blog

Photo of the house from the gate

We're nearly done building our replica villa on the Kapiti Coast. This is my blog which has been taken over by updates on the project. You can also see some pics and some technical stuff about systems, insulation, home-networking and the like.

I also use several online forums, interested in folk attempting similar things. (I post as "phptek")

Steorn Over Unity Technology - a Randi Rebuttal

Posted: 31-08-06

A short time ago a company called Steorn, based in Dublin, Ireland, laid claim to their conception of Over Unity technology. Simply put: They claim to have conceived of specific technology that outputs more energy than is put into it. Such systems are also known as "Free Energy" systems, Over Unity Devices or less academically as "Perpetual Motion Devices".

Once I found out about this I got very interested indeed and read all I could on the subject. One piece I came across was a skeptical commentary by James Randi. Randi is a former magician and escape artist who now lectures on the demystification of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. He also runs a website (www.randi.org) dedicated to the debunking of such claims.

This is a rebuttal to James Randi's counter-claims of the Steorn 'Over-Unity' technology, taken from this article.

Mr Randi is not himself a scientist and admits so himself. While I can, technically speaking be said to be a scientist being as I am - in possession of a BSc in Cognitive Science, I am not practicing and have no intentions of doing so. However, as a result of my formal scientific education I know my way round basic empirical and experimental principles and how to write up experimental results for perusal by my peers and also for digestion by the layman.

Having only read the particular Steorn article on randi.org, I'm in no position to make sweeping claims about Mr Randi or anyone else. However - what I am in a position to say about this article specifically is that it is written in a low-level, subjective manner, commenting on something who's conclusion has yet to be reached.

I'm not a journalist either. As far as I can tell, journalistic pieces can usually be said to have been written for one of two reasons: 1: To educate 2: to entertain. Mr Randi's article seems to be in the latter camp but somehow manages to put across the view that it's in the former.

Having read around the Steorn subject for a grand-total of about forty-five minutes, assimilating two articles, two movie clips and a voice interview - I believe I am already in a position to rebut his key complaints; which were as follows:

Sean McCarthy (CEO of Steorn)

"The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record."

1: James Randi:

"What possible reason could there be for any scientist or organization to shy away from a public endorsement?"

According to the Guardian article one credible reason why this might be the case is what was referred to as '..the Pons-Fleischmann factor..' (after the 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann experimental claims into room-temperature nuclear-fusion) where '..The subsequent controversy resulted in the scientists being pilloried, even though the scientific community remains divided to this day over claims of "low-energy nuclear reactions".'

As any currently employed scientist will tell you, a research budget from their employer-institutions is more important to them for their lively hood than risking all in front of their peers on the seemingly outlandish claims made by Steorn. The fact that the subject matter is in the realm of over unity 'physics' (an inexact, repeatedly and much ridiculed area of research), probably just worsens the situation.

2: James Randi: (additional)

"Does this mean that even those who thought Steorn had a winner, never actually completed the testing procedure?"

No, of course not. None of the scientists would have thought that Steorn had a winner, that's why they wanted to sign up to such a test. The advert put into The Economist specifically asks for '...a jury of twelve of the most qualified and the most cynical.'.

To quote also from the voice-interview done on August 25th at steornwatch.com: '..we're not putting all this effort, all this money and all this credibility, or lack of our credibility on the line hoping to find twelve physicists that believe in Over Unity, because non of them do...'

'..we have had offers from other people in the OU [Over Unity] sphere, saying they would source scientists for us and we said no, absolutely not..'

No. These are people unlikely to believe that Steorn 'had a winner'.

Imagine also this: That a scientist does actually discover an over unity effect and does prove it to himself and to his team. What then? He has disproved a fundament of modern science that has been in existence and the foundation stone of physics research since Rudolf Clausius propounded the first law of thermodynamics back in 1850. Now imagine the kinds of pressure likely put on scientists requiring steady income from a thus far financially supportive institution, making such claims, howsoever proven.

This was actually noticed already by Randi himself; and thus partially answers his question. A little further exploration of this particular outcome by Randi would have helped him answer this himself by his comment: 'Consider: if just one exception to this law were ever found, it would turn the scientific world upside down, and would reverse the millennia of discoveries about how things work.'

These examples above will also explain another of Randi's questions:

3: James Randi:

"Just why did the majority of those scientists who were asked to examine the Steorn claim, decline to be part of this major discovery, and why have no academic journals seized upon this breakthrough?"

The article then quickly refocuses onto implications of fraud on the part of Steorn's claims, in the form of their talking up a technology in order to attract investment.

Not a very balanced article and certainly not a balanced argument, but thank you for reading mine.

More information on the Steorn technology and links to the articles mentioned here can be found at:



Cheers folks,
Russ