Talk:Steorn/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Steorn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead: future comments

Surely Steorn's website is reliable enough to include a brief description of what they themselves intend to do in two weeks' time? This is the relevant passage in the RS guideline. Can I assume you think there is a real doubt that anything will happen on the 1st? I am unfamiliar with the subject. WP:CRYSTAL relates mainly to having whole articles on future events at any rate, and I don't think that this is speculative since it's from an official source anyhow. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Steorn says" is rather like a game of "Simon says". They have talked about a launch date, but there is a need to wait for reliable sourcing on any launch. Unfortunately, the BBC and RTE lost interest in this saga some time back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wonder what harm it does to say that they intend to release whatever on 1 February. Sure, we don't want to worry ourselves with details and whatnot, but I think it's important to let readers know where the project is. We're not a paper project, and in two weeks' time, if they push it back to 1 March, we can update it. The way I see it, that it was not released on 1 February does not mean that providing information to that effect beforehand was worthless (or wrong). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Steorn have been spectacularly wrong about how things would go for them - the demonstration in an art gallery being the canonical example. Perhaps wait until the release or people independent of Steorn have covered it? Autarch (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that the bulk of the article should document real things that have happened and are set it stone. I just think it really, really needs one forward looking sentence. Just one. Steorn are the ideal source for this, and we can say what they think they're going to do. (This press-release being included in independent sources is somewhat unnecessary as they mostly would just take Steorn's word for it anyway, should they publish.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See also The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Steorn has gone down the usual free energy road of promising launch dates that never materialize. Sorry to be harsh about this, but if Steorn cannot get BBC or RTE interested again, they are floundering.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course they are, but we must think of the article: would it benefit from one sentence, which can be updated, in the lead, saying what the next target is (say). I think so, you may disagree. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection to mentioning the proposed February 1 launch lower down in the article, where it currently is. However, it would probably not be WP:LEAD material unless it actually happened and was covered by reliable sources such as BBC and RTE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry to be blunt

Sorry to be blunt, but this is just a scam. The kooky idea of generating ‘free energy’ using magnets is nothing new – it’s been tried many times before, and thoroughly debunked each and every time. There is nothing new or novel about the Steorn devices.

The jury of scientists chosen by Steorn concluded absolutely and unequivocally that the devices don’t work, yet McCarthy continues to takes money from investors and assure them that everything is OK. There are two possibilities –

1. McCarthy truly believes they work, which means he is lost in his own delusions.

2. McCarthy knows they don’t work, but is prepared to pretend otherwise while making a lot of money from it.

Either way, Steorn is deceiving everyone who believes its slick advertising campaigns, which contain a lot of techno-babble, smoke and mirrors, but no hard evidence to prove anything. Logicman1966 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but this article doesn't claim anything to the contrary - we don't say the technology works, or that it has any serious support. Unless you have a specific point about the content of the article, Wikipedia is not a forum for chatting about our opinions of subjects. --McGeddon (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I agree that the article is generally balanced and well written. However, there is one sentence in the 'free energy claim' section -"..had already been found to work by eight independent scientists and engineers. Steorn said that none of these scientists was willing to publish their results for fear of becoming embroiled in a controversy and declined to name them, citing mutually binding non-disclosure agreements." This is exactly the type of smoke and mirrors bullshit I'm talking about. If they won't name these scientists and engineers, or even publish a summary of their findings, then the sentence should be removed from the article as it has no value. Logicman1966 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

~~Do you think the category Perpetual motion machines should be added? IMHO, the unanimous verdict of the jury justifies this. Paul Studier (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)~~

The terms "free energy machine" and "perpetual motion machine" are often seen as interchangeable. The reason is that if more than 100% of the energy input came out of the system, it could be fed back to the input to power the machine indefinitely. Joe Newman famously hated the term "perpetual motion machine" even though he was claiming over 100% output. See also Duck test.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This article already is in the PMM category. As for the non-disclosure bullshit: I agree. But it was considered relevant enough to go in an article published by the Guardian, one of the limited reliable sources we have, so it's relevant enough to go in this article. I think it's well balanced by the crticism made about Steorn's continuing refusal to make informaton about their device public.

Finally, the bit about no hard evidence is something I've been mulling over for a while and almost have straight in my head an addition to the lead that can be made which focuses on that point. Give me a few days to finalise it in my head and then I'll write it. GDallimore (Talk) 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be blind because I didn't see that it already had that well deserved tag. Paul Studier (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I don't think the recently adopted routine of automatic archiving of discussions here is wise, especially not arcviving sections after only one month of inactivity. Also, I now cannot see any link to the existing archive. __meco (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rejigged the MiszaBot settings. There is now a search box, and the threads are archived after 60 days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is an edit where someone deleted old stuff and apparently didn't archive it: [1] Is it possible to add this to your bot's list of archives without messing it up? Paul Studier (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added this to Archive 4. However, it also appears to be in Archive 3.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some manual archiving because the bot wasn't working and am 99% certain I didn't make a mistake. I added all the stuff PStudier mentions to Archive 3 because that archive was very small and the discussions were linked with the new ones. The link to the archives was there but got removed by Jarry1250 when he passed the article as GA. If we delete the new archive 4 to avoid the confusion of duplicated material, will the bot recreate it when it next runs an archive routine? GDallimore (Talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't delete pages because I'm not an admin. If the content is removed from Archive 4, the page will be intact but empty. Since MiszaBot archives only threads on the current talk page that meet the date requirements, it should avoid repeats.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Overunity

Something else to consider adding to the article : Steorn no longer uses the term 'overunity', instead they now use the term 'COP > 1'. They seem to have realised that these days people just laugh at the term 'overunity', it's an old trick that has been discredited too many times. 'COP (coefficient of performance) > 1' has a technical buzz to it, and sounds authentic. A shame it's already been used by engineers for decades, for example in reference to refrigeration units, and has a completely different definition to the outlandish version made up by Steorn. This is another example of the techno-babble used by Steorn. Logicman1966 (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re overunity, see the next section re the latest e-mail.

I think the article does and should continue to avoid using the marketing speak or particular phraseology chosen by Steorn, so no I don't think this is something to add to the article. "Overunity", for example, is not used in this article for good reason as far as I'm concerned. I'm even adverse to the use in the article of Steorn's word "technology", but can't think of anything as good that is also as general. GDallimore (Talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Steorn has had ample time to show the machine to independent reviewers and has failed to take the opportunity. As stated before, the Steorn website is not a WP:RS as far as the article is concerned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest e-mail -- "McCarthy will demonstrate and prove that Orbo is an overunity technology"

Anyone else seen the latest Steorn e-mail re Orbo Technology Update? Here it is (edited).

The Final Demo:

Proving Overunity

Steorn is pleased to announce that the final pre-launch demonstration of its Orbo technology, “Proving Overunity” will take place at 1600 GMT on Saturday January 30th.

Description:

Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, will demonstrate and prove that Orbo is an overunity technology.

We should mention this in the article? They are promising to prove it is overunity technology.

This leads back to the issue identified in the previous section. The Steorn website is not a reliable source, since there is a need for external sourcing to establish notability. Otherwise the article becomes little more than a vanity mirror for Steorn's latest press release. Coverage in the tech blogs is better than nothing, but simply repeating what Steorn says is unwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. OK. But there will be some sort of media followup surely. If once again their demo fails to demonstrate anything, then this article needs to be rewritten. From the very first par on, anyone who has never heard of Steorn could believe that it actually has a product that works. Count the number of paragraphs one must wade through before discovering that maybe there's nothing to this technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.171.61 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote from WP:RS:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research.

Steorn has tested this principle in recent months, because it has not picked up much media coverage beyond a few articles in the tech blogs. The article does make clear that no evidence so far supports the claim, but any new developments in the Orbo saga will need third party coverage before they are suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for breathing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.171.61 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just got a Press Release from Steorn (which is probably also on their website). It says they have completed a public test and will be doing more tests through the end of February 2010--

I don't have time to edit the article, but here is the text of the Press Release (should also be cited from their website or any News outlet that covers it)--

"Testing - Orbo Technology Update

On 30th January 2010 Steorn announced that it would make Orbo technology available for testing at the Waterways Visitor Centre.

Since then Steorn has been hosting third-party testing and finalising calorimetry tests. This third-party testing will continue until the end of February.

Steorn will make the results of the calorimetry tests available alongside other test data in the coming weeks. These results will be pivotal to a widespread uptake of Developer (and ultimately, Commercial) Licenses. Steorn will open the SKDB to the general engineering community after these test results have been released.

Developers wishing to come and test Orbo technology at the Waterways should make a booking at (Link to their site-- I removed it here)."

69.171.160.155 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this, but we seem to be going round in circles here. Press releases, YouTube videos etc are not a reliable source. Unless Steorn picks up some coverage in the mainstream media (which it has failed to do in 2010), the article cannot simply repeat the latest publicity handouts from Steorn. John von Neumann said "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you tell me precisely what it is a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that." It looks like he could help Steorn to build a machine with 327% efficiency...--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video of February 2010 demonstration

Any comments on this demonstration of greater than 100% efficiency? This is their most recent demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7i7P63IByY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.141.0.1 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Again this comes back to Steorn not being a reliable source about itself per WP:SPS. This is another example of material that has no academic value because it is not peer reviewed. Anyone can say anything in a YouTube video, and they often do. Attempting to bypass peer review is a classic feature of free energy claims, so the article cannot really comment on this or use it as source material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I've been putting off updating the lead because of this, but it's been a few days and no news reports have shown up on google. To be honest, I think what the article says already covers this video: Steorn gave a public demonstration and "said that the device produced more energy than it consumed and recharged the battery". Nothing more to add over and above that. GDallimore (Talk) 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is not supposed to be a forum to discuss Steorn, but deciphering more of what McCarthy says in the various YouTube videos may help the article, at least indirectly. Two phrases that are unresolved in my mind: "recharging the battery" and "300% efficiency".

Regarding the battery, does he ever explicitly say that the battery is recharged by as much as it's discharged? In other words, if during one revolution the battery expends a charge of C but is given back a charge of just 0.1*C, would that be described as "the device recharged the battery"? If so, I find the phrase very misleading. So I'm wondering, does Steorn ever claim they fully recharge the battery?

Regarding the "300% efficiency" (more energy out than consumed), in the videos McCarthy always seems to mention the heating of the coils, saying for example at 2:40 in [2] that "virtually all of the electrical energy that is input to the system is actually dissipated as heat". My simple question: Is that "heat" counted as part of their 300%? In other words, Is Steorn saying

(mechanical output + electrical output) > (input from battery)?

which would be remarkable, amazing, etc. Or are they saying

(mechanical output + electrical output +heat) > (input from battery)?

which would mean their claim hinges on how well they estimate the amount of heat. Spiel496 (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot interpret primary source material per WP:RS. If Steorn really wants some mainstream media coverage that can be used in the article, they could give a prototype of the machine to Eric Ash etc and ask for an independent test report. Anyone from Steorn listening here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're following WP:RS then the phrase "recharged the battery" should be removed from the article, because none of the references back this up. Even if we do find a reference that says the battery is being recharged, the phrase is overly vague. Most people would take it to mean that on average more energy is going into the battery than out; Steorn isn't claiming that. Spiel496 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm... have you read the source that directly follows the particular statement you're saying isn't referenced? Not only does the text of the report say it (pages 4 and 7), there's a big picture of a notice board from Steorn claiming they generate more energy than they consume (page 3). As the report says: this is totally unambiguous, so all this Steorn rubbish about heat and things is just smoke and mirrors and it's no wonder no reliable source has bothered to lend it any credence. GDallimore (Talk) 08:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

D'oh. Yeah, I see it this time. Yes, the source reports the "recharging" claim. But the word "recharge" is ambiguous. Spiel496 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is, neither Steorn nor the source claim the battery charge is being maintained or kept fully charged. Yet by saying "recharged" in the article, the reader is going to think that's what Steorn is claiming. Is there a way we can phrase it so that we don't parrot Steorn's ambiguous, misleading language? Spiel496 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The current wording with the ZDNet UK cite [3] seems OK and unlikely to mislead. Incidentally, "The motor recharged the battery while it was running" is one of the all-time great free energy/perpetual motion claims. It is found in the work of John Bedini and many others.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If the wording is so obvious, then which way did you interpret it? There are two completely valid ways to interpret the word "recharge": "fully recharge" or "partially recharge". Unless every reader assumes "partially" then the statement is misleading. What Steorn did was the equivalent of saying, "I bought petrol for your car after I borrowed it". Did they fill the tank or add just one liter? So Steorn, through the source, does not claim to maintain the charge on the battery. And without that detail, the "recharging" claim doesn't seem notable. Spiel496 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Steorn has unequivocally claimed "free, clean and constant energy at the point of use".[4] This seems like one of the many thinly-coded versions of free energy/perpetual motion. One of the consequences of this is that a motor could recharge a battery while it is running. As ZDNet points out, none of this is backed up by independent figures about the power produced by the machine. The wording in the article does not seem misleading, but further comments are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, being able to charge a battery could be a consequence of a free energy device, but we're talking about the battery in the demo. No one reported Steorn saying that that battery's charge is maintained. Besides, Steorn didn't promise free, clean electrical energy, specifically. Spiel496 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned and as far as the sources are concerned Steorn has claimed exactly that the demonstrated device would have run forever (barring mechanical failure). I'm not willing to tone down their own claims since that would imply that their claims might have some truth behind them, which they don't. They're claiming the impossible. Full stop. GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And besides (and I hate that you made me sit through Steorn's tripe) this video on Steorn's website says about 30 seconds in that there is an 8% increase in inductive energy PLUS the heat, so your original suggestion that Steorn weren't claiming an increase in usable energy is just wrong. GDallimore (Talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And then again at 7.05 in the same video: "the net efficiency during this run, electrical to electrical, and I need to be clear about that, is 327% and that excludes any work done by the system against friction... and air resistance". GDallimore (Talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Which air resistance is that, the device operates in a closed box, which might well be devoid of air. Mahjongg (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I give up. GDallimore (Talk) 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was talking about the setup of the six weeks test, not this demo. Mahjongg (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Accepted and returned. Wasn't you I should have been venting at. GDallimore (Talk) 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaning you should have been venting at me? OK, I accept that. I do want to apologize for making you "sit through Steorn's tripe". For the record, I agree that Steorn has claimed the creation of usable energy; I was just making the observation that in regards to this battery, their statements got intentionally vague. I look at it as evidence that their confidence has waned. Spiel496 (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sadly Steorn promised "The Final Demo: Proving Overunity" in February 2010, and just came out with another round of smoke and mirrors. This is why WP:RS prevents the interpretation of primary source material, because Steorn's gobbledegook is unusable in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Naudin replication

I saw this, and I tried to write my own text:

In December 2009, French engineer Jean-Louis Naudin said that he had been able to replicate key portions of Steorn's invention. The next step will be replicating the generator part of the motor, in order to make it produce electricity.

source: JLN Labs replicates Steorn's free energy motor, 2009-10-28, by Sterling Allan, http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8199-Breakthrough-Energy-Examiner~y2009m12d28-JLN-Labs-replicates-Steorns-free-energy-motor

The problem is that the Examiner.com is not a reliable source. (and it's also blacklisted at wikipedia, so I can't even make the link work). I searched in google scholar [5], and Jean-Louis Naudin seems to have only a few conference papers, including a paper where he says that he has disproved the principle of relativity. "JNL labs" seems to consist mostly of a website with a title of "The Quest For Overunity". The author of the article is not a journalist for a newspaper, it's Sterling Allan from PESwiki.com --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Steorn say that none of these replication attempts actually replicate the Orbo, there is clearly nothing interesting about them and nothing worthwhile to go in the article about them even if there were any reliable sources, which there aren't. GDallimore (Talk) 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Naudin is one of the best known proponents of free energy machines on the Internet. His website The Quest For Overunity is classic WP:SPS material and cannot be used as a source in the article. There is a photograph of Naudin here with the Lifter, which is a "spaceship" using Coulomb repulsion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

since steorn commented on the replications being done, many of the replications have been modified (note : jln labs is not the only replication)to attemt to get closer to the demo orbo. since the comment that the replications where not the same as the orbo , modifications where made to the alighnment of the coils and occilascope readings show that the NO BEMF effect is indeed replicatable . the claim of no back emf is what makes the orbo special and worthy of study rather than ridicule., since BEMF is not mentioned in the entire article, it sudjests that the author may not know as much as they should about this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otfjdvx7UCM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJO6dnzEGY

http://www.youtube.com/user/TinselKoala#p/u/2/sMHSnz4lgag

these are just a few of the videos containing much technical information, these three videos also show the no BEMF effect on the scope.

E-Orbo, technology that produces torque without back EMF, is the claim , the definition of perpetuem mobile is a mechanicle device in perpetual motion , this can loosley be aplied to orbo, but if taken more definitivly one can see that if the battery is taken out and the no back electromagnetic flux (due to magnet viscosity; another thing not mentioned in the article) effect is taken away the device will surely stop. therefore its not a perpetual motion machine as it will not run itself its the effect which they claim which causes the motion. a perpetual motion device does not contain any power source so that descriptive term is not valid in this case.

this information should help to create a more acurate article about the topic. at the moment it is quite bias and almost derogatory using words like 'perpetuem mobile' and 'divining rods' when infact they are hall probes. ( this is my first time adding to an article, any sudjestions on how i can contribute better are more than welcome , thank you)

Stielzephyr (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)stielzephyrStielzephyr (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but without a reliable source discussing these topics, they don't go anywhere near the article. The stuff about back EMF is just bollocks, as is the stuff about magnetic viscosity (a complicated sounding term hinting at a new form of energy but actually being meaningless) and the article is better without it, not improvable by adding it. GDallimore (Talk) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The only perpetual motion here is the perpetual repetition of Wikipedia guidelines on this issue. Steorn's claim of "free, clean, and constant energy" from a machine is in WP:REDFLAG territory. The laws of physics as we know them would all have to be rewritten if a machine could do this. Claims of this kind cannot be backed up by personal blogs, YouTube videos etc, because they are self published sources. Steorn has had the best part of four years to show a prototype of the machine to mainstream scientists, but has failed to take the opportunity. Instead, they have gone down the time-honoured road of publishing their own results and hoping that this will be good enough. Sorry, but it won't wash. It is no wonder that the BBC and RTE have lost interest in this saga, and left coverage in the hands of a few blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful here, what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. So GDallimore's comment on it being "bollocks" is against Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and does not warrant removal of content. If and when there is verifiable sources on Steorn's claim, I suggest that everyone refrain from reacting on opinions.--99.254.5.32 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not need to be careful in my editing. It is bollocks. But you'll note I started my comment and labeled my reversion mentioning the requirement for reliable sources. The fact it's bollocks AND unsupported by reliable sources means that I will follow WP:RS with utmost stringency and will not bend an inch on it. e.g. I will not add fact tags, I will just remove unsourced material. GDallimore (Talk) 13:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't bottle up your feelings, tell us what you really think! Seriously, though, I agree completely with GDallimore. I would even go so far as to say that a reliable source isn't enough. For example, if Steorn claimed that "Orbo works because of fairy dust", I don't think it belongs in the article even if the New York Times quoted the nonsense. I would want to see a quote from an expert explaining what fairy dust is, and how enables perpetual motion. Spiel496 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Complete Bollocks even has its own (light-hearted) Wikipedia article. Steorn may fit into this category, since it has persistently declined any third party examination.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Added NPOV Tag to Article

The "Views" section only has the 'hoax' opinion cited where there are also cite-able (and credible) sources stating that A) it's a case of self-deception on the part of Steorn leadership (they really believe it and are fooling themselves-- a far more common occurrence in research and development than many realize) and also credible cite-able sources that B) Orbo technology is real and is currently a victim of the over-abundance of caution in the scientific community where overturning the basic laws of physics is concerned.

Both of these opinions should be represented and cited in the 'views' section to keep the article balanced.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. If person A says that the earth is round, and person B says that it is shaped like a teapot, both views do not have to be in the article to maintain balance. Steorn has had nearly four years to come up with better evidence than blogs and YouTube videos for a claim that would rewrite the laws of physics. It is not violating WP:NPOV to tell it like it is. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the issue at hand by your teapot-shaped example. If the article unequivocally presents the only perspective on Steorn's products as the least good faith whereas others allegedly exist that have a more amenable understanding or interpretation, these should absolutely be given space in this section. __meco (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As WP:NPOV says, "If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". We are still waiting for any mainstream scientist to support the Steorn claim. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That is still not the point. The IP user has asserted that "there are also cite-able (and credible) sources" (assumedly that means compliant with WP:RS) voicing the two alternative perspectives which I am not going to repeat because they are presented at the top of this section following the letters A) and B), respectively. Only the second of these actually supports Steorn's position. If the IP user is wrong, then the article is in fine shape with respect to the issue at hand. If the IP user is correct, then there is an issue. (I do however gather from what you write below that you have reason to be pretty sure such sources do not exist.) __meco (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint A (self-deception) is already reliably cited in the article with the quote from Eric Ash.[6] Viewpoint B (The claim that the device actually works in the way Steorn says it does) is impossible to cite reliably, since they have declined to give a prototype of the machine to independent scientists for testing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are asserting that there exist reliable sources which attest to your examples, wouldn't it be appropriate to point us in the direction of these sources? __meco (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The absence of alternative views is not evidence of ~~POV~~ ^^bias, had verified alternative views been removed then there may be a case. It also should be noted that one of the suggestions of the anonymous poster already appears in the very section they are flagging. aineolach (u · d) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A look at the talk page archive shows that the regular editors have tried and tried to find anything in favour of Steorn that is not a blog, YouTube video, personal website etc. which would fail WP:SPS. Find the hard evidence supporting Steorn, then complain about lack of WP:NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Das "spiel"

Might be interesting; [7]. Mahjongg (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Had a look at this, and it is written in obscure postmodernist jargon: The psynet can be flexible and adaptive because, as a stochastic system, it "is allowed to discover its own structure, within given constraints, rather than having structure imposed on it by rigid, preconceived rules"... Describing a "symbiosis" between humans and machines, Goertzel demonstrates how the system's ready access to nonproprietory information allows it "to nudge the information at the readiest disposal of individual humans and divisions in certain directions, based on its inferences and its own emergent understanding" Huh? It also has some WP:NPOV issues, because it argues that Steorn is essentially an exercise in spin and viral marketing. While some people have argued this, the real problem is that Steorn has failed to provide any independent scientific evidence to back up the claim. Back in 2006, a lot of people believed that Steorn was a deliberate hoax. This is now unlikely to be true, and Eric Ash's view of Steorn as "a prolonged case of self-deception" remains the best overall description.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It was written by a professor of the English language (in 2008) after following the fora of Steorn's website, it's not meant to be a scientific article. Mahjongg (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If he is a professor of English, it would help if he wrote in plain language instead of the usual poseur's jargon found in postmodernism. The version of the quote above as approved by the Plain English Campaign would be: "On the Internet, people can access whatever material they like, whenever they like". Now, ain't that original?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The text you are criticizing isn't from the professor, its a citation from "Smart Mobs 31" (a poster on the Steorn forum) , its also a fairly short piece of the story, and not representative of the writing style of the whole. a better example of the professors writing style would be his introduction sentence

Given the long, inglorious history of alleged perpetual motion devices, the failure of the Irish technology company
Steorn to demonstrate its heavily self-promoted device, the Orbo, might seem to warrant little fanfare. 
Whatever excuses offered for Orbo's no-show, it was clear no laws of thermodynamics on the conservation
of energy (CoE) were to be broken that day (or any other day, for that matter).

I don't see much "Fashionable nonsense" in that. The article is a "human interest" story about the pro and contra camps, the "believers" and "non believers" (as expressed in this cartoon drawing [8] ) in "Orbo technology". The complete title of the piece is The Steorn Exploit and its Spin Doktors, or "Synergie ist der name of das Spiel, my boy!" Mahjongg (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think there's a misunderstanding by IMM about POV. POV in the source is not an issue. Of course it will have a POV. What we need to do is make sure all POVs are suitably represented within the article. The two main POVs to represent are that it's a hoax and that they're wrong and this looks to be another good source to describe the former. The POV that they might be correct is not supported by reliable sources, as we're all well aware, so is not represented in the article. GDallimore (Talk) 13:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the text quotes postmodernist language that would defeat most people unless it was translated into plain English. Anyway, postmodernism is required writing style in parts of the humanities nowadays. The text itself does not violate WP:NPOV, although it is skewed toward the theory that Steorn is all show and no go. No real arguments here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Solid state version

At their homepage there's a video talking about a new version of the Orbo. This new version is also mentioned in a blog called dispatchesfromthefuture. Seems this solid state version isn't mentioned in the article here, yet, so I thought I'd just mention it. --109.189.98.138 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The solid state version is here. As is usual with Steorn, it is hard to find anything to say about it that is not from a self published source. This makes it difficult to mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I'm not particularly acquainted with the rules, but I have noticed the one about not creating information. I'm thinking simply mentioning that the solid state version is their latest claim isn't original creation of information, like any more than stating the sky is blue is creating information, if you see. I'm not suggesting the article should claim the thing actually works. :-) --109.189.98.138 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, there's plenty that Steorn say, and do, and say they'll do, and we can't mention everything or we just become a mirror for their website. A good thing to do in my view is to pick up on statements that Steorn have made which other, third party, reliable sources (of which dispatchesfromthefuture is not one) have at least briefly commented on. That means that either (a) we have an indication that the Steorn statement is considered noteworthy by others so there's an argument for including it here too and (b) we can sometimes include a third party response to Steorn's claims and announcements. Those two things ensure that this article becomes a meaningful article about the topic rather than just a repository for everything Steorn have even said or done. GDallimore (Talk) 18:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the interested reader can explore the Steorn web site at leisure. The solid state version does not add greatly to what has already been said, so unless it picks up some substantial coverage, it can be left out of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps 1 line indicating that Steorn has produced several variations of the orbo. This doesn't appear to look very important on the face but in free energy devices it is a common pattern. I.E. Make device>Test it>Make new device>Show test failed>Show new device>claim new device works were old failed>repeat from step 2.Donhoraldo (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual motion

In a edit, now reverted I added a clarifying statement to the end of the line, "In August 2006, Steorn placed an advertisement in The Economist saying that they had developed a technology that produced free, clean and constant energy" specifically I added ", a Perpetual motion machine of the first kind." the device in question the orbo is claimed to be a device that makes energy by breaking the law of conservation of energy. under the definition "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy." the orbo is a PMM of the first kind and the link to the PM page is applicable. If this should be in a different spot or in it's own section that's fine but there should be some link back to the Perpetual motion page.Donhoraldo (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was just worded awkwardly - I edited that paragraph a bit to more clearly separate the advertisement from the website. They directly claim that the device is over unity and that it produces more energy than it consumes, making a link to perpetual motion pretty obviously relevant. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Year of founding

The year was changed from 2000 to 1999 in this edit. The problem is that the Irish Examiner cite is now a dead link. This has been reverted pending new sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is in archive.org, and says 2000. I've added an archiveurl link to the source. --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, after a *very* long wait from the servers at archive.org, the text said "Steorn, which was founded in 2000, created the technology as a result of probing methods of powering CCTV cameras over three years ago."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Development kit

Re this edit. The development kit is not really notable, and Engadget is not really a WP:RS. It would require a more mainstream source to mention the development kit for it to be notable enough for the article. There has been criticism in the past of the article rehashing the material on the Steorn website, and the development kit is a good example of the need to avoid this. The kit adds nothing to what is already known about the claim of overunity, and does not appear to be a full working prototype of the machine itself. The PDF brochure is worth a look for the enthusiasts, and says "The Orbo Evaluation and Development Unit (OEDU) produces a time-variant magnetic interaction which leads to a non-conservative energy result." Since this is classic WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, it cannot be included in the article without a substantial amount of sourcing to show why it is notable and reliable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian, I think you need to be a bit more careful bandying around words like "notable" and policies like Fringe and OR. Notability does not apply to article content and it's not immediately obvious how the other policies apply in this specific case. I fully agree with your final conclusion but, given the midly controversial nature of this article, I think it's important to be very clear why one edit is permissible and another isn't. Perhaps a more relevant policy would be Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS.

Personally, I think this is equivalent to when Steorn started selling Hall probes. So what? Just because Steorn are doing something and it's verifiable doesn't mean there's any point mentioning it in the article. Now Steorn are selling more testing equipment in combination with a licence. Again, so what? It needs some real world relevance before there's anything that can be added to the article and, crucially, that real world relevance needs to be pointed out by a reliable source.

The Hall probes do now get a mention in the article, but only because a third party commented that maybe their whole business model is to try to sell basic equipment at inflated prices. Quite a negative view, yes, but it was the only viewpoint that was published in a remotely reliable source.

For this OEDU to be worth a mention, I can think of a few things that third party commentators need to do: either they need to publish a description of what the OEDU is and how it works. Is it viable testing equipment, for example? Positive or negative, anything along those lines could be worth a mention. Alternatively, someone needs to point out the utter ridiculousness of Steorn releasing their own special piece of kit for people to measure Steorn's own special Orbo device. How is that remotely independent verification of their claim? Quite an obvious problem to me, but of course I'm not going to add it to the article because that would be original research in the absence of a reliable source. Another option would be if these things start selling like hot cakes and someone comments on the amount of money Steorn is making from them. This would be equivalent the bit that's in the article about Steorn expecting to make 2million from licence fees this year.

The problem is, as Ian regularly points out, the reliable media have largely lost interest in this story and the chances of any coverage seems slim at best. But we should all keep an eye out and as soon as there is some significant coverage, of course it can and should be added to the article. GDallimore (Talk) 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I would like to mention the development kit in the article, as it is an interesting new feature on the Steorn website. As ever in the recent months, it is unlikely to be featured by BBC/RTE, and in terms of the overall content it is largely a repeat of things that Steorn has said before. One of the reasons for mentioning the development kit is that members of the public are now being asked to buy a version of the Steorn technology for €399 (USD 550, GBP 350), which would make a worthwhile story for any mainstream journalist. Wikipedia articles do not decide what is true or notable, but it would help if there was some coverage beyond a few articles in the blogosphere, which is all we have had in recent months. Unfortunately, Steorn seems to be determined to continue with the tactic of releasing partial or unclear details about how the technology actually works, which is why most of the mainstream sources lost interest some while ago. Here's hoping that at least one mainstream source picks up on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not how I've read the new announcement. As I understood it, you get access to the SKDB which tells you how to make an Orbo, but that's old news and already in the article. The only new thing is this measurement device which I don't see as being particularly interesting. GDallimore (Talk) 19:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Had another look at this, and think that you are right. Assuming that the Steorn device is an average electrical circuit, all of the things that it does (input, output etc) could be measured by readily available equipment such as a multimeter and oscilloscope, and would not need "special" measuring equipment as implied by the PDF press release. It would be fascinating for the BBC, RTE or the Irish Times to buy one of these development kits, give it to an independent expert, and ask what the €399 actually buys. Until then, we are in the dark and once again relying on the Steorn website as a source about itself. Anyone who buys the development kit and builds an Orbo should connect the output to the input and watch what happens. Can the device power itself without a battery, which would be implied at >100% efficiency?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Opening paragraph should, in fairness, have mention that the Jury never did any lab experiments (Only reviewed data). If one is being fair, and not just trying to manipulate in favor of one's own point of view, this fact should be cited in the opening of the article. Also in fairness-- the lack of any independent lab corroboration to date should also be stated as a balancing point in the opening.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but it was (and still is) Steorn's own decision not to let independent third parties have access to a working copy of the machine. This made the jury process a damp squib, and in fairness the article should reflect this as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the WP:LEAD is to summarize the subject, and Steorn's rebuttal of the jury process is dealt with in the relevant section. The fact that Steorn promised a commercial launch in 2009 is not really relevant in the lead, particularly as it never took place. The overall thrust of the lead should be that Steorn has provided no independent evidence as yet to back up the claim, rather than repeating the self-published hype and spin of the Steorn website. See also WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the details of the jury event don't belong in the lead, especially as it brings up the Steorn-like undefined phrase "magnetic effects". Besides, I don't see how it's more "fair" to Steorn to repeat the fact that they couldn't even get the device to work for the jury. The information is repeated in the Jury Process section just a few lines down, so just let that section speak for itself. I would go further, and propose that the importance of the jury evaluation is fading into the past, and that we should remove all mention of the jury from the lead. It's just another demo that didn't work. Spiel496 (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I have already fought tooth and nail to make sure that the lead gives the most neutral version of the jury's findings: "have not demonstrated the production of energy". It doesn't say "the jury said it didn't work". So I think it's balanced as it is.

I also think the jury finding is important because the advert which attracted all the initial attention was intended to bring together a jury. Nothing else Steorn has done has received even close to as much coverage. Therefore, the jury is the most noteworthy thing Steorn has done and the findings of the jury belong in the lead. If Steorn do something else as noteworthy, that doesn't mean the jury findings get removed - it just means there's something else noteworthy to summarise in the lead. GDallimore (Talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead (as it was previously) wasn't neutral. It noted the Jury finding while failing to note that the Jury never did any real lab studies.

Fairness means not pushing one's opinions in the article.

Here are two different ways to make the opening of this article fair--

1) Move BOTH the Jury results AND Steorn's rebuttal of these results (their point that the Jury never did any lab studies) from the opening and place later in the article (but show these two opposing points together wherever they go).

2) Keep BOTH the jury results AND Steorns rebuttal of the jury results in the opening.

The previous version of the opening was, for far too long, one of including the jury results early but then have Steorns rebuttal later and far down in the body of the article. That is manipulative.

Facts are supposed to be presented in a neutral and balanced manner, not placed strategically in order to push one opinion or another.

205.169.70.200 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As other users have pointed out, the jury trial and the 2009 launch are now water under the bridge. Nothing came of them, so if they were both removed from the lead it would be no great loss. Steorn has had four years to come up with something more substantial than hype and spin, how much longer do they need? The mainstream media lost interest in this a long time ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian, In your post (above) you are expressing your opinion (about Steorn). Your opinion may even be right, but personal opinions are not the point of Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia articles are not personal opinion platforms, they are for a neutral and balanced presentation of the facts of a story. Think professional journalism (with footnotes as are required for research paopers in College) and not message board or forum and you'll have Wikipedia's policy and mission in a nutshell.

205.169.70.200 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that really matters in the WP:LEAD is that Steorn has provided no independent evidence to back up the claim. Whose fault was it that the jury trial turned into a non-event? It was Steorn's, because they avoided giving the jury a prototype of the machine. As so often with claims of this kind in the past, there is little point in making them if you are going to indulge in control freakery about how the claim is examined. Steorn has no-one to blame but itself for its lack of credibility.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic", and I don't think we gain much by adding "a launch date was announced at one point, but didn't happen" to the introduction.

I don't see that the jury issue really makes much difference either way - the fact that a jury appointed by Steorn themselves rejected their claims seems fairly damning with or without caveats. For the sake of accurate summary we could just reframe it as "After reviewing Steorn test data in June 2009, the jury gave its unanimous verdict that the company had not demonstrated the production of energy." --McGeddon (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming I am taking Steorns side. I am not. But if you are thinking fairness in telling the story, then you have to admit that the jury didn't do any lab tests but just reviewed data.

Saying the jury found the claim to be baseless, while hiding the fact that they never did any real lab tests, is like playing a shell game.

There are two ways to present information--

1) Rearrange the facts to best promote your point of view (gamesmanship rather than neutral writing).

Or 2) put your own opinion on the back burner and consider what is a fair presentation of what happened.

Using words like "control freak" is name calling and you will be banned if you persist in such behavior. Please stick to a neutral discussion of the facts and refrain from badgering and spinning for "victory". This isn't a contest, it's a writing project that is supposed to be balanced.

205.169.70.200 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not accusing you personally of being a control freak (see the text above). The jury trial turned into a meaningless exercise because Steorn failed to do the one thing that any serious scientist or patent office would require, which is to allow analysis of a prototype of the machine. Suppose I told you that I had built a machine that could travel faster than the speed of light, and then spent four years coming up with reasons why you could not examine it. Would you, or any serious person, be impressed and really believe that I had done this? Please stop lecturing me about fairness. It is fair to point out the lack of independent evidence to support the Steorn claim. The details of the wording in the lead should be left to a WP:CONSENSUS decision.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from you--

"if YOU are going to indulge in control freakery about how the claim is examined."

You directed the comment directly at me.

You might also want to carefully read what I said about two different ways of presenting ideas.

You keep spinning (playing) your facts, instead of giving the facts themselves the highest importance. This is the point of Wikipedia, not the effort to "game" or "win" the argument.

The facts themselves are the most important thing, not your effort to "push" your own point of view.

205.169.70.200 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See the above, the control freakery line is a reference to Steorn. In 2006 they told the media that they had built this wonderful new machine, but not one independent person has been allowed to test it. Plus ça change in the free energy world. The burden of proof rests on the person making it, and Steorn has failed to prove its case using the generally accepted rules of science.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to make one thing very clear: fairness is irrelevant. It is neutral point of view that is important.

All of the reliable sources that have been found either directly call Steorn's claims bogus or say that they run contrary to mainstream science. There is not a single reliable source that supports Steorn's claims. The neutral position is therefore not smack in the middle between these two sides, but we must give one side more credence than the other. This means not giving undue prominence to every Steorn claim without something to back it up.

In this particular case, yes, we have a reliable source quoting Steorn is saying they dispute the jury's findings. But look at the rest of the source. That source clearly sides with the jury: "gizmo fails jury vetting", "revelation that you cannot get something for nothing" and " international jury said yesterday it did not work" being some choice quotes. Both sides are given in the main body of the article but I have seen not one argument here that suggests Steorn's weak rebuttal is prominent enough to go into the lead. Find me a reliable source that doesn't merely quote Steorn's rebuttal verbatim and I might change my mind.

Also, if we are talking about fairness, how is it fair to give Steorn the last word? Steorn chose the jury, decided what information to give them and asked them to make a verdict. The jury gave a verdict and made it clear that they would be saying nothing more, at least partly because they couldn't due to the secrecy agreements they'd entered into with Steorn. I think there's a good argument that giving Steorn the last word is completely unfair on the jury. GDallimore (Talk) 22:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, see also WP:PARITY. Claiming to have built a machine with an energy output of over 100% is by any definition a fringe theory. Fairness does not mean giving equal prominence to the theories that the earth is round or flat. WP:FLAT looks at this in more depth.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another quote (from another post just above)--

"Claiming to have built a machine with an energy output of over 100% is by any definition a fringe theory."

Again a personal opinion is injected into the discussion.

"Neutrality" if this word is preferred over "fairness" would still require early mention of the following-- That the jury did no lab tests but only reviewed data.

- And neutrality would require that this fact not be buried far down in the article, but instead be placed next to the jury result.

Any other presentation of this fact would be manipulation (opinion-pushing) instead of neutrality.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate will go nowhere if you ignore WP:CONSENSUS and accuse other users of lacking WP:NPOV. Steorn has provided no independent evidence in four years to support this claim. It will take more than a website and marketing hype to rewrite the laws of physics. Again, read WP:FLAT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You engage in name calling against me (see your quote again below) and then talk about consensus?

Here again is a quote from you--

"if YOU are going to indulge in control freakery about how the claim is examined."

You also use the word "hype" to describe the subject of the article-- and them complain about NPOV concerns.

Using the word "hype" to describe the article subject isn't neutral, it's your personal opinion.

This article is not about your opinion, it's about 1) presenting the facts and 2) letting the reader decide.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The hype comes from Steorn. When they first made the claim in 2006 with an expensive advertising campaign, some people thought it was a clever piece of viral marketing for some as yet undisclosed product or service. That idea has now been discarded, but there has been no independent evidence to back up the suggestion that there exists a machine with over 100% efficiency. This is a clear example of a WP:REDFLAG claim. As the other users have pointed out, the fact that Steorn hand picked the jury and still could not prove the claim is hardly encouraging. Even if the jury had supported the claim, it would have been meaningless unless it could be verified by independent outsiders. Nobody here is likely to fall for the old trick of being asked to prove a negative, so if Steorn cannot or will not show other people a prototype of the machine, that is their problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position: I have explained why I think the lead summarises the important subject matter in a neutral manner. Specifically, based on the SOURCES, not on my personal opinion, Steorn's claim should be treated with skepticism and the finding of the jury is what was to be expected all along. Steorn's response to the jury and their excuses are not given weight by the sources, so we do not give it weight in the article.

If you want to argue for a different weighting of facts, you must show that the sources support that different weighting. If you just say "I think this would be fair" then it is YOU who are arguing from personal opinion. GDallimore (Talk) 23:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

75.166.172.10 or 205.169.70.200: IanMacM made it clear that the "YOU" in the "control freakery" comment did not refer to you, the editor with occasional IP address 205.169.70.200. He should have used the pronoun "one", as in "if one is going to indulge in control freakery...". His childhood grammar instructor has a valid complaint, but you do not. Yet you (75.166.172.10) have accused him three times about this perceived personal attack, despite the fact that the rest of us can see, in black and white, that no personal insult was made. But in the same breath, you're asking the rest of us to be more careful and objective about how the Lead section is worded. I commend GDallimore and ianmacm for giving you the courtesy of a response, but when the you (yes, you personally) seem to imagine insults and conspiracies in their patient replies, I no longer want to bother listening to your argument.

This admittedly personal attack, brought to you by Spiel496 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a wireless laptop and and use various public wireless spots (different cafes and coffee houses during the day, plus other public wireless), much like much of the population does, hence the different IP addresses. Millions of people now use mobile wireless Internet and many do it through various cafes, and other public hotspots. Each hotspot and each cafe or coffeehouse has it's own IP address. I have never said I was a different person in any of my posts here. I am just stopping in at different public wireless hotspots during my day as many people do.

There is no good reason not to include the fact that the jury never did any lab studies alongside the jury verdict. Failing to do so is misleading. Reviewing someone else's data is not considered definitive in any corner of science.

Getting your friends to gang up, name calling and hiding information that you don't like doesn't create any real credibility. You can appear to dominate without really being right or credible at at all.

164.47.80.222 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So to paraphrase your points:

[Irrelevant 500-word digression about hotspots.]
Lead should include the no-lab-studies fact.
[Accusations of conspiracy and name-calling]

Do you see how the argument you're trying to make might get ignored? If you want people to listen to you, don't surround the one rational thing you're saying with paranoid-sounding digressions. No one is ganging up on you. And while I admire how GDallimore and IanMacM have kept this article concise and complete, they usually seem to disagree with my suggestions, and for all I know they find me to be tiresome. And the IP address thing... seriously, I meant no offense by that. I just needed to address you somehow, and the pronoun "you" has already led to confusion. Spiel496 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Steorn challenged scientists to test its technology, selected a jury, and provided its evidence to the jury which came to a decision based on the evidence Steorn placed before it. It is not misleading to not mention that the jury didn't do lab studies. It would be very misleading to say the jury did not do lab studies without making it absolutely clear that it was never asked to. Moriori (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly different note (because we're going round in circles here) it is extremely rare for people making this type of claim to allow full independent access to a prototype of the machine. If Steorn said to the BBC or RTE "Here is a prototype, would you like to test it?" they would say "Yes" in a flash. It has been Steorn's decision not to do this. Instead, they have gone down the classic route of making promises of future availability that get delayed for a range of reasons. The article and its sources make clear that Steorn chose the jury and then declined to give it a prototype to test, so it is hardly surprising that the jury did not support the claim. Fairness and WP:NPOV here, surely?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Moriori,

Actually your editorial idea is a very good one--

You said:

"It would be very misleading to say the jury did not do lab studies without making it absolutely clear that it was never asked to."

That's a good point-- include the fact that the jury did no lab tests, but ALSO include the point that Steorn never requested lab tests.

Including both points would be neutral and balanced writing.

It reflects the idea that you tell the whole story and let the reader decide.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hangon. I wasn't endorsing your opinion, or advocating inclusion of that sentence, but didn't make it clear I think it is irrelevant because lab studies were never part of the protocols established by Steorn. You basically say including this irrelevance would give neutrality and balance. Actually, it would infer the POV that the jury didn't do its job properly, and that just isn't the case. Moriori (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And all that is in the body of the article where it belongs. Too much detail for the lead which focuses on the important points.

And let me remind you again of my other point about neutrality in the lead: the lead says "did not demonstrate the production of energy". Kudos to the jury for this sentence which implies the point, by itself and without need of further explanation, that they weren't given access to the technology but Steorn merely "demonstrated" it to them. GDallimore (Talk) 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that Steorn tied the cts. hands of the jury on the key issue of testing a prototype, the failure of the jury to support the claim was entirely reasonable. This is not about fairness/WP:NPOV, but about avoiding giving details in the lead which can be dealt with in more depth in the main body of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very relevant.

Placing a sentence in the opening section saying that "the jury gave its unanimous verdict that Steorn had not demonstrated the production of energy." without also stating that this science jury never did a single lab test of it's own is only telling one side of the story.

Telling one side of the story without telling the other (where both sides of the story are properly documented) is misleading.

Placing one side of the story in the opening of the article, and then burying the other side of the story way down in the article is also misleading and makes the article a tool of persuasion rather than a neutral presentation of all the facts.

These two balancing facts (jury verdict paired with lack of jury lab studies) should be placed together, otherwise it's very misleading.

Adding the point about Steorn being responsible for the lack of the science jury lab studies is ALSO very relevant-- and should certainly also be included NEXT TO the other two points.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant, yes, but not in the WP:LEAD. Please look at the WP:CONSENSUS on this issue from the other users' comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "The jury gave their unanimous verdict that Steorn had not demonstrated the production of energy after Steorn were unable to provide them with a working demonstration for three years". Slightly sarcastic suggestion, yes, but only mildly because it gets the truth across past Steorn's spin which MUST be avoided at all costs within this article. The truth being that Steorn announced to the world that they had this remarkable device but were then completely unable (not merely unwilling, but actually unable judging from their own words) to provide a working model to their jury for three years, at which point the jury got fed up and disbanded.

I say again: the relatively tame statement in the lead is about as neutral as it gets given the facts and given what the reliable sources say about this whole debacle. GDallimore (Talk) 14:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been back in a while and just saw this suggestion above^^. Yes that's a great idea! It's completely balanced because (in one and the same paragraph) it A) mentions the negative jury result, B) mentions the lack of lab tests by the jury and C) ALSO mentions that Steorn did not enable the jury to do it's own lab tests. That is very balanced writing is a great way to handle it (I move from cafe to cafe during the same day, hence the changing IP address but I am the same guy who has been arguing for a more balanced presentation of the above facts).

98.245.150.162 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)