Comments on: Steorn Challenges the First Law of Thermodynamics http://www.sciscoop.com/2006-8-25-164733-819.html Scooping up science news and dropping it on your desk Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:03:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: http://www.sciscoop.com/2006-8-25-164733-819.html/comment-page-1#comment-4474 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:26:45 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=979#comment-4474 Good call. Good call.

]]> By: erich knight http://www.sciscoop.com/2006-8-25-164733-819.html/comment-page-1#comment-4166 erich knight Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:41:11 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=979#comment-4166 Whats New by Bob Parks at UMd had this to say:<p> 4. PERPETUUM MOBILE: "ALL GREAT TRUTHS BEGIN AS BLASPHEMIES."<br> This is the slogan of Steorn, a Dublin company that is assembling<br> a jury of scientists to evaluate a device using moving permanent<br> magnets to produce free energy. WN has exposed so many of these<br> devices in the past that it gets depressing. So this time we<br> examined the slogan instead. It's from George Bernard Shaw's<br> Anajanska [1919], but the full quote must have been been lost. <br> We've found the full quote: "All great truths begin as<br> blasphemies, but all blasphemies do not become great truths."<p> --------------------<br> Erich J. Knight<br> Whats New by Bob Parks at UMd had this to say:

4. PERPETUUM MOBILE: “ALL GREAT TRUTHS BEGIN AS BLASPHEMIES.”
This is the slogan of Steorn, a Dublin company that is assembling
a jury of scientists to evaluate a device using moving permanent
magnets to produce free energy. WN has exposed so many of these
devices in the past that it gets depressing. So this time we
examined the slogan instead. It’s from George Bernard Shaw’s
Anajanska [1919], but the full quote must have been been lost.
We’ve found the full quote: “All great truths begin as
blasphemies, but all blasphemies do not become great truths.”

——————–
Erich J. Knight

]]> By: AJS http://www.sciscoop.com/2006-8-25-164733-819.html/comment-page-1#comment-3784 AJS Sat, 09 Sep 2006 08:53:15 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=979#comment-3784 On reasonable justifcation for testing a far-fetched idea was stated elegantly by G.E. Hutchinson, in his book "The  Kindly Fruits of the Earth" (1979; page 125).  That is, go after the thing if the empirical evidence suggests that the probability of something being valid is not "vanishingly small," while the importance, should the validity be confirmed, is scientifically enormous.  Free energy certainly sounds highly unlikely (and maybe even vaninshingly small!), but should it be confirmed, it CERTAINLY would be scientifically enormous.<p> This is not to imply that validating (or refuting, for that matter!) will be a piece of cake.  The long-simmering work on cold fusion (still underway) is a testimonial to the difficulties.  But, it seems to me that Hutchinson's perspective pertains to the "free energy" idea.  From the initial fiasco of cold fusion, a lot of "edgy" science is still taking shape.  It is important to test the edges! On reasonable justifcation for testing a far-fetched idea was stated elegantly by G.E. Hutchinson, in his book “The  Kindly Fruits of the Earth” (1979; page 125).  That is, go after the thing if the empirical evidence suggests that the probability of something being valid is not “vanishingly small,” while the importance, should the validity be confirmed, is scientifically enormous.  Free energy certainly sounds highly unlikely (and maybe even vaninshingly small!), but should it be confirmed, it CERTAINLY would be scientifically enormous.

This is not to imply that validating (or refuting, for that matter!) will be a piece of cake.  The long-simmering work on cold fusion (still underway) is a testimonial to the difficulties.  But, it seems to me that Hutchinson’s perspective pertains to the “free energy” idea.  From the initial fiasco of cold fusion, a lot of “edgy” science is still taking shape.  It is important to test the edges!

]]> By: benhocking http://www.sciscoop.com/2006-8-25-164733-819.html/comment-page-1#comment-3285 benhocking Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:40:18 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=979#comment-3285 How did this get on the front page?!? How did this get on the front page?!?

]]> By: http://www.sciscoop.com/2006-8-25-164733-819.html/comment-page-1#comment-2608 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:12:00 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=979#comment-2608 POSTED ON BEHALF OF Wayne Lanier, PhD, Pacbell:<p> I see no reason why we should try to "prove" Steorn's claim; or, why we should try to "disprove" their claim. Real science just does not work that way. Whether or not "traditional peer-review science" votes for or against them is not the point. It is up to them to openly publish their results for review and discussion.<p> Their alternative is to make a product and sell it. Presumably, if they have an energy-producing device they can manufacture and sell it. If they have a source of energy that really works, it is irrelevant whether they get votes from sceptics. This is, after all, not a bogus "cancer cure" that might kill innocent patients. It is a testable device. If one customer finds it works, then that customer will tell another and - without any doubt at all - customers will beat a path to their door.<p> So, why do they need to go through this "test us" charade? It serves no purpose, except to suggest they are fundamentally dishonest.<p> Wayne Lanier, PhD POSTED ON BEHALF OF Wayne Lanier, PhD, Pacbell:

I see no reason why we should try to “prove” Steorn’s claim; or, why we should try to “disprove” their claim. Real science just does not work that way. Whether or not “traditional peer-review science” votes for or against them is not the point. It is up to them to openly publish their results for review and discussion.

Their alternative is to make a product and sell it. Presumably, if they have an energy-producing device they can manufacture and sell it. If they have a source of energy that really works, it is irrelevant whether they get votes from sceptics. This is, after all, not a bogus “cancer cure” that might kill innocent patients. It is a testable device. If one customer finds it works, then that customer will tell another and – without any doubt at all – customers will beat a path to their door.

So, why do they need to go through this “test us” charade? It serves no purpose, except to suggest they are fundamentally dishonest.

Wayne Lanier, PhD

]]> By: http://www.sciscoop.com/2006-8-25-164733-819.html/comment-page-1#comment-1672 Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:15:51 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=979#comment-1672 Does anyone else feel that this is nothing more than a PR campaign to get this company a sh*tload of hits to their site. Surely, they can't be serious that they're creating energy for free<p> Quoting Steorn's Sean McCarthy: "What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy."<p> Sounds like any number of crank stories that get posted to sciscoop and quickly debunked and junked.<p> Any comments...? Does anyone else feel that this is nothing more than a PR campaign to get this company a sh*tload of hits to their site. Surely, they can’t be serious that they’re creating energy for free

Quoting Steorn’s Sean McCarthy: “What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy.”

Sounds like any number of crank stories that get posted to sciscoop and quickly debunked and junked.

Any comments…?

]]>