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...

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...