Waiting for Godot

We took a decision over a month ago now to cease reporting of the eCat for several reasons. 

First of all, 16 months have elapsed since we helped break the story to the world and yet there are still no independent third party test results of the eCat.  This is a very disappointing situation in view of the intitial timescales to commercial launch that were originally given.

There can be no doubt that many very qulaified individuals have been present and witnessed eCat tests - however, despite the optimism felt for the commercial realisation of such a revolutionary technology, the fact remains that in the absense of independent third party verification the eCat's claimed power output remains heresay at this point. There can be no doubt that Nickel Hydrogen reactions do produce anomalous heat, but the question remains over the power figures claimed.

So what do we mean by third party tests?  Essentially - this refers to testing in a laboratory environment by a reputable third party testing company such as Underwriters Laboratories or similar.  The tests would be made when no current member of the eCat team was present in the room and would include several test runs with controls in place.  These tests would be conducted over several weeks ideally to reach a conclusive result.

It is not fair on the readers of Free Energy Truth that we report daily unsubstantiated rumours of  "he said" "she said" hearsay.

Should independent collaborations or verifiable developments / testing occur then we will resume coverage.  Our eCatNow site contains feeds of all the relevant "he said" she said" developments on the eCat which you are still welcome to follow.

Defkalion

Defkalion have went silent, so there is nothing to report that can be substantiated or verified.  However, the fact they have went silent is a good sign of their professionalism and their resisting the sensationalist  rumour mill.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where both Defkalion and the eCat are both nothing but hot air and harder still to see how anyone hopes to make serious money unless they have a legitimate product to sell.

As it turns out our decision to cease reporting was a good one. News on both of these potential game-changers has been deathly quiet for nearly 2 months.

While behind-the-scenes developments are reported to be happening in both camps, only time will tell when and if one or both reach a commercially viable status.

Truthfall

Meanwhile, in other news,  work continues on our brand new site which breaks out of the narrow band of free energy developments to present you with a more complete picture of the secrecy and supression that pervades our society. The site will launch sometime in May. In the meantime please "Like" our Facebook page to keep up to date with events.

Read more...

Jury: No evidence of energy production - "is not full truth" - Steorn.

They say a week in politics is a long time. However, politics has nothing on the fast pace of events in the world of Steorn, so I will attempt to bring you up to date.

First of all there have been some developments with the Steorn "jury".

Ian R MacDonald (Chairman Of The Steorn "Jury") has emerged on the scene again. He has been given a functioning account on the Steorn Forum and has posted a couple of times after being in email contact with Steorn.

From that contact emerged this statement from Steorn:

Folks,

Just to clarify/correct a comment that I had made previously in the forum where I stated that Steorn was not allowed to release the Jury report. The statement is not entirely correct, we (Steorn) would not have been allowed to release the Jury report with the names of the Jurors. It is the opinion of the Jury that Steorn is specifically denied the right to use Jurors names in the public domain.

Hope this clears this up, I will not be commenting on the details of this any further.

Thanks,

Sean 

So basically, the jury were telling Steorn that they could publish the jury report, but only if the names of the jurors were kept secret.  Why this would have been an issue is not clear, since the jury's own site voluntarily listed 16 of the 22 members names back at the time of their original statement, in fact some of them even went further and posted bios and career resumes, so why now the request for silence?. 

Further than that, a statement from back on 1st December 2006 says: 

"The jury have all agreed to see the testing process through to its completion and have their names and findings disclosed once the testing is complete. Steorn has agreed not to identify members of the jury until the results are made public, to protect their privacy and avoid unnecessary interruptions to their work."

 
http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=911

Why are the jury are now refusing to put their names to THEIR OWN REPORT despite agreeing to this in 2006?

Also puzzling is the chairman's decision to post and interact with another well known foul mouthed Steorn debunkers forum referred to hereafter as the "other forum".

Later the same day Steorn posted the following on the forum:

Folks,

First I would like to welcome Ian to the Steorn forum and was unaware that he had made a decision to post in the 'other forum'.

As you are aware it is opinion of the Jury that Steorn is unable to name the members of the Jury. As such any document that we may decide to put into the public domain are without provenance and we must question the value of doing this.

However we are aware that several independent news media organization have interviewed members of the Jury and we expect publication of these interviews in the near term.

So, as with all things ultimately the truth will surface.

Thanks,

Sean 

So why now are some jury members choosing to conduct media interviews and not back at the time of the initial jury statement? What is so special about the jury interacting with the media NOW?

Given the fact that Steorn are about to launch the SKDB in 10 days, is there something we should read into the coincidental timing of these as yet unpublished jury member interviews? One would hope that this would be an attempt by some members to simply set the record straight, and NOT an attempt to take media focus away from the SKDB launch.

Steorn posted again later in the day:

It has been the opinion of our legal firm that we have every right to issue the statements made by the Jury to Steorn and the names of those involved. We had made an internal decision that any action against the company by the Jury would not be productive. This is a decision that we are now reconsidering, we are firmly of the opinion that the statement made by the Jury of "no evidence of energy production" is not the full truth. This fact and the decision of the Chairman of the Jury to selectively answer questions on the "other forum" has forced us to actively considering issuing Jury information that we are advised that we are well within our legal rights to do.

In other news from The Waterways Demo:

Experiment - No Depletion Of The Magnetic Domain Energy (To prove the energy Isn't coming from the magnets themselves)

Steorn are currently running a week long "soak test" on one of the Orbo rigs at the Waterways Centre.  The soak test involves measuring the energy of the magnetic domains in the neodymium magnets at the start, then after a full week of constant running the energy contained in the magnetic domains of the magnets will be re-tested and should not have depleted.  This will prove that the domain energy stored in the magnets is not being used up to perform the work of turning the rotor.

Steorn have now confirmed that for this experiment they are using  optical switching to manage the pulsing of the coils. The reed switches used previously are proving unreliable for a constant week long soak test.

Read more...