Steorn Jury Anomalies & Unanswered Questions

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Steorn Jury Anomalies & Unanswered Questions

Read the steorn jury statement below to refresh your memory and then let’s get on to some important questions arising from this:

"In August 2006 the Irish company Steorn published an advertisement in the Economist announcing the development of “a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy”. Qualified experts were sought to form a “jury” to validate these claims.

Twenty-two independent scientists and engineers were selected by Steorn to form this jury. It has for the past two years examined evidence presented by the company. The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy. The jury is therefore ceasing work.

The jury consists of scientists and engineers in relevant fields from Europe and North America, from industry, universities and government laboratories. Information about individual members can be found at

Chairman, Steorn Jury

There are many unanswered questions remaining which have not been adequately addressed and may never be. Firstly, get to the first blindingly obvious question.

Where are the missing Jury members?

On the jury’s website there are listed only 16 individuals. The Steorn jury has always been 22 – where are the other 6? Where is Jeff Bechtold (who, back in 2007 was confirmed as a jury member) and where are the other 5 members?

Ceasing work, not “Completed it’s work”

The statement goes on by saying the jury are “ceasing work”. This does not sound like the jury seen the review process through to it’s conclusion – far from it. It smacks of frustration and impatience and ultimately results in the appearance of walking away leaving the job half done. If they had followed this process to a full conclusion then the statement would have read “The jury have completed their work” Why did they cease work?

No building of devices – just “test data”.

If all the jury did was look at “test data” and no-one attempted to physically replicate the effect then the question has to be why? Could they even have proved anything from “test data” anyway by looking at it with the classical physics spectacles on? Did anyone on the jury bother to even buy some magnets or get some sort of construction / setup going?

You can go your own way

Why was the announcement not made on the Steorn website first? Why not a joint statement? Steorn put out a press release, but that was after the fact and was in response to the Jury announcement. It seemed more like a reaction to the jury’s actions. One does wonder if the jury even communicated the fact they were about to release the statement, leaving Steorn to quickly draft a counter response. The relationship between the jury and Steorn seems on the face of it to have broken down at some point and the wording of the statement infers not very well hidden tension between the two parties.

Why are some of the jury simply identified by initials only or have missing bios?

Why have some of the jury members not submitted a bio to the jury “website?” 2 years in the making and some members can’t even be bothered tell us their backgrounds or even their full names. It looks slack, or at the very least highly unprofessional. How long does it take to write a couple of sentences?

Bizarre Wording Of The Statement

Let’s examine the following sentence – “Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy.” The wording of this is highly ambiguous and raises a lot of questions. Wasn’t the task to show whether energy was gained or not? The production of energy is a completely different issue. If they are out to actually capture the zero-point field producing energy and to prove that and see it in action then that is a far cry from what was asked of them by Steorn.

Who’s attempt is it anyway?

Perhaps the most fundamental giveaway in the language here is “Steorn’s attempts”. Wasn’t it the jury who were supposed to go away themselves, build, test and confirm/deny? Shouldn’t this statement read “Our attempts to demonstrate the claim?” Did they sit back and wait for Steorn to provide them with a nicely packaged conclusion / working Orbo

Ning! – Your statement’s ready!

And as a vehicle for delivery of this important and after more than 2 years of preparation, the jury (well some of them) chose a social networking site complete with adverts – Ning. Was it too much to ask for a one page .website? In these times of recession, a .COM can be bought for around $6.99.

It almost seems that by delivering the statement by this means on a social network page shows contempt for Steorn and an attempt to devalue the importance of the outcome either way.

Why the delay?

If the evaluation was over and the jury “ceased” their work in 2008 then why was the result delayed by more than 7+ months? Source: (

Launch / Public Demonstrations Of Orbo 2009

If that all din’t seem bizarre enough for you, then how about the news from Steorn that:

“during 2009 the company had resolved the key technical problems related to the implementation of Orbo and is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year, at which time academic and engineering validation would be released concurrent with public demonstrations”.


Many debunkers have gone on record running "bare faced nonsense" stating that there "never was a jury" and some have been spouting this for the past 2+ years at every opportunity. Not even an 0.0000007th of a chance there is a jury joshed one of them. How could there possibly have been a jury when there have been no leaks in 2 years? (they naively asked). It’s just not possible for 22 people to keep it a secret for that long! they wailed. There is no jury now and there never has been a jury! That particular unicorn has died with this news.

The question of the "invisible jury" is now answered for them - good style.



Post a Comment


Contact me at

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP