Steorn Jury Shock: Less Than The Previously Stated 22 Were Unanimous

After a few days of silence on the many follow up questions posed, the Chairman of the Steorn jury Ian MacDonald has finally broke silence and answered the main question that many including FE Truth had posed.

As you can see from the answer below the actual number of jurors who were unanimous was far less than the 22 quoted as fact by many newspapers and blogs who published the story without questioning any detail or bothering to enquire further.

There is still no announcement or official figure of just exactly how many jurors DID vote. An actual official number for the members who dropped out over the past two years also remains cloaked in secrecy, as do the reasons why they did so. They are merely cited as "various personal reasons".

If we knew what information was revealed to the jury then we would better understand the weight of the verdict, but at this point in time no specific data has been released on what was seen / tested / examined. Right now as it stands we have no idea if the were shown the full details or if they didn't get to see the inside of a packet of Steorn flavoured crisps.

Reproduced below:

Reply by Ian MacDonald 2 hours ago

I will reluctantly weigh in. The reasons why you do not see twenty-two names and bios are twofold. First: this website is provided for information only. Jurors have signed on as members and posted information entirely at their own discretion as the banner explains and as some people have pointed out. Second: there was, understandably, attrition in this process. Some members dropped out for various personal reasons over the two and a half years.

What I meant by unanimous is this: there was no disagreement expressed by any juror who was still a member and following events at the time of our verdict.

Ian MacDonald


Steorn now seem fully focused on preparations for launch.

Read more...

Orion Project: Important Assessment Of The Present Energy Crisis

Reproduced in entirety from The Orion Project Website
Presented in a letter (June 7th 2009) to the director of ARPA-E (Advanced Energy Projects Agency - Energy) by Thomas E Bearden, Phd, LTC, US Army (retired)

To: Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585


ATTN: Director

Dear ARPA-E:

This is a serious technical response to your website's invitation to offer suggestions, recommendations, and comments. I would deeply appreciate it if you did treat this as a serious response, whose results come from 40 years of personal arduous work in the breakthrough energy area. I deeply believe that understanding some of these matters offered and discussed can directly and strongly assist you in your overwhelmingly important mission to solve -- as quickly and completely as possible -- the energy crisis now besetting our country and the other nations of the world.

As an unexpected bonus, we also include an explanation (which was known to Dirac!) of how to directly and rather simply engineer physical reality as you wish. Please have the proper physicists study that area intensely; the Soviet Union already is well-aware of this area and its development. Also, a very fine team of physicists, led by Dr. Dan Solomon, have presently published rigorous papers in leading physics journals pointing out that the arbitrary removal of negative energy from physics in 1934 was a grave error, totally against scientific method.

Among other things, we will point out that the real reason for the present energy crisis is the century-old deliberate crippling of our electrical engineering model; this reason has not been understood by our own academicians and is still not understood by them. It is easily shown to be true, however, by a straightforward higher group symmetry analysis of the Heaviside-Lorentz equations used as the model for electrical engineering.

The points we make are very technical; please have one or more physicists, knowledgeable in group theory and also higher group symmetry electrodynamics, examine the attached papers and advise you.

The main points of my comments and response, including a little necessary background, are:

1.In 1892 electrical engineering had not yet been born. Maxwell had died in 1879, and almost immediately several scientists -- Heaviside, Gibbs, etc. -- had leaped in and savaged and highly simplified Maxwell's quaternion-like theory (which was 20 equations in 20 unknowns), producing vector algebra in the process. "Electrical engineering" had not yet been born; knowledge of electrodynamics was confined to approximately three dozen physicists worldwide who knew something about electrodynamics.

2.Lorentz was toying with the Heaviside equations, preparing to use them as the model to be used for the new technology to be called "electrical engineering" and to be taught in the universities. Lorentz was a great scientist -- but also noted for "borrowing" other scientists' work and publishing it and receiving credit for it. This has been validated by Okun and Jackson (Jackson is one of the leading classical electrodynamicists of the world). See J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. Discusses roots and history of gauge invariance, verifies that Ludwig Lorenz (without the “t”) first symmetrically regauged Maxwell's equations, although it has been misattributed to H. A. Lorentz (with the “t”) as being first. This is an excellent coverage of the history of who did what and when, and who got credit for it!

3.The beginning rise of electric power was proceeding. Historically, this was also a time when certain rich and ruthless financiers were setting up huge financial empires and were consolidating them. Such a ruthless man was the leading financier J. P. Morgan, as is well-established by history.

4.The major electrical researcher/experimenter/inventor of impact was Nikola Tesla, who had discovered that the "medium was active" -- in short, he had discovered aspects of energy from the modern seething virtual state vacuum. Electrical engineering did not exist; for his university education, Tesla had been educated in the physics of the day. Modern physics such as quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, gauge field theory, and quantum field theory, however, was not yet born.

5.Tesla had discovered that "the medium itself" was energetically active. He had succeeded in developing what in group theory technically are asymmetrical EM sources and systems. Such an asymmetrical EM power generating system is permitted to output more usable energy than the operator himself inputs; the extra input energy comes freely from the vacuum. (We are referring only to the EM energy portions of the generating system).

6.As an aside, extracting and using "EM energy from the vacuum" has been rigorously proven by DoE's own researchers, Klimov and his group, in Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), with the work also independently replicated and rigorously confirmed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Klimov's nanocrystalline solar cell process produces a COP = 200% easily, with a theoretical maximum of 700%. And it takes the excess energy directly from the seething vacuum, as experimentally confirmed. So COP > 100% EM-generating systems are indeed possible, which extract and use excess EM energy from the active local vacuum. The Department of Energy itself has rigorously proven that statement forever.

7.Meanwhile, circa 1890 Tesla was hell-bent on giving the world "free EM energy from the active medium". Morgan, who had prepared the plan that would forever destroy Tesla, demanded to know from his scientific advisors if those Heaviside equations being considered for the new technology "electrical engineering" to be formed and taught in universities, still contained any of those confounded Tesla "energy from the active medium systems". [We point out that T. W. Barrett, a great higher group symmetry electrodynamicists and one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar, in fact did a proper higher group symmetry electrodynamics (quaternion electrodynamics) analysis of some of Tesla's patented circuits, and proved that Tesla indeed could have done what he said. The reference is T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis simply cannot and will not reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this].

8.We have had group theory in our universities since 1870, and physicists study it. So Morgan's scientists (they were physicists; electrical engineering was not yet born) simply did a group theory analysis of the Heaviside equations, and showed that the equations were still asymmetrical. Thus indeed they still contained some of those asymmetric Tesla "energy from the active medium" systems that would eliminate the need for consuming fuel to power their circuits and loads. An exasperated Morgan simply ordered them to "Fix it!"

9.Morgan's advisors elicited Lorentz himself to "fix" the problem. Accordingly, in 1892 Lorentz "borrowed" earlier work by Lorenz (without the "t") and used it to cripple those Heaviside equations by symmetrizing them. Thus the new "Heaviside-Lorentz" equations were symmetrized, and so they only contained systems that self-enforced COP < 1.0. And these deliberately crippled and mutilated equations were and have been taught as the electrical engineering model ever since.

10.Not long after, Heaviside also discovered the giant curled EM energy flow that pours forth from the terminals of every battery or generator, in addition to the relatively small diverged Poynting component. The Heaviside curled component is more than a trillion times the magnitude of the relatively feeble but diverged Poynting energy flow component! In any given frame (special relativity situation) the divergence of the curl is zero. Hence normally the giant Heaviside component -- more than a trillion times as much energy flow per second as the mechanical energy input that one makes to crank the shaft of the generator -- does not interact with anything or diverge into the external circuit. Instead, it just roars on off into space and is wasted.

11.Confronted by this sensational Heaviside discovery, Morgan was again quite exasperated. The last thing he wished was for the future electrical engineers to know that the generator actually pours forth more than a trillion times as much energy as we pay to input to rotate the generator shaft. He reasoned that, if the students were taught this fact, then sooner or later a sharp student or graduate would figure out how to collect some of that usually nondivergent Heaviside giant energy flow component and use it after all. And at that point, planned future empires in controlling the fuel etc. would be devastated.

12.So again Lorentz was elicited in 1900, and he taught the entire just-emerging EE field to just surface integrate the total energy flow vector (containing both the Heaviside giant curled flow and the Poynting diverged flow) around a surface assumed around every volume element of interest. That neatly discards the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow, and leaves only the very small diverged Poynting energy flow. His sly "reason" given was that "it can have no physical significance". And that practice -- of discarding the enormous Heaviside curled energy flow component -- was made universal and continues in electrical engineering and electrical science to this day. [As a matter of note, there is indeed a way to tap and collect some of that universally available giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow, by deliberately using a local general relativity process. There is an area of optical physics that does it (courtesy of the Russians] since 1967, and it produces a usable COP = 18.00 in doing so. I will be happy to explain that area to ARPA-E if desired; those physicists are severely constrained in their publications and are never allowed to discuss the thermodynamics of the process or to mention the excess energy produced. They are only allowed to discuss the dramatic increase in COP, but only to say that the "reaction cross section is increased".

Anyway, the above are the absolute background points that one needs to know if one would understand (1) why the present world energy crisis uselessly exists, and (2) how to go about solving it fairly straightforwardly forever. The solution is to cast out the arbitrarily and erroneously symmetrized electrical engineering model, and replace it with any of the higher group symmetry electrodynamic models already available in particle physics.

With the above viewpoint and information established, we attach five papers that lay out not only the reason for the world energy crisis and how to go about solving it, but we also extend things further to restore the negative energy ripped erroneously from physics in 1934. With that negative energy/negative probabilities restored, Dirac himself pointed out a simple but very startling way to directly engineer physical reality itself. There are several processes today already using this unsuspected Dirac "tickling of the vacuum" method to engineer physical reality. One is Kanzius' independently verified watergas process, in which the Dirac process is unwittingly used to simply "unhappen" the OH bond in the water molecule of a Dirac-tickled container of water, so that statistically the water molecules begin to simply fall apart into independent H2 and O2 gas mixes. By piping the gaseous mix outside the "Dirac tickled" region, and into the combustion chamber of a combustion engine, the mixed gas will then burn smoothly and power the engine, at very little cost, with the exhaust containing only water vapor. Another independently tested mechanism is Kanzius' cancer cure, which -- again unwittingly -- "unhappens" the cancer by Dirac-tickling of the local vacuum in which the cancer resides. Several other processes exist which use this, as covered in the attached papers. Eventually the same process will allow cleanup of all nuclear wastes (easily and efficiently), curing of any and all diseases, cleanup of much of our industrial processes and the pollution of our precious biosphere, etc.

I hope you find the attached information and papers of direct interest to your vital mission in these uncertain times. We simply must have a great breakthrough in energy and other areas, or else modern civilization will increasingly become more and limited and more and more economically curtailed. At the same time, this must be a "clean" solution, as we simply must get on with cleaning up our fragile biosphere, reducing global warming, and cleanup of the ponderous wastes already confronting us (such as the 1300+ smuck reservoirs accompanying the U.S.'s coal-burning power plants. We note the present intention to "cleanup" the recent giant spill (the reservoir broke) at one of these plants in the south -- which will involve some 35,000 railroad cars of smucky wastes hauled to a community area and buried there in spite of the citizens' wishes not to have it there.

The attached information, if properly acted upon, should allow solutions to all these problems and many more that are dear to the heart of our own Department of Energy.

Sincerely,

Thomas E. Bearden, PhD
Lt. Col., U.S. Army (retired)

Links to this and other Research Papers

Read more...

Steorn: The Dream Lives On

In an article from today's Irish Times they mention that the Steorn Jury has returned a unanimous verdict. Strangely though - the jury's own official website lists only 16 names as jurors. Since the statement was made Free Energy Truth has posed the question to the jury on their forum and despite replies to other questions - this one at the time of writing, still remains unanswered.

Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy in response to the verdict said: “The jury hasn’t found they support the claims. We would dispute that.”

“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 dream lives on, however, as Steorn prepares to begin licensing its Orbo technology “definitely before the end of the year”, Mr McCarthy said.

Read more...

Steorn Jury Anomalies & Unanswered Questions

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 http://stjury.ning.com/


R.I.MacDonald
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: (http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1141)

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”.

Critics

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.

Read more...

Steorn Jury Reports: Launch Of Orbo In 2009 Continues

Official Steorn Press Release
source: http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1151

Steorn today confirmed that the internet ‘blog’ stjury.ning.com had been posted on behalf of members of the Jury of scientists that Steorn had engaged to conduct an independent review of its Orbo Technology.

In a statement, Steorn CEO, Sean McCarthy said that “he was grateful to the Jury members for the time and effort that they had devoted to the process.”

McCarthy continued on to state that he “fully understood the frustration of the Jury members with respect to the time that the process was taking. 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. This work concluded at the end of 2008.”

McCarthy concluded by stating 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”.

ENDS

The question is why did the jury give up, but yet launch still goes ahead?

I would suggest that there is a much more complicated story going on. Could it be that some of the 22 were either disenchanted with Steorn, were pressured / threatened, felt it was career suicide (even if there was a n anomaly shown). I t is entirely likely that some members would not want to risk being the next Pons & Fleischman no matter what. Maybe some came to the realisation of what kind of intrusion this would bring to their family and lives and had decided against it.

The members of the jury listed so far are as follows:

Rezaul Karim
Medford, MA
United States

Dr. Rezaul Karim received his Ph.D. in Experimental Physics from Northeastern University, Boston in 1990 on the Microwave Properties of High Temperature Superconductors. He joined Colorado State University as a Post-doctoral Fellow in the study of high frequency losses in Hexagonal ferrite materials. In 1991 he was appointed Visiting Assistant Professor at Colorado State University. In 1993 Dr. Karim joined the Northeastern University Faculty as a Research scientist in the Center of Electromagnetics Research. He worked on Pulsed Laser deposition techniques to develop artificial ferrite films. In 1995, Dr. Karim started work as a Scientist at Digital Magnetics Systems (DMS) Corporation. He worked on a new concept Resonant Vibrating Sample Magnetometer. He invented several new techniques to improve hard disk metrology systems. From 1997 to 2007 Dr. Karim worked at ADE corporation (now KLA-Tencor) and studied to develop a comprehensive Calibration technique for Magnetometers. Later, he designed a highly sensitive Polar Kerr Measurement station to perform Metrology on Perpendicular Storage Media. He also designed a new concept Pulsed Magnetic Device. From 2007 to 2009, Dr. Karim was a Senior Scientist in the Advanced Instrumentation Division at Radiation Monitoring Devices (RMD), Inc., where he conducted research in Magnetic Imaging applications of various Magneto-resistive sensor technology. He has over 20 publications in various journals.

Creon Levit
Mill Valley, CA
United States

Jordan Maclay
Richland Center, WI
United States

Christian W. Fabjan
Vienna, Vienna
Austria

Experimental particle physicst, Ph.D. from Harvard University. My research concentrates on studying the strong or nuclear interaction; I also develop new detection methods for particle and nuclear physics. I have strong interests in questions pertaining to energy, energy efficiency and sustainable development.

Michael McKubre
Menlo Park, CA
United States

Keith A. Joyner
United States

Keith A. Joyner received a Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of South Carolina in 1979. For 21 years, he worked in several areas of research & development, product, process and device science and engineering at Texas Instruments Inc in Dallas, TX. Since 2001, he has been teaching physics at Richland College in Dallas, TX. He has been issued 25 U.S. patents and was author or co-author of 40 refereed publications and conference papers in a number of technical areas, mostly relating to semiconductor technologies.

Kevin J. Negus
Hyattville, WY
United States

Kevin J. Negus received the Ph.D. degree in Engineering from the University of Waterloo in Canada in 1988. From 1988 to 1998 he held various R&D management positions with the Hewlett-Packard Company where he led the development of RF chipset solutions for systems such as GPS, GSM, IS-54, IS-95, DECT and 802.11. From 1998 to 2002, Kevin was the Chief Technology Officer of Proxim Corporation in Sunnyvale, CA where he was responsible for core technology strategy including silicon development, acquisitions, standards participation and intellectual property licensing. He has published more than 40 technical papers and holds several US patents. Kevin’s base office is in Hyattville, Wyoming where he and his wife Eva run a working cattle ranch. He is currently a General Partner with Camp Ventures in Los Altos, CA (a venture capital investment firm specializing in early-stage technology startup companies) where he leads investments in Quantance and GainSpan, a management advisor to SiTime and Mojix, and a consultant on IP litigation matters to multiple clients. Kevin was also formerly a member of the FCC’s Technical Advisory Committee, a member of the Wyoming State Telecommunications Council, Executive Chairman of WiDeFi (acquired by Qualcomm in 10/07), and a management advisor to several successful startups including Resonext Communications (acquired by RF Micro Devices in 12/02), Athena Semiconductor (acquired by Broadcom in 10/05), and Quorum Communications (acquired by Spreadtrum in 1/08).

P. Boyle
Chicago, IL
United States

PhD in High Energy Astrophysics, National University of Ireland, 1999
BSc in Experimental Physics, University College Dublin, 1994

My research is focused on the production of high-energy radiation in celestial objects (such as supernova explosion, black holes, pulsars etc) and its propagation through interstellar space.

Balloon-borne Projects
TRACER - NASA Cosmic-ray detector
CREAM - NASA Cosmic-ray detector

Ground-based Projects
Whipple - Atmospheric Cerenkov Telescope
ARTEMIS - Antimatter Telescope
VERITAS - Gamma-ray Astronomy

Davor Pavuna
Lausanne
Switzerland

David Powell
United States

PhD Aero/Astro 1970
Professor (Emeritus) , Aero/Astro and Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University
Fellow, AIAA and ASME

Research specialties have been on IC engine control, spacecraft control, and aircraft navigation.

Victor Tikhomirov
Minsk
Belarus

Cand. Sci. (PhD) 1984 Belarusian State University
Doct. Sci. 1993 Belarusian Academy of Science

Research Institute for Nuclear Problems Belarusian State University, head of lab. since 1993.
Nuclear Physics Department of Belarusian State University, professor since 1995.

Research activity: nuclear physics and astrophysics, QED of phenomena in strong fields, magnetic cumulation, high energy particle interaction with matter and crystals, in particular. Predicted several phenomena studied at CERN for 25 years.

Guido Stockhausen
Germany

Research Scientist
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Propulsion Technology
Engine Measurement Systems

Jean-Paul Biberian
Marseille
France

I am a Physicist working at the University of Marseilles, France. I worked for many years in the field of surface science, but for the past 16 years, I work in the controversial field of Cold Fusion. I have therefore lot of experience in measuring energy.

J P
France

56 years old. PhD in Electrical Engineering, specialist of magnetism applications and magnet systems. He has published more than 170 scientific articles and holds 33 patents.

Brian Dodson
Albuquerque, NM
United States

John C. Stover
Tucson, AZ
United StatesPhD in Electrical Engineering, Purdue University 1970
Fellow of SPIE
Owner of The Scatter Works, Inc.

Over thirty years experience in the use of scattered light for the inspection of optics and semiconductors, surface roughness characterization, stray light suppression and the measurement of appearance.

Ian MacDonald (Chairman, Steorn Jury)
Canada
PhD EE 1975
Senior Member IEEE
Fellow, Optical Society of America
Professor (Emeritus) Electrical Engineering, University of Alberta (Retired)

Read more...

Steorn SKDB300: The Countdown Is On

With Stage1 of Steorn's new SKDB online environment commencing on Monday 15th (just 4 days from now) We are moving increasingly closer to a new and exciting era in man's exploitation of energy. The full commercial launch and worldwide introduction of free energy technology is anticipated later this year. No date has yet been announced by Steorn.

According to a leaked email from one of the SKDB300 - On Monday 15th June access will be given to the SKDB300 followed 3 days later by the first installment of e-learning modules which will begin to explain the techniques exploited by Steorn in achieving gains of energy from certain arrangements of permanent magnets. The modules will be posted 3 per week for 10 weeks.

Steorn's "Orbo" technology platform is still considered a blasphemy by establishment science and academia, due to the fact that it breaks a couple of the most fundamental laws of physics.

The principal of the conservation of energy (CoE) states that energy cannot be created or destroyed - that it can only change form. Current thinking has us believe that if you put energy into a system you cannot get all of it back due to losses in friction, eddy currents, heat and other losses - Orbo technology using certain techniques can get around these issues and result in a net gain of energy. When the technology is successfully validated (launch is later this year) we as a species will be forced to re-evaluate the course of our own energy evolution. The development of Orbo represents a significant shift away from polluting and exhaustable energy sources to a non-polluting infinite supply of clean energy.

Oil Supertanker: Dying breed?

A re-evaluation of present day physics and a re-ordering of the oil based financial system seem
inevitable, and represent only two of the significant changes we can expect.

The commencement of the SKDB 300 (Steorn Knowledge Development Base) with 300 engineering firms and individual electrical and mechanical engineers is a strong signal to the world of the seriousness of this product development and launch. Steorn have been engaged in a long period of Research & Development over the last 6 years, constantly refining and maturing the effect that they discovered by accident.

Orbo is based on the interaction of magnetic fields which when used in certain configurations create more energy than the system can consume. The result is an overunity capable device, once pronounced as "impossible" by Leonardo Da Vinci and still today looked upon by the establishment as fringe science.

The first incarnation of Orbo technology will be an EM (Electromagnetic) implementation, presumably in the form of a pulsed motor. In Steorn's own words: "Orbo interactions can be engineered using two basic techniques. The first technique utilizes a method of controlling
the response time of magnetic materials. The second technique decouples the Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF) from torque for electromagnet interactions.

"Orbo 1.0, the first commercial release of our platform technology, is based upon our electromagnetic implementation. Orbo 1.0 will be made available initially under license to 300 engineering companies and to the wider product development community later during the course of 2009."

As a member of the SPDC and now OrboSphere (OS) for the last 2 and a half years I myself am very much looking forward to the coming weeks and months and can only compare the experience of involvement to having a front row seat watching the Wright Brothers first flight.

Read more...

SKDB 300 - Starts June 18th

Steorn continues to follow objectives in it's plan for the launch of it's free energy technology platform - Orbo.

A prospective SKDB 300 member has recently published an email sent by Steorn in the Steorn Forums which indicates that the process involving the SKDB300 will begin on Thursday 18th June when e-learning modules relating to the principles of the Orbo technology platform will start to be published to the SKDB.

The email explains that 3 modules will be presented every Thursday for 10 weeks making a total of 30. According to the email, the last set of modules will be published on August 20th.

The SKDB - Steorn Knowledge Development Base is a vibrant online community comprising the following.

The SKDB is a learning and knowledge base designed to explain, employ and expand the science, engineering and intellectual property comprising Orbo technology.

The SKDB is a global collaboration and development centre designed to facilitate sharing, collaboration and the further development of Orbo technology.

The SKDB is a commercialisation platform for building and deploying Orbo applications worldwide.

The SKDB is the environment for the Orbo energy revolution.

Who will join and why?

At present the SKDB is in trial mode and is not accessible to the general public, but will be following the public launch. This will allow equal access from corporations to individuals who wish to develop / research Orbo technology.

From the most recent press release: "2009 represents a turning point for Steorn, Orbo and our other technology ranges," said CEO Sean McCarthy. "It marks the end of a long cycle of R&D and sees us making a strong push towards commercialisation - our plans show the business reaching profitability in the next 12 to 18 months."

Read more...