I agree, changing the laws of physics is impossible. Luckily for us the sun orbits around a flat earth and there are 4/5 elements, and 12 gods. If it wasn’t, then the ‘laws’ would have changed.

Of course, this is a negative of you second foible:

2) “Defying the laws of physics is highly, highly unlikely at the very least; I would argue impossible ”

Of course it is impossible. You fucking idiot. highly highly unlikely? If ‘A’ cannot be done, it isn’t ‘highly unlikely’ that it cannot be done.

Whatever the actual rules of physics are, we cannot change them. If we think we can, or can, then they themselves ARE the rules. This isn’t philosophical, it’s 3rd grade, 3 dimensional sense.

You meant to say ‘changing common scientific consensus is highly unlikely’. And that I would agree.

2000 years ago science was religion. I mean, religion was science. And then science became science, and religion was something that opposed it, and now science is a new religion, with an agenda.

Either way, you whole write up is:

OMG LOL I DON’T THINK THAT IS RIGHT DO YOU? LOL!!11

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:16:16 +0000

“The name “Orbo” sounds like it comes from the Simpsons”??? And you’re including that in the top 7 reasons not to trust Steorn? I’m sorry but that doesn’t exactly say much for the credibility of the other 6, let alone the reasons that didn’t make the top list.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Steorn are right (although I don’t see why a website called BLORGE has any right to comment on the quality of names), in fact I’m 99% sure that it’s not what they claim. However, physics should not be allowed to use the word “impossible”, because that suggests that physics can prove anything, which it can’t. “The square root of 2 is rational” – that’s impossible. There are people who claim it is, but even if someone paid £100k to put an advert in a magazine saying they can prove root 2 is rational, it would be ignored because it simply isn’t, that’s what PROOF means.

Physics, on the other hand, simply makes informed guesses about the world we live in, and a specific theory is only “right” while there isn’t a better one around. Sure, the chances that we’re wrong are low, because it all seems to fit, but that doesn’t mean we’re right. It’s not about having an “open mind”, it’s fact, you can’t prove science – mathematical/philosophical proof, beyond any doubt whatsoever.

By: TheFear

TheFear — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:01:16 +0000

No matter how great the engineering is the device will always eventually find zero point and stop. So many people in history have tried creating permanent magnet motors and all of them have turned out the same. When permanent magnets are in the same flux field for any length of time the flux fields weaken. Every magnet has a “maximum energy product” rated in Mega Gauss Oersteds, MGOe. This is the amount of work a magnet can do before its level of magnetism has deteriorated to the point that its energy doesn’t reach out far enough to affect anything surrounding it. Contrary to the popular notion that rare earth magnets are invincible, even the most expensive sintered NdFeB magnets max out at less than 50 MGOe. If they are used in a device that puts them constantly in opposition, they will run down, and this is the whole assumption behind so-called “magnetic motors”. the other issue is this really isn’t free energy machine even if it did work because the permanent magnets had to get there flux fields from somewhere if the magnets where charged with current from another source or even if kinetically they where charged by rubbing two piece of metal together there was still a transfer of energy. The amount of energy used in manufacturing a magnet is typically 10 times what the magnet is capable of producing. More expensive magnets are even less efficient. Add to this the losses in energy incurred by these 33%-66% concept magnet devices themselves, and the energy consumed in the overall manufacturing process is 20-25 times the energy you will get out. The other thing to think about is that a permanent magnet will not always be a magnet it will eventually loose its flux over time. Now maybe that time might be 100 years and that’s all good but eventually it will die and if you put a magnet into another magnets flux field its life is shortened dramatically. Well anyways we all dream of free energy and I also hope we find it some day but I doubt it’s going to be orbo.

By: nleseul

nleseul — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:08:48 +0000

Two points:

1) The Steorn building is a relatively large two-story structure in the Docklands Innovation Park. Plenty of people have visited it and verified this. No one has ever seen Datapage offices inside that structure. Sharing the same address does not always mean sharing the same office. Good find—I haven’t heard of that company before—but probably not meaningful.

2) “Time variant magneto-mechanical transactions” sounds like gobbledegook on its face, but Steorn has expanded on the idea elsewhere, in particular in a presentation given at University College Dublin, which is available on YouTube.

Skepticism is certainly more than justified—especially after the botched demo of this past weekend—but there’s no point in throwing out easily refuted trivialities like these. Especially when the most fundamental problem with Steorn’s claim—their failure to provide any evidence in support of it—makes it pretty much self-refuting at the moment.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:32:49 +0000

Joe: What it means is that sharing office space usually means the companies are intimately linked, and if they are linked then this could all be a huge marketing scam.
It could be just a huge viral marketing campaign to say “Look at how much hype we can build up around claiming to do the impossible, imagine what we can do for your company”

By: digginestdogg

digginestdogg — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:30:37 +0000

“You may be able to generate energy using magnets, but how much energy was used to manufacture the magnets?”

That’s fallacious reasoning–oil and coal are used up in creating energy so have a very short pay-back period and have to be replenished literally constantly, while the energy used producing the magnets is amortized of the life of the device since they need only be made once in the life cycle of the device and its energy production.

Not defending this likely hoax, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

By: Joe Erl

Joe Erl — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:13:01 +0000

Regarding point 2)
“If someone did make a such a breakthrough, it wouldn’t be a company sharing office space with a publishing services company (both Steorn and Datapage Publishing Services share the same address, 18 Docklands Innovation Park, East Wall Road, Dublin 3)
”
Not sure whether this was meant to say that somebody sharing office space doesn’t need to get involved with “free” energy? Any other explanation of your “observation” sounds even less credible.

By: Lawrence Strydom

Lawrence Strydom — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:08:21 +0000

The concept of free energy is not new. The man we all have to thank for having electricity today, Nikolai Tesla proposed this almost a century ago. His ideas were swept under the bucket by a profit hungry institution which wanted an economy based on fossil fuel dependency. Steorn may or may not be a hoax but be that as it may, free energy is a reality. It is based on the concept of quantum jitters which you can research for yourself.
500 years ago the laws of physics stated that the universe revolved around the earth,more recently the laws of physics stated that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Both these “laws” have subsequently been proven incorrect. The laws of physics are not cast in concrete and are continually evolving.