Tricks, tips, tutorials, pictures and words

Steorn free energy - FAQ

FAQ - Technical

Folks,

As previously stated we continue to file patents on the technology as we find better ways to achieve the same result. As a result we have to be careful about the details that we place in the public domain (as such public comments could be deemed prior art). Hence I will not be in a position to post significant technical details, however there follows an overview:

Core Technology
The core technology is the ability to construct certain magnetic fields (using permanent magnets) that when other magnetic materials travel around a closed trajectory within these fields a non-zero energy sum is achieved (after compensating for friction losses). For a fixed trajectory travel around a closed loop in one direction will gain energy and travel around the loop in the other direction will results in an energy loss.

The trajectories themselves may not be a simple circular loop, they can involve complex paths through the field (depending on the specific construction of the field).

Such a gain in ‘mechanical’ energy is in itself not a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics since there are other energies involved in the system. However tests have shown that there is no degradation of the magnetic domains as a result of this mechanical energy gain/loss (i.e. the magnets are not being drained of their energy) and there is no change in environmental energy (due to a magneto calorific effect) associated with the mechanical energy gain/loss.

Testing
The core technology is tested in a variety of different ways, including mechanical energy measurement systems (static and dynamic) magnetic field measuring equipment and temperature measurement equipment. We also test by moving weights to demonstrate external work done (over the losses due to friction).

Status of the Technology
The technology is at a prototype stage, i.e. we are not yet at the point of developing commercial products. Both the prototypes and the core technology is under constant development.


I know that the above is a limited amount of information and will cause yet more frustration, however the ultimate answer to the key question will have to be answered by the Jury.

Thanks,

Sean

FAQ - General



  1.  
    Question:
    Why did you not go ahead and start licensing machines; why do you seek scientific approval.

    Answer:
    With a claim as controversial as we are making, we considered it necessary to gain the approval and the acceptance of the Scientific Community. Simply to start to sell technology without this approval can be seen as a potential fraud.
  2.  
    Question:
    Are you aware of the JREF challenge? Do you intend to accept it? (Please give reasons either way).

    Answer:
    Yes we are aware of the JREF challenge. We have no intention of taking part in this challange. Our purpose in having the technology tested is to provide the answer that everyone is asking - does it work? We do not believe that JREF are qualified to make this judgement, and we do not believe that they will be believed by all in the general public.
  3.  
    Question:
    Is any of your work so far published?

    Answer:
    No
  4.  
    Question:
    Will the energy that your machines produce, be freely available to the public; e.g., without monetary costs

    Answer:
    Outside of the cost of purchasing the technology (a one of cost when it is in a laptop for example) there is then no cost for the energy it produces. We expect that the cost of the technology will be in line with existing options (i.e. a similar price to the battery and charger that would currently go with a laptop).
  5.  
    Question:
    One of the reporters in an interview or article said that there was a door behind which the device was situated and he was not allowed through. He went on to say that an agitated Frenchman went through the door while he was there.

    Answer:
    Our office has different security zones. The 'agitated' frenchman was coming from an area where our engineering group work (no external parties are allowed into this area) - he was agitated because I was using a test system to show the reporter something - he was in the middle of a test and was upset about the fact he would have to restart it. Note that we have a visitor test lab, this is where the interview was conducted.
  6.  
    Question:
    Do you have devices operational in France or any other European country?

    Answer:
    The technology is in development in two countries.
  7.  
    Question:
    Are the 3 test systems you have been working with virtual computer models or physical prototypes?

    Answer:
    Our test systems are all physical, we also use simulation software (FEA)
  8.  
    Question:
    I do not quite understand how the analogy about going up and down the hill and suffering a net gain of energy...perhaps a different analogy?

    Answer:
    As everyone knows when you go up and down a hill you lose energy. In many ways our technology is like going up and down a hill (a magnet moves into a magnetic field and out of that field and in doing so gains enery), that was the reason for using the hill analogy - I am sure that there is a better one!
  9.  
    Question:
    How many engineers and scientists are part of the R&D dep. at Steorn?

    Answer:
    The company has 7 engineers qualified to degree or masters level, we have no scientists on headcount but we do work with several scientists under contract.
    • CommentAuthorSteorn
    • CommentTime1 day ago
     
    Question:
    What field of engineering have you (Sean) personally specialized in?

    Answer:
    I have a degree in engineering and worked developing technologies (real time control and process optimization systems) for the energy industry prior to founding the company.
  10.  
    Question 1:
    Could Ed Leedskalnin of Coral Castle fame have been your inspiration? http://www.geocities.com/anti_gravity/Coral_Castle/photos_1.html

    Answer 1:
    No

    Question 2:
    If it wasn't those he mentioned who was your inspiration?

    Answer 2:
    We did not set out to develop this technology, we 'stumbled' across it - so there has been no real individual or company that has been an inspiration for the development.
  11.  
    Questions:

    Is this a:
    1. Marketing ploy. Such as "Steorn: Remember what we did with a fake product, think what we can do for your real one."
    2. A scam
    3. You are too weak technically to realize it is not really a free energy device

    Answers:
    1. No
    2. No
    3. The Jury will decide
  12.  
    Question:
    It seems that a man by the name of Carlos Luna signed for Steorn patent applications a while ago. I do not see his name anywhere else on your site. Did the Carlos on the patent his PhD research at the Group of Magnetism and Magnetic Nanomaterials Institute for Materials Science of Madrid, CSIC ?

    Answer:
    Carlos worked for us as a software developer, developing software for anti-counterfiet products. Carlos continues to work in this area for a partner company (he is one of the best software engineers we have ever worked with). He is not the Carlos Luna with a PhD from Madrid.
  13.  
    Question:
    Can you identify a recent technological advance that made this invention possible? In other words, was this machine possible a decade ago, 25 years ago or a 100 years go?

    Answer:
    The Jury process will prove that the technology works; hence it could have worked 25 or 100 years ago. However the internet has played a key part in making this achievable. Instant access to information (real and unreal) is a key tool that we all use. Also the availability of relatively low cost, accurate test equipment combined with the low cost of computational power has made a significant difference. I do not know how someone could go about this 25 years ago.
  14.  
    Question:
    What are the biggest mistakes you have made in the last six months have you any regrets?

    Answer:
    I guess that the only regret that we have is spending so long to come to the point where we decided to put our challenge in the public domain, also doing interviews late at night with a bad cold is a very bad idea!

    And a final regret is using load balancing to host our site instead of a clustered set-up (this was the problem with the forum).
  15.  
    Question:
    Sean did your company make the following statment? "The company would also seek out other interesting technologies and build a portfolio of products, he added."

    Answer:
    Yes, we have worked on a range of technolgies in the past and also invested in companies that are developing interesting technologies.
  16.  
    Question:
    Did you copy your invention from a previous one? I found mention of another irish energy invention here: http://www.devilducky.com/media/27483/

    Answer:
    No
  17.  
    Question:
    If someone tries raise a plaque in your honor, will you let them?

    Answer:
    I hope it’s not a life size representation – they could do themselves damage lifting that! Again it’s a company effort!
  18.  
    Question:
    Is the guy who discovered this happy with the share options you gave him/her?

    Answer:
    Refer to the agitated Frenchman mentioned earlier! Everyone in the company is a shareholder, there is no one engineer who made the discovery, it was a team effort.
  19.  
    Question:
    How do you intend to make this pay? (Interpret as you wish!)

    Answer:
    We intend to license the technology to organizations in the mobile consumer electronics market and the automotive market.
  20.  
    Question:
    For my peace of mind, please confirm that your device is not a variation on this theme: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/museum/unwork.htm#cheng

    Answer:
    The technology does not use a magnetic shield.
  21.  
    Question:
    Is the patent for magnet shield relevant to your invention?

    Answer:
    No
  22.  
    Question:
    In one of the forum posts a retired patent attorney commented on the number of countries and regions for which you had applied for patents. It was his opinion that this patent application cost in the area of $1,000,000. Have or will you spend more or less than that on patents?

    Answer:
    We expect to spend more than this over the life time of the patents.
  23.  
    Question:
    How long before the first applications will be released to a larger audience

    Answer:
    There are multiple patents on the technology (we continue to file patents). I cannot say when these applications come into the public domain, we are not in control of the patent process.
  24.  
    Question:
    Has Steorn made any products before this energy device? Con men usually just sprout out of nothing so If you can show that Steorn is a real company that has developed real, working technology in the past it will add to your credibility.

    Answer:
    We have developed several technolgies for anti-fraud applications including a hologram verification technology and an optical disc finger printing technology.
  25.  
    Question:
    I think I read somewhere that you'd let developing countries use the technology free of charge for making sea water drinkable and such purposes. Is this true? Wouldn't this solve one of the biggest problems in the world?

    Answer:
    Yes it is true (we completed a site survey for a trial project in Africa last week), however the license free use of a technology in itself will not solve any problems - that will require significant commercial and political will power. We simply believe (and are stating up front) that we do not think that profit should be made from such applications in the developing world.
  26.  
    Question:

    Is the story in posting found below is genuine ?
    Hi,

    Let me tell you a little story - I am based in the Phyiscs Dept of a UK Uni (nameless as there are Non Disclosure Agreements in place), but we were asked to test this Steorn system - Now I wasnt working myself on this but was asked to look at the results - Simlpy put there was an "anomaly" in the results that we were at a lost to explain - this "anomaly" was that the design of the test system, (where we were given Steorn designs but purchased all components ourselves, biult it, tested, etc,) was that there appears to be a net energy gain when you move through the magnetics fields... We stated to Steorn that this "anomaly" required further examination. this was 6 months ago and we cannot find where this excess energy in the system is coming from... We are at a lost to explain it... But magnetics is admittently a bit of a grey area, we know the capabilities of electromagnetism but this is an area that hasnt had the same level of academic research as for example DNA sequencing, astrophysics, etc... the scientific community and industry knew how to create electricity and we left it at that - magnetics is a neglected part of our natural world and the Steorn "anomaly" has left our Dept quite baffled as we are left at a loss to explain it in Classical terms...

    I await what the rest of our community says when they have an opportunity to see this Steorn system...

    Answer:
    While several UK Unis have tested the technology I doubt that this posting is true, I have no way to tell.
  27.  
    Question:
    How many technological projects does Steorn manage at this time?

    Answer:
    Just this project at this time.
  28.  
    Question:
    Is the voting system on the site bugged or does it intentionally allow repeat votes?

    Answer:
    No there is no bug, we use cookies. The voting was a victim of very large blocks of votes that appeared to be from a bot, however we decided not to correct for these blocks since it might be thought that we where ‘fixing’ the results
  29.  
    Question:
    What were your motives in adding a forum to the Steorn site?

    Answer:
    The idea behind the forum was to allow people to express their views.
  30.  
    Question:
    You say that you stumbled across this device yet you are quite aware of the legacy and potential barriers of the free energy pioneers before you. Did you believe in free energy devices before your discovery?

    Answer:
    No
    • CommentAuthorSteorn
    • CommentTime15 hours ago
     
    Question:
    Sorry to be off-topic, but what's the difference what the vote is? Revising the accepted truths of modern science is not a popularity contest.

    Answer:
    I agree that science is not a popularity contest. However we felt that it was important that there was enough public interest in our claim to ensure that the world of science was aware of our challange and would 'take us on'
  31.  
    Question:
    You say you are modeling using Flux3D. Is this the product shown at
    http://www.cedrat.com/software/flux/pdf/flux.pdf
    and have you actually got it to say that your technique is validated?

    Answer:
    Yes we use Flux3D - no Flux3D does not produce the same results, however the difference between the real world and the simulated world is an area of extream interet to us.
    • CommentAuthorSteorn
    • CommentTime15 hours ago
     
    Question:
    You have not openly solicited investments. But are you accepting offers of investment? I imagine they are pouring in.

    Answer:
    We have had a lot of offers of investment, we are accepting none of these offers.
  32.  
    Question:
    Why haven't any other members of the Steorn team been active on the forum (or have they?) or taken part in any of the interviews

    Answer:
    Well the simple answer is that we are all very busy. With respect to the media interviews we decided that only two people would be involved at this stage (Richard and myself).
  33.  
    Question:
    I know you're not accepting investors, but would you accept beer money if someone wanted to treat you fellows to a Guinness?

    Answer:
    We have considered hosting a party for people on the forum, not sure if it is possible since we are in Dublin - views welcome.
  34.  
    Question:
    If you supposed you couldn't publish a white paper with technical details in a scientific periodical, why didn't you release scientific details through http://arxiv.org or other pre-publishing means, after due patenting of the device to protect Intellectual property?

    Answer:
    We continue to file patents on the technology. We continue to find new ways to cause the effect, since we can only patent apparatus and method we need to ensure that we patent as many of the possibilities as possible before public disclosure.
  35.  
    Question:
    You state that of the scientists who tested the device 8 have verified it but you suggest that there were others who didn’t complete testing and therefore didn’t verify it. How many scientists have there been in total who took part in any stage of the testing? Why couldn't they or didn't they complete it?

    Answer:
    We stopped the testing once it became clear that the tests would produce no publicly usable validation – this defeated the purpose of the tests.
  36.  
    Question:
    Have any of your employees or yourself utilized this technology for your own personal purposes, devices or out of curiosity? For example many people on this forum would have made there own personal prototype power generators and devices etc if they had made the same discovery. Have you? and if not why not?

    Answer:
    None, the technology is at a prototype stage.
  37.  
    Question:
    Do you think the ideal use would be to have this device at your home or local stations that would supply energy at a very low cost?

    Answer:
    We have not looked at this market in detail yet and so we have no firm views on how it might operate.
  38.  
    Question:
    Did you procure any part of your technology from another entity, or is it ALL Steorn engineered?

    Answer:
    The core technology has been exclusively developed by Steorn, we also work with third party engineering companies and technical consultants.
  39.  
    Question:
    Why not set up a streaming web presentation (or something credible) showing us (and hide the machine if you want if you're worried about competition) testing and performance results so you can get some serious interest by underwriters, corporate partners, investors, scientific institutions?

    Answer:
    Such a demonstration would prove little (if anything), it would most likely be viewed as a con.
  40.  
    Question:
    Assuming validation by the jury, what other challenges do you foresee in large-scale adoption of this technology? Would lack of theoretical scientific explanation be one of them?

    Answer:
    We do not believe that a lack of a theoretical explanation will delay commercialization. Ultimately it will come down to the willingness of various industries to adopt the technology, commercial negotiations and tooling times for production.
  41.  
    Question:
    "WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE YOUR DISCOVERY TO THE WORLD ? "

    Answer:
    Steorn is a commercial organization and will obviously look for license fees on the commercial use of our technology in first world consumer applications. We have already stated that we will provide the technology royalty free for humanitarian purposes.
  42.  
    Question:
    Could you invite the most ardent skeptic from this forum over to your offices in Dublin and get them to check it out and report back here what they found? (That is, if the forum hasn't completely degenerated by then).

    Answer:
    Again I have to stress that ultimately the validation must be done by people qualified to give judgment. This is the only way that the validation has any real credibility. Several people from the forum have applied to take part in testing and many of these are qualified and their details will go into the short listing process.
  43.  
    Question:
    What do you plan to do to prevent "free energy" from being used to power the machinery young women die operating in Chinese or Sri Lankan factories sub-contracted by multi-national corporations to make the gadgets that will have one of your batteries in them?

    Answer:
    It is our intention to ensure that our license agreements include a requirement for ethical manufacturing standards.
  44.  
    Question:
    In this forum and in interviews, when this subject comes up you seem unconcerned about anything unfortunate happening to you or Steorn. I believe you have said something like "nothing like that is going to happen in this case." What is it that gives you that certainty?

    Answer:
    We do not believe that there is a ‘conspiracy’ theory operating to prevent technologies like this getting into the consumer world. We are of course taking normal business precautions with respect to the protection of the technology.
  45.  
    Question:
    Could we have a better timeline of your company. From ebusiness - antifraud - energy research dev company. Its a bit confusing

    Answer:
    We started the company in 2000 and worked managing the development of ecommerce sites until 2001 (when the market dried up). In 2001 we started developing anti-counterfeit technologies on behalf of a partner company and providing forensic services to law enforcement agencies. The energy project came from the development of an anti-fraud technology three years ago.
    • CommentAuthorSteorn
    • CommentTime2 hours ago
     
    Question:
    You say you stumbled upon the principle of this device, can you talk more about that?

    Answer:
    We were working on a security system for ATM monitoring, which involved real time verification of ATM cards coupled with an environmental visual capture facility. The latter required numerous camera combinations and we were investigating way of independently powering these (motivations were convenience for individual camera installations (we don’t like cables!) and security of the system). One of the options we examined was small scale wind generators. Of course been the technologists that we are we had to break open the wind generators and started playing around with them, looking at, (amongst other things), the positioning of the magnets and testing the outputs – one of these configurations produced some strange results… And here we are today!
  46.  
    Question:
    How was it you discovered, I guess, that the device was self powered, or just kept going?

    Answer:
    No - we where measuring net rotation energy (static tests with torque sensors and angle encoders) when we started to notice that certain configurations gave calculated results greater than 100% around a closed loop.

    This is really where this project started, obviously we have significantly advanced the technology with these tests three years ago.
  1.  
    Question:
    Clearly, you wouldn't trust yourselves that this thing was real, so I assume you brought in scientists from the local universities or from Europe.

    Answer:
    We spent a long time checking ourselves prior to approaching any third party, the technology has been reviewed and tested not only by universities but also third party engineering companies.
  2.  
    Question:
    What were their qualifications and are they convinced the device is for real?

    Answer:
    Academics with a specialty in Thermodynamics and Magnetics. The tests and analysis performed ultimately take the form of reports, these reports are conculsive with respect to our claim.

FAQ - The Jury Process

  1.  
    Folks,

    Just to let you know that we have mailed everyone who applied to involve themselves in the testing of our technology. We have requested CV's from applicants to aid us in selecting the most qualified. Only CV's received before midnight on 5th October 2006 will be considered for inclusion in the Jury.

    Thanks,

    The Steorn Team
  2.  
    Question:
    The scientists that are chosen, are they going to be given a set of instructions on how to build the device so they can go off into a corner and build it from scratch?

    Answer:
    The simple answer is yet, if that is what they want to do. I suspect that they will have it built by third parties, but it is thier call.
  3.  
    Question:
    Are there going to be ANY restrictions? Could they publish a webcam of them building it, with an open blog on the steps, and on what they are doing?

    Answer:
    Yes there are some simple restrictions, for example the testing will be conducted in three phases as outlined on our main site. Also during the testing process for each phase the details will be kept confidential (but they must be released at the end of the process). There will be no webcams, however the process will be filmed for release after validation.
  4.  
    Question:
    What kind of updates can we expect to see once the validation process is underway?

    Answer:
    We will advise of the start of each phase and publish the results at the end of each phase. We have no plans (at the moment) to provide updates during the process itself - we will discuss this with the Jury members to see what (if anything) works in this respect.
  5.  
    Question:
    Are there any concerns of scientist not coming forward in favor of the devices operation?

    Answer:
    We are confident that the tests will prove our claims, whatever is reported will be published (this will be a contractual obligation between Steorn and the Jury members).
  6.  
    Question:
    Are there any legal documentation giving Steorn the right to disclose all details of the results of this validation process including names of the scientist, their credentials, and organizations they work for?

    Answer:
    A contract will exist between Steorn and the Jury members that ensures disclosure at the end of each phase of the process.
  7.  
    Question:
    With whom do you hope that your ‘jury’ will provide validation? (Speaking as an experimental nuclear physicist, I don’t find it an acceptable way to prove your claims. A quick survey of my peers suggests that this is a widely held belief among scientists)

    Answer:
    The reports of the Jury will be placed in the public domain, our purpose in doing this is to prove to the public that our technology does work. I understand your comments about the method that we are using, however we could see no other route (no paper would ever be published for peer review)
  8.  
    Question:
    Will the full results of the testing be provided if positive assessment? if negative?

    Answer:
    The full results will be published regardless of the outcome.
  9.  
    Question:
    How can we trust a panel of scientists to be independent if you select the said panel?

    Answer:
    The only way that the verdict can be judged is based upon the qualifications and experience of the Jury. These details will also be published with the results.
  10.  
    Question:
    What will you do if a couple of the scientists say "We need five years"?

    Answer:
    It is up to the Jury to decide the length of the tests, however you should remember that the testing is split across three phases.
  11.  
    Question:
    Without identifying them, could you post the initial impressions of the 12 to your device. I know it doesn't prove much, though I'm sure a negative impression would at least be believed!

    Answer:
    Once the Jury has been selected we will advise on their overall qualification and experience. However no other details will be made public until the testing is complete.
  12.  
    Question:
    If the 12 scientists find in one week that the device is a dud will you see another group to revalidate, or will you trust this 12?

    Answer:
    No, the 12 selected scientists will test the technology to conclusion, even if this takes only a week.
  13.  
    Question:
    Will the scientists you use be publishing or is this a business to business employment?

    Answer:
    The results will be published.
  14.  
    Question:
    What specific requirements will you be requiring for the scientists to achieve, or are you going to leave those determinations up to them? ie load vs scale; possible generator speeds, determine possible amount of power one of these can generate.. Or are you just going to make them prove that its getting the energy from nowhere?

    Answer:
    We are placing no requirement on the tests that the scientists are conducting (other than the order of the three phases of testing and the fact that the results must be published).
  15.  
    Question:
    Why can the institutes / names of scientists that did initial tests not be released? Is that a condition of Steorn or of them?

    Answer:
    Prior to any testing done on the technology a mutual NDA was put in place. This NDA requires both the consent of the company and the third party for any details to be released.


energy