Talk:Steorn/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hoax

Is the Orbo a hoax, and should the article be in the hoax category? I think the answers are "maybe" and "no". We certainly have sourced comments calling the Orbo a hoax, but we have other sourced comments from people saying they don't believe it's a hoax (merely a mistake by Steorn). Until such time as there is firm evidence one way or the other (or until there is a category "potential hoaxes") this shouldn't go in the hoax category. Nor should it be put in a "machines that don't work"-type category, although perpetual motion machines is effectively that anyway. :) GDallimore (Talk) 19:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to how people might interpret the word "hoax". Piltdown Man was a hoax, and was also the work of a forger who acted in bad faith in an attempt to deceive other people. This is why I removed the category "hoaxes", as people may infer the same about Steorn. I do not believe that anyone at Steorn has deliberately tried to deceive, which would be potentially libellous to state or imply. Like most claims about perpetual motion/free energy, the biggest problem Steorn faces is a lack of scientific credibility.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed the category pseudoscience since the article is already more precisely categorised in Category:Perpetual motion machines. Any more suggestions for category additions should probably be discussed first. GDallimore (Talk) 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's no hard evidence that Orbo is a hoax. Hoaxes should lead to humor, fame or fortune, and none of those are going to happen if Steorn says "Just kidding!". However, it could be called pathological science, especially after some more time has passed. How is that judgment made? Spiel496 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is limited to reporting what the reliable sources say. Since our friends over at BBC/RTE lost interest in all of this a long time ago, the description of Steorn by Sir Eric Ash as "prolonged self-deception" is likely to be Steorn's epitaph unless new evidence comes to light.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a bit more flexibility in categories as I discovered while trying to remove a pseudoscience cat from another article. Some OR can be engaged in so long as it is clearly an accurate category. Hoax is not CLEARLY an accurate category in this case, just one of several possible options. And thanks for correcting my error, Spiel. GDallimore (Talk) 00:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Jury only reviewed data?

Can we back up for a moment? I was looking for the source of the statement that "no lab studies were done", and I can't find it in the reference [1]. The closest thing I found is the statement by McCarthy "Implementing Orbo in a reliable and consistent manner had remained a challenge for the organization, one that we had made no secret of. Due to these difficulties we had focused on providing the Jury with test data relating to the underlying magnetic effect behind Orbo." "Focusing on test data" does not mean the same as "no lab studies". Is there something more definitive out there? If not, then this whole discussion is moot. I say drop any wording, in the Lead or elsewhere, that implies no lab studies were done. Spiel496 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly "no lab studies" is not a phrase used by any source. But I don't think there was ever a suggestion to include that precise form of words. Here's the original edit and I don't think there are any problems with sourcing it. "Lab studies" is just being used as a shorthand, I assumed, and I think we all know what we're talking about. GDallimore (Talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bickering about the precise wording, but rather the claim that all they did was review data. I should have said: "Focusing on test data" does not mean the same as "only provided with test data". Yes, McCarthy's vague corporate-speak is consistent with "due to technical difficulties, we resorted to presenting the jury only with data taken on magnets". But it is also consistent with, "After six months spent in the lab with oscilloscopes and divining rods, the Jury remained unconvinced, so we decided to focus on providing the Jury with test data". McCarthy does not say explicitly that there was a technical failure -- just that Orbo is a "challenge" and that there were "difficulties". McCarthy does not say the Jury stayed out of the lab -- just that Steorn decided to "focus" on test data. I've harped on Steorn's vague language before; people get vague when they're trying to avoid telling the whole truth. I don't know if that's what's happening here, but in case it is, Wikipedia doesn't need to facilitate it by reading between the lines. Spiel496 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what's happened here. The Irish Times articles have suddenly become subscription only. I think it was in one of those articles that the language "only provided with test data" was used, as opposed to the vague language used in the Steorn PR. Let me see if I can find something on archive.org. GDallimore (Talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that Irish Times website is doing something weird. Much of the time it is subscription only, but occasionally (like right now) I can see the whole article [2]. (Click "reload" a few times.) It contains the phrase “The jury hasn’t found they support the claims. We would dispute that.” but it makes no distinction between data review vs. testing real prototypes.

I'm a bit torn. It seems very plausible that, for whatever reason, Steorn never managed to present the Jury with a piece of hardware. Yet Steorn avoids saying so in plain English. So where does that leave us for the article? Spiel496 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Where it leaves us is with the fact Steorn challenged a jury to examine its technology and provided the data to be tested. It is irrelevant to say the jury didn't do something it wasn't asked to do. Dishonest POV inference in my opinion.Moriori (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the key part of the Irish Times article: "Steorn organised a panel of 22 independent scientists and engineers from Europe and North America chaired by Ian MacDonald, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of Alberta. “The situation was we had engaged them in February 2007 and went through a process with them,” Mr McCarthy said. Two years have passed however and the jury clearly decided that enough was enough. It posted an announcement on its website http://stjury.ning.com that it was disbanding. “The unanimous verdict of the jury is that Steorn’s attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy,” it stated. “The jury is therefore ceasing work.” We should all be careful of interpreting what this means, as it is somewhat vague. It does not specifically say that Steorn provided only test data, or that it declined to provide the jury with a prototype of the machine. All that can be said clearly is that the jury did not support the claim. Overall, there is nothing much wrong with the current wording in the WP:LEAD. The jury did not support the claim in 2009, and anything else should be left to the main body of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't honest to separate the two points. It is manipulative and is gamesmanship rather than presenting an unbiased article that lets the reader make up their own mind.

It's important to understand the difference between playing a game in order to win, and presenting facts in a fair and neutral fashion--

On the one hand the goal is to influence what other people think, on the other hand-- the writer instead lets go of trying to influence what others think-- and instead just tries to present the facts fairly.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about the latter and not the former.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate being given some time (up to a week) on this. In the lead up to my appeal, I'm going to be researching supporting evidence. Here is a Steorn web page discussing the data-only jury evaluation (strengthening the point that the jury never did any lab testing). (See the second half of paragraph three) http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1151

98.245.150.162 (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Steorn website is a self published source and is not impartial. It appears that the jury never saw a working demonstration of the machine, and as GDallimore points out, it is unclear whether Steorn was unable or unwilling to provide one. Either way, the jury rejected the Steorn claim in June 2009. The only substantial source about this is the Dick Ahlstrom article in the Irish Times. New sources would need to be secondary (newspaper articles etc) as Steorn's own press releases are not a WP:RS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides, even the Steorn link doesn't support 98.245.150.162's point. Maybe I'm missing it. Please quote the phrase from http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1151 that you think means "never did any lab testing". All I see is the vague "focused on providing the Jury with test data". Does that imply the Jury refused to enter the lab? Or does it imply Steorn didn't serve refreshments? Reading between the lines, I get "After being denied tea, the Jury disbanded." Spiel496 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins Please Review Neutrality Problem with the Article

Please see the 'Talk' section on "Data Being Withheld from Jury". --98.245.150.162 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This will nothing. You need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. ie at this stage you can request WP:Editor assistance, or maybe a WP:Third opinion or perhaps even a WP:Requests for comment. GDallimore (Talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We have been through all of this, and the main problem is sourcing. The wording in the lead "In June 2009 the jury gave its unanimous verdict that Steorn had not demonstrated the production of energy" has been chosen for both reliable sourcing and NPOV. It is still unclear whether the jury ever got to see a prototype of the machine or test it, although it appears that it did not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no talk section with this title. If you have a specific issue with the article, you should explain what it is, rather than adding "NPOV" tags with no explanation (it's not even clear whether you think the current article is excessively pro-Steorn or anti-Steorn). --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

#Lead and #Jury only reviewed data?. GDallimore (Talk) 09:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tagging for the time being. Drive-by tagging seldom helps an article, particularly if the reasons for tagging are not given clearly, which has happened here. Please raise any specific concerns on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge section already here discussing the issue of the placement of the lack of lab testing by the jury (a discussion in which you were heavily involved, in great detail, so professing ignorance of the debate while removing the tag doesn't justify this). Your comment also highlights your pattern of 'spinning' arguments rather than respecting a balanced approach to the facts.

You are not supposed to remove NPOV tags until the issue is settled. I have just replaced the tag, please do not remove it this time.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you have not given a specific reason for the tagging. Please explain it below.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The tag can only stay while there is a clear lack of consensus on the talk page. I'm not seeing that, I'm only seeing one person (you) with an issue about the way the article is presented. You need to pursue one of the dispute resolution channels I've mentioned above and do so now. To give you an opportunity to have your views considered, I will not remove the tag immediately. But you have to make an immediate effort to resolve the disagreement through one of those channels or I will remove it.

(reply to Ian) I don't understand your position. I think he's made his point clear above, he's just not got anyone agreeing with him. GDallimore (Talk) 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving it up, I'll have an appeal into a Wikipedia dispute resolution channel by mid-week.

Appreciatively,

98.245.150.162 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

When tagging the article, a specific new complaint should have been made, rather than referring in a vague way to previous arguments. The article is limited to reliable sources on the jury process, specifically the Dick Ahlstrom article which is cited. What would our critic say instead?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor would use my suggested joke addition "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". I don't think this is a good idea, personally, nor is it properly sourced. Were Steorn "unable", "unwilling" or was there something else. Who knows?

Anyway, there's no rush to remove the tag and no time-limit to improve the article. I see no harm in leaving the tag there for a week. For one thing, it may direct further people to this discussion who might have some interesting additions to make. GDallimore (Talk) 10:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Article focus and name

I think this article talks more about Orbo than it does about Steorn. I wonder if this article should be renamed to Steorn Orbo? Maybe there should be two separate articles, one for Steorn and one for Orbo? Mandolamus (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Steorn is the company, and it would be a fork to have a separate article about the Orbo. As it stands, the infobox is based around the company rather than the product. The article is not really long enough to be worth splitting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly no need for two articles - there simply isn't the coverage which would warrant splitting them up, and Steorn is ONLY notable because of the Orbo. Therefore, the question is (and I think it's a good question to ask now and again) should this article be named "Steorn" or "Orbo"?

I am wholeheartedly behind the current title, "Steorn". It has real world relevance and, if you look at the sources, they generally talk about Steorn the company and what they've been up to in trying to prove their technology, but they almost never bother referring to "Orbo", this just being a name that Steorn use to call their product. The fact that the Orbo is essentially non-existent and therefore has no real-world presence strikes me as a very good reason NOT to call this article "Orbo". Nevertheless, Orbo redirects here (correctly in my view) so people who do happen to search for the Orbo will end up in the right place.

Another reason to keep this article as "Steorn" is that there is a whole lot of discussion about Steorn's possible motivations and agendas in their claims to have broken the laws of physics, so the article does say a lot about Steorn the company. Indeed, I disagree with the statement that this article is mostly about Orbo since nothing is known about it except that Steorn claim it breaks the laws of physics. GDallimore (Talk) 16:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

On 24 November 2010, the article was tagged with the edit summary "Added NPOV warning and am now calling for admins to review since key article facts are being buried and manipulated". This looks a lot like drive-by tagging, since no serious evidence has been produced to back up this statement. The wording on the June 2009 collapse of the jury process is taken almost directly from the article Irish 'energy for nothing' gizmo fails jury vetting. Unless new reliable sourcing can be found, the tagging is achieving nothing and does not give any hints on how the article should be improved. Whoever placed this tag should come up with something new soon, or the tag will be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Carlos Luna Phd candidate and expert on magnets and nanotechnology part of it

I found the following on here [3] follow the link for references to his work.

• CSIC's Website and Picture and contact info for Luna Finaly Google: Carlos Luna Steorn, looks like he knows about magnets.

Carlos Luna has been a leading researcher at Steorn and the related company Fraudhalt for several years. His name is on several Steorn patents fron 2004. Carlos Luna did PhD research at the Group of Magnetism and Magnetic Nanomaterials Institute for Materials Science of Madrid, CSIC
Trade2tradewell 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you post a link to one of Steorn's earlier patents in which his name is included? --Orangehues 13:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here [4] and here [5]

Quoted at Steorn Forum:Carlos Luna is without a doubt a serious scientist with many published papers on the cutting edge of magnetism reserch in Madrid, this gives a huge level of credence to the story that you really found something.

Trade2tradewell 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

zero credence, there was a Carlos Luna, but he worked for a company called Fraudhalt, which Mc Carthy co-owned with Phelim O'Doherty, Luna is a programmer, he is not the Carlos Luna mentioned above, so this is complete BS, and the fact that there is an out and out lie with regard to Luna, proves Mc Carthy is a fraudster. The following patent shows Luna, Mc Carthy, and O'Doherty listed as holders: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090201372

Bored now...

Steorn appear to be dead. Got bored and rewrote Hologram bracelet. Would like to get that to WP:GA status too and think it's about there. Please feel free to contribute. GDallimore (Talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The website http://www.steorn.com/ is still up, although things have been quiet on the news front for a long time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Phil Watson blog

I got stuck in an edit conflict with Biker Biker over the addition of the blog data from Phil Watson. I certainly agree that the blog should not be used as a major source and my edits were an attempt to find a smaller scale way to add this new information. However, if anyone feels that the reference to this blog should be removed entirely, I won't argue. :) GDallimore (Talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is necessary either, because it is from a WP:SPS. However, it is just about worth a brief mention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion area is not a personal message board, nor is it an organizing spot for editors on a mission. Please stop using Wikipedia for purposes other than for which it was intended.

69.171.160.160 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than keeping on reverting this, please make a viable point, not a sweeping criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Our claim reference

Citation / reference 3 in the opening paragraph section says that something violates the laws of physics somehow. When I went to the reference provided to see what it said in this regard, both the links in that reference pointed to missing pages on each server. The reference item is as follows:

"Our Claim". Steorn Ltd. Archived from the original on 2 May 2007. Retrieved 12 April 2007

Could someone fix this. Lots of these free energy systems merely claim to be harvesting energy from zero point ambient environment, so the energy is coming from somewhere, just not from J. P. Morgan, or Rockefeller at high mark-up costs and artificial imposed / planned supply scarcities that further rise prices. Oldspammer (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The cite is currently a 404 on archive.org, maybe it should have been uploaded to WebCite instead:) The wording that the Steorn device provides "free, clean, and constant energy" is available elsewhere, which would implicitly violate the laws of physics as currently known, as Eric Ash and others pointed out. Maybe the archive has a glitch, if not the article could try another source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that the phrase "free, clean, and constant energy" no longer appears on Steorn's website. Have they dropped the claim that Orbo violates energy conservation? Spiel496 (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Steorn is saying that the technology is getting "something from nothing". Rather that they have detected that energy is coming from an unknown source, or in other words, that the source is not detectable by conventional methodologies.

63.253.113.170 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Steorn have never said they got something from nothing. They said they generate free energy from tracing special paths around magnetic fields. At least, that's what they USED to say. I noticed a while ago, as Spiel has, thay they no longer directly make outlandish claims for the Orbo. Unfortunately, since neither Steorn nor any other reliable source has commented on this change of marketing policy, I don't think there's anything we can say about it because we can't attempt to interpet a lack of information. GDallimore (Talk) 11:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This RTÉ cite looks at the 2007 launch and makes a similar claim. This could be used if the archive.org link is broken.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing they have said (a while back) is that Orbo violates one of the laws of thermodynamics.

This was a major mistake on their part. I think their language now is that there is an observable net gain in energy and the source is as yet unknown.

63.229.225.130 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"We're tapping into an unknown source of energy" is no less ludicrous than "we're gaining energy from nowhere". Both are total bollocks. And no extensive discussion of total bollocks can go into the article wihout a reliable independent source. GDallimore (Talk) 11:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, the article could probably do with a little updating based on Steorn's current explanation of their technology at http://www.steorn.com/orbo/ where they do clearly talk about an energy gain - which I think is a vague but still unambiguous reference to breaking energy conservation. "Magnetic viscosity" is not a remotely mainstream scientific term, so I am going to avoid using that just as the article (correctly in my view) avoids other "alternative" energy terminology such as "over-unity". But the discussion of time variant magnetic fields could be expanded slightly. I'll try some edits to give a historical perspective of their claims. GDallimore (Talk) 17:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Free energy claim

The paragraph headed Free energy claim makes two statements which are not supported in the reference.

• (1) "Steorn said that none of these researchers were willing to publish their results for fear of becoming embroiled in a controversy"

The ref actually says none of the researchers "will talk to me", the "me" being Guardian journo Steve Boggan whose column is being used as the ref.

• (2) "...declined to name them (the researchers), citing mutually binding non-disclosure agreements."

Nothing like that appears in the reference. What does appear is Boggan saying he was "promised a diagram explaining how the system works, but then Steorn holds it back, saying its lawyers are concerned about intellectual property rights". I hope that is not meant to be the support for the non-disclosure agreements bit. Moriori (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 1 is in the source if you read on. I'm trying to track down where point 2 was added to the article: I'm guessing it just got mixed in with the wrong source somewhere, or was originally sourced to something unreliable. GDallimore (Talk) 10:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Found it [6]. No idea where it came from. Have fixed it. Good find. GDallimore (Talk) 11:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

SKDB

Actually, looking at it, the SKDB is only primary-sourced to a dead link at steorn.com, and the only Google News mentions I can find are on a Spanish blog, so we should probably lose that paragraph. Any objections? --McGeddon (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My fault. I removed the source because it was attached to an out of date fact and was subscription only. I've put it back in since it did talk about the SKDB and the money Steorn would make from it. Even without that, I think it's worth keeping though because it adds something to the article: that Steorn are charging for access. Says something about their business model. GDallimore (Talk) 14:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Article on the Sometimes Unclear Line Between Fringe Science and Mainstream Science

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/12/11/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/

64.134.223.78 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, but it does not refer to Steorn by name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of January 2012 NPOV tagging

No talk page explanation was given as to why the article lacks NPOV, so the tagging has been reverted for the time being. Regarding this edit, this has been discussed before. Given that the jury apparently never got its hands on a working prototype of the machine, it is hardly surprising that the jury process collapsed without the claim being endorsed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted, summarising the old reasons. GDallimore (Talk) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the jury apparently never got its hands on a working prototype of the machine, it is hardly surprising that the jury process collapsed without the claim being endorsed. Yes, and since that is the case, it should be mentioned right along with the fact that the jury did not endorse the claim. Anything else would be misleading.64.134.124.148 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed in detail within the body article. There is nothing misleading. This is and old issue dispensed with long ago. POV tag removed. GDallimore (Talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD gives a summary, the body of the article goes into more detail. If anything, it would lack NPOV to downplay the 2009 jury result, which Steorn attempted to do. Steorn had ample opportunities to provide the jury with a prototype to test, and if it did not, it is not surprising that the jury did not endorse the claim. No free energy claim would be endorsed solely on the basis of circuit diagrams and test results.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Tech firm pushes 'free energy' claims in The Guardian, 13 December 2006 is not currently cited in the article and might be worth adding. It shows that Steorn had a prototype of the machine in 2006, but between 2007 and 2009 it was apparently unavailable for testing. The news article says: "A panel, whittled down to 12 successful applicants, will begin its examination in the new year and Mr McCarthy said he expected them to report their findings by autumn 2007. "By the end it will be either, 'By jove, we've done it', or we'll sink into ignominy for the rest of our lives," he said. "The price of failure is extremely high, but the price of success is about a cleaner world, a better world." The wording is specific about the existence of a working prototype in 2006: "Sean McCarthy, the chief executive of Steorn, told an audience in London that the company had already produced a prototype which ran independently for four weeks. He also claimed to have built another motor using the system which could produce enough energy to power a Porsche car." Would it really have taken two years for Steorn to make up its mind whether to show the prototype of the machine to the jury?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it does look like Steorn are contradicting themselves here. I'm not sure how to best deal with that. GDallimore (Talk) 12:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, as The Guardian article points out, Steorn has persistently refused to publish its results in mainstream peer reviewed journals. This is a classic free energy tactic, and effectively rules out serious academic endorsement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember the article used to carry that bit about their tactics being classic free energy, but I think the source was unreliable so it was lost. Nevertheless, simply mentioning that their approach has been been criticised could be enough, although it feels very thin to me just mentioning it as a criticism without the explanation of why. GDallimore (Talk) 18:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

New Water Heating Device to Be Marketed

Of course even though it's going to be sold, it won't actually exist because the technology is not in any science textbooks. http://www.steorn.com/heating/ 67.190.27.217 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This thing needs to be plugged "directly into mains supplied AC". Moriori (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To bring this on topic, I've been struggling since I heard about this to think of any good reason why we should mention this in the article. A part of me feels it's worth a mention, but I have no idea what could be actually said. Can anyone think of a reason why mentioning this would improve the article beyond a laboured attempt at "completeness"? If so, maybe it's worth including. GDallimore (Talk) 00:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems okay to ignore it if the press are. I can't see that it adds any useful completeness to tack on whatever "but wait, no, this other thing!" products Steorn are planning each year. --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It comes back to all the usual stuff about notability and reliable sourcing. From the wording on the Steorn site, it is unclear when or if a version of this will be on sale.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think notability is relevant - that's about article topics not article content. As for reliable sourcing, there's no problem using Steorn as a source so long as it's not contentious in any way. Steorn selling a hot water heater is not remotely contentious. But is it a fact worth mentioning? I can't think of a reason why it would be - unlike the SKDB which I mention below. GDallimore (Talk) 14:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

McGeddon is right, this would be notable is it could be sourced to the mainstream media, but like the Orbo there appears to be little chance of the shops selling the item any time soon. It comes back to using Steorn as a source about itself. If Steorn claimed to have built a machine that would turn the moon into green cheese it would be notable, but only if it picked up significant coverage elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I repeat, per WP:NNC, notability is not the issue. McGeddon said nothing about notability. There are no good policy-based reasons NOT to include this piece of information. But of course that doesn't mean we automatically include it. There must be some reason why we SHOULD include it. I'm just trying to make sure we've given it fair thought to see if there are any reasons. GDallimore (Talk) 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be included. It's a new development in the story about Steorn (whether or not the technology is real). This article's Wiki-justifiability is not due to the truth or falsehood of "Orbo", it is (until proven otherwise) justified in being a Wikipedia article due to the media phenomenon and the company that created it. The heater is another chapter in that story, although the story may now also be that the company's new products (and claims) are getting less and less media reaction (although, to be balanced, Steorn does seem to have a devoted following, some of whom are engineers, which also doesn't however make Orbo real, or unreal, by itself). 64.134.146.135 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree that "Steorn have done it so it should be mentioned in the article about Steorn" is a good reason. Not everything Steorn says or does goes into the article. Yes, if this water heater were clearly another chapter in the free energy story, I'd agree with you. But (1) Steorn don't suggest that it is and (2) if it were, wouldn't some engineer have bought this heater by now and (assuming it is "overunity") have gone "wow, this heater is amazing". The lack of such news leads to the conclusion that it's just a water heater and that there's no reason to mention it here.

Interestingly, Steorn have updated the website (AGAIN!) and now make essentially no mention of their outlandish claims and appear to be going back to being an ordinary R&D company. Possibly, if that side of their business becomes sufficiently re-established, it might be worth mentioning and worth including a product list such as the heater and the bearings they're advertising on the site. Don't feel it's worthwhile yet, though. GDallimore (Talk) 17:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Afraid? Of what? Steorn does claim that it is driven by the Orbo technology. Therefore it is relevant to the story. Read the energy input and performance output specs for the heater and you will see that the orbo technology energy claim claim is implicit. 67.40.158.73 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

???? It is difficult to follow the thread here. What exactly does Steorn say is driven by Orbo technology? The water heating device? Moriori (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The anon is just wrong as far as I can see (although I'm fine if someone can point me to a quote proving me wrong). Steorn's website says nothing about Orbo being involved with the water heater. They just say they have made an efficient water heating device. Have no idea where these "input/output specs" are and, in any event, I'm not willing to trust that something is "implicit" from the. The anon is also acting like a jerk with the "afraid? of what?" line. Don't be a jerk or I'll just ignore you. GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ZDNet have picked up on the water heater, but only very briefly and largely as an excuse to post some funny YouTube videos: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/mixed-signals-10000051/steorn-behind-the-scenes-of-free-energy-dreams-10025486/ . Interestingly, Godwins implies something I've been noticing for a while: Steorn are backtracking on the whole Orbo thing and trying to focus on some real products. Obviously they're fed up of making fools of themselves. But I don't think there's enough content in the ZDNet piece to actually add anything useful here. GDallimore (Talk) 11:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

BBC as a source

I was surprised and disappointed to read the following in this article:

Following a meeting between McCarthy and Professor Sir Eric Ash in July 2007, Ash reported that "the Orbo is a mechanical device which uses powerful magnets on the rim of a rotor and further magnets on an outer shell".[17] During this meeting, McCarthy referred to the law of conservation of energy as scientific dogma.[17] However, conservation of energy is a fundamental principle of physics[4] and Ash said that there was no comparison with religious dogma since there is no flexibility in choosing to accept that energy is always conserved.[17] Rejecting conservation of energy would undermine all science and technology.[17] Ash also formed the opinion that McCarthy was truly convinced in the validity of his invention but that this conviction was a case of "prolonged self-deception".[17]

The paragraph is sourced almost entirely to a single BBC article. Surely this article must be the fountainhead of modern physics, since it not only tells us what the Orbo is (which is more than I, personally, know or care to know, since its pretty obvious to me that the blasted thing very likely is a public relations stunt), but that "rejecting conversation of energy would undermine all science and technology." Really? Aren't we lucky to have journalists qualified to render such utterances. Can we do something about this? Thanks for your interest.--98.218.42.191 (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation 17 The perpetual myth of free energy is almost entirely in the words of Sir Eric Ash, not a BBC journalist. I'm not sure why it has been split up into five parts, (abcde) as one would be sufficient. It might also be better to quote Sir Eric directly rather than to paraphrase his words.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

5 separate refs may be overdoing it a little, but there's good reasons for it and there certainly needs to be more than one for reasons I go into below.

But, tackling the original comment.

1. There's nothing remotely wrong or contentious about sourcing one paragraph to two reliable sources.
2. Your opinion about whether it's a publicity stunt is irrelevant to the article. There are plenty of other opinions, which are fairly represented in the article based upon their being reported in reliable sources.
3. The paragraph in question includes quotes directly attributed to Ash since they are his personal opinions about the Orbo. In a slightly different class (therefore requiring a separate ref mention in my view, IanMacM) is Ash's comment about CoE being vital to all science and technology. This is Ash speaking about science in general, not merely his opinion about the Orbo, and is something he is so qualified to talk on that we can state it as fact in the article without the need to atrribute it to him directly. It does happen to be true you know, or at least so widely held a view in the scientific mainstream as to be as close to fact as you can get.

Think that covers everything. GDallimore (Talk) 12:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

88.5.26.163 edit

FYI, edit by 88.5.26.163 reverted by Ianmacm [7] appears to have been taken directly from a page on orbo.es -- Limulus (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Perpetual motion machine

Just passing to make this comment: The "Orbo" is a purported free energy device, not a perpetual motion machine. There is a subtle difference even if they break the same laws of physics and one directly permits the other. I worry that just throwing around words like "perpetual motion machine" is nothing more than taking a cheap shot at Steorn contrary to NPOV. Just because some journalists are willing to take that cheap shot at Steorn and the Orbo doesn't mean we should, nor do we need to when the article is already perfectly clear that a) this is impossible and b) it doesn't work. GDallimore (Talk) 11:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why no device of this type has ever achieved mainstream endorsement is that claiming >100% energy output is by definition a perpetual motion claim. No machine that did this could run out of energy, because feedback from the energy output to the energy input would prevent the device from ever running out of energy. Joe Newman also claimed that his device was operating at overunity but not a perpetual motion machine. No isolated electrical circuit could have energy output exceeding 100%.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "claiming >100% energy output is by definition a perpetual motion claim". No it isn't and that's exactly where the difference lies. Free energy requires >100% energy output, a perpetual motion machine simply requires no energy losses (ie greater OR EQUAL to 100%). As I said, the difference is subtle. Now, as it happens, the device at the second demonstration was a classic PPM, and I don't have too much problem with discussing that realisation of Steorn's technology as a perpetual motion machine which is sort of what the article has ended up saying although it's still a little bit vague for my tastes. But ultimately I fear this is just unnecessary mud-slinging when Steorn are already covered in the stuff and throwing the phrase in looks a little unprofessional. GDallimore (Talk) 23:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The references call it a perpetual motion machine, that's all that matters Bhny (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The context in which the phrase is used matters. GDallimore (Talk) 23:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, in the context of the article it is fine to say perpetual motion machine because the references call it that. (sorry, I thought the context was understood since that is what the talk page is about) Bhny (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the classic definitions of perpetual motion is "a machine that produces more energy than the amount required to run it". This is the "production of energy" or "excess energy" quoted in the lead. The claim for the device at the Waterways demonstration seems to be output >100%. This is not the same as a perpetual motion machine of the third kind, which would simply conserve its own energy while running without friction in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We could use a stronger source for the idea that the press considered the product to be a purported perpetual motion machine - the current source only uses the term in the (jokey, and presumably subeditor-written) headline, not in the body of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir Eric Ash characterises the Steorn claim as perpetual motion in The perpetual myth of free energy, as does Ben Goldacre in Perpetual motion goes into reverse. The device purportedly demonstrated at the Waterways Visitor Centre is a classic example of a perpetual motion machine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I am pretty much happy with calling the machine they demonstrated at the second time of asking a "perpetual motion machine" since that is what they actually had on display. ie I'm pretty much happy with where the lead stands now to the extent I'm neutral over keeping it as it is or reverting to the original versions. But to the question of making changes that go beyond what the lead currently says, my point is that the focus of Steorn's work has been to make something that generates energy (eg for mobile phones) so is not really a perpetual motion machine but a free energy device. A free energy device can of course be used to MAKE a perpetual motion machine, but need not be. Conversely, it might be possible to tap a perpetual motion machine for excess energy (if there is spare energy in the system rather than simply no losses) but it might just be a machine that serves no purpose except to run indefinitely. This is of course all a theoretical discussion since none of it is possible, but please tell me you can recognise the distinction I'm trying to make and why we need to be careful about how we use the words.

And by taking sources in context, I mean judging whether they are making a serious comment or a humourous derogatory aside and using the source appropriately in light of that. eg, a source just saying "perpetual motion machine fails" in a headline is not really enough to say we should classify Orbo as a perpetual motion machine throughout this article. GDallimore (Talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody seems to like the term perpetual motion nowadays, and it is one that Steorn strenuously avoided. Claims to have built a perpetual motion machine of the third kind are rare, and it is more normal for inventors to claim that their machine produces an energy output of more than 100%. The web is awash with videos of electric motors, generators etc that are supposed to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Although it is true that Steorn originally claimed Orbo was a free energy source I don't think that is the claim now. The claim is that the surplus energy output is of unknown origin. This is what they should have said in the first place. DiamondLattice 17:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)