The Steorn Jury : "Never seen the prototype running"

Monday, January 4, 2010


In what will be a massive blow to skeptics and debunkers worldwide, French jury member and internationally respected physicist Jean-Paul Biberian admits to online Canadian site that the Steorn jury never even seen the Orbo prototype running. Hardly surprising then that they made this statement back in 2009:

"The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy".

If you don't see anything running you're never going to be able to measure energy production. It is now clear from today's revelations that the reason the jury did not see the production of energy is that they did not see an Orbo in operation and could never have formed an opinion.  Why then we ask, does the statement not read "Due to never having seen a physical prototype running we the jury cannot either confirm or deny the production of energy"?

This is most bizarre. 

The choice of words in the original jury statement leaves the statement wide open to misinterpretation by the public and press that Steorn's technology had been potentially disproven when in actual fact it was NEVER EVEN TESTED!!

In reality this is exactly what happened at the time.

Dozens of well known online websites and publications published damning accounts of Steorn's technology on the strength of this single original jury statement, and as FE Truth pointed out at the time "there is a much more complicated story going on" Now we know this to be the case. We invite those publications to amend their original articles in light of this new information.

Here is the translation of the interview from

Jean-Paul Biberian, engineer in nuclear physics, belonged to the initial jury. Joined to Marseilles by the Sun, it observed that the apparatus revealed in Dublin is different from the technology initially announced in 2006.

“They replaced permanent magnets by reels supplied with a battery. It is completely different from what one had shown us. They do not prove anything the whole with this demonstration. One does not know how much energy is consumed, nor how much is recovered. With the jury, one had never been able to decide because one had never seen the prototype moving, but according to me that does not go. They think of being fallen on a phenomenon by chance, but they do not have a theoretical explanation to support it. I would like well that the law of the conservation of energy is not valid, but unfortunately, according to me, it always holds…” he with a burst of laughter concludes.



Anonymous,  January 5, 2010 at 4:45 AM  

Hmmm, I am not a skeptic, but I do think each side should be covering the events fairly. Each side should hold the bar its sets for the other to itself as well. This article covers an, admittedly, curious inconsistency. But it fails to note the more disturbing fact that the jury, in all those years, have not been able to test anything. We are still at the mercy of Steorn to get verification, which is, off course, not really the verification we are waiting for. Why bother with a jury if you're not going to use them? That is, imho, the bigger story of this snippet of information.

Ken January 5, 2010 at 8:11 AM  

I actually think the jury's original statement is more accurate than your interpretation, given the facts. It's not like they never had the opportunity to have the technology demo'd; rather, the technology didn't work. (At that time.) Therefore their statement is accurate in both fact and implication. Steorn are the ones making the claim; the burden fell to them to provide the evidence to support it. At the time of the jury's decision they'd failed to do so. As per the statement, Steorn attempted to demonstrate the claim and failed to show the production of energy.

Chris January 6, 2010 at 11:51 PM  

Why didn't Steorn show it to the jury?

Anonymous,  January 10, 2010 at 7:01 PM  

I've never really understood the problem you've had with the statement from the jury. It's not the jury's responsibility to give excuses for Steorn's failure to demonstrate, conclusively, their technology did as they claimed.

I actually find it quite surprising the jury didn't quit on Steorn earlier than it did. To put a challenge to the scientific community of this magnitude, it's asking a lot just to be taken seriously.

It seems Steorn made the challenge before it was truly ready to do so. As a result, the jury members had their time wasted. The fact they stuck with it for as long as they did proves they were more than fair to Steorn.

Post a Comment


Contact me at

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP