# Steorn Orbo: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?



## efm (18 Aug 2006)

I noted from this mornings Irish Independent that an Irish company Steorn has claimed that it has "*developed a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy." *http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx

I had a quick look at this company's website this morning and my feeling is that this is nothing but a PR stunt. 

Their claims that the technology has been verified but only "off the record" are suspect to say the least and the fact that they are promoting this product through The Economist magazine seems to me that they are trying to up their profile either prior to a financing or a take over deal.

Anyone else on AAM feel as sceptical as I about this (I know there are a number of sceptics here  ) ?

Or have they proven what a good PR stunt it is by atracting the media attention and by me posting here discussing a company I knew nothing about yesterday ?

Any thoughts?


----------



## shnaek (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Has to be a stunt. If it were real the oil companies would have bought the patent and buried it.


----------



## aonfocaleile (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

[broken link removed]

If its legitimate, surely the new Energy Research council will be interested in exploring it...


----------



## Betsy Og (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

When are we going to see nuclear fusion at room temperature??, or the separation of water into hydrogen & oxygen??

On a more realistic note, with wind, solar, wave & bio-fuels I find it hard to get panicked about the energy "crisis"


----------



## Howitzer (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

No way is this a scam. You just have to check out their forum to see the feverish activity that this has generated amonst the scientific community. 

[broken link removed]


----------



## ney001 (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Ha Ha too much reading for me - can you give me a summary of discussions


----------



## Sherman (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Why advertise for scientists in a business magazine rather than in a scientific publication? You can't defy the laws of physics!


----------



## MugsGame (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Sure you can, people have been building perpetual motion machines like this for centuries.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

They would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling physicists.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



Betsy Og said:


> or the separation of water into hydrogen & oxygen??


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis#Electrolysis_of_water


----------



## Parker (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Perpetual Motion is not possible.....there are 3 laws governing the abilty for perpetual motion to work....the laws of thermodynamics......1.you dont get something from nothing....2.friction......3.it will stop......any of the previous attempts at perpetual motion have have broken one of these laws , although showcasing the other 2 laws being abided.......for instance....perpetual motion has to "be"....it cant be created.....for isntance a famous perpetual motion machine was a simple wheel in a rig on an axle....it had weighted balls so when it was spun , the momentum of of the balls would pull the wheel around as gravity did its job.......it didnt work and was mocked because......it had to be pushed to start......thats not perpetual motion.......because it was created using a kinetic motion


----------



## ClubMan (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Spoilsport!


----------



## ashambles (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

On the News at One a representative said something along the lines of using magnetic fields and just moving (naturally the interviewer didn't ask what powered this movement) something back to where it started, behind the vagueness and waffle this sounds very much like a dynamo, and is how pretty much all electrical power is generated. 

My guess is they're flogging a mobile phone charger charged by the person's movement, anyway OPEC probably shouldn't panic just yet.


----------



## Parker (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

I know....I wish it could be done aswell.......but what they claim to have created is free energy , from what i understand is that this free energy is taken from the percentage after 100% efficiency.....but they have to create the energy first to surpass the 100% efficiency barrier.....so therefore its not perpetual motion.....BUT......if what they claim is true I cant wait to see the results as anything free is fine by me......


----------



## ClubMan (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

I was just joking - I understand you 100%.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



ashambles said:


> My guess is they're flogging a mobile phone charger charged by the person's movement, anyway OPEC probably shouldn't panic just yet.


Aren't such "kinetic" power sources already very common in, for example, watches?


----------



## MOB (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

The forum on their website leads to all sorts of interesting links.  I am afraid I couldn't readily follow most of the scientific (pseudo scientific?) stuff, but it was still very interesting.  One of the links made (or purported to make)the point that "free" energy was not the same thing as making energy from nothing - giving as an analogy the heat pump, watermill, hydro power etc. - the argument apparently being that there are powerful magnetic fields in the environment (or at least in some sense 'out there' ) if we could but harness them.  

I wish I had the knowledge to dismiss this stuff. (I don't like to dismiss anything from a position of ignorance) but I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to make any sort of informed judgment.  Intuitively, and from a layman's perspective, one feels that there is something rather marvellous about magnetism.   If I place one magnet on top of another, with same poles facing, it will be repulsed.  If I corall the magnets inside a cage (say a few wooden skewers), so that the upper magnet cannot slide away, the upper magnet will happily sit there in mid-air for ever, held up by the other.   I know this isn't motion, but there is still a magnet being held in the air forever, without any apparent expenditure of energy.   I know some scientist will probably tell me that it is no different to a magnet sitting motionless on a table, but intuitively it feels different.  I should have studied harder, so these things wouldn't seem mysterious.

Still it is as good a way as any to waste a half hour.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Their claim to have a > 100% efficient process for energy production is simply rubbish.


----------



## GeneralZod (19 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

This is only going to bring them international derision.

I cringed when I read the reports about an "Irish company" claiming to have a modern version of a perpetual motion machine
based on electromagnetic fields rather than water wheels. 

How can that sort of publicity be good for them?

I'd certainly hope there aren't any venture capitalists out there scientifically ignorant enough to give this the time of day.


----------



## SineWave (20 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

When you cross a magnetic field with a conductor (or vice-versa), you induce a current. The basis of the electric generator.
For many years there has been boffin discussion relating to the earth's magnetic fields and the rotation of the earth. The practical limitations are based around the fact, that a conductor stretched to space would not be able to support it's own weight. The concept is interesting though!


----------



## GeneralZod (20 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



> Steorn is making three claims for its technology:
> 
> The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
> The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
> *There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).*



They don't appear to be claiming that it's an environmental source such as the earth's magnetic field.
If they hinted that it had an environmental source less people would dismiss it out of hand.

Let them hook it up to the national grid and make public their net ESB/energy utility bill. 
They will not do that of course.


----------



## Fintan (20 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

They have been advertising (looking for investors) in the back pages of The Economist for a very long time. 

If it really worked would they actually have to advertise?


----------



## legend99 (22 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

I just wish I had more time to contribute to this discussion but I'm too busy here turning lead that i used to make model soldiers with into gold...


----------



## efm (22 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Well, PR stunt or not is has certainly raised their profile - if you look at their hompeage (and if you believe the figures) a total of 2,266 "scientists" have expressed interest in testing the technology and 26,516 people have expressed an interest in receiving the results.

I would expect all those who supplied an email address to receive an email in the coming weeks outlining all the "other" fabulous products / services that Steorn offer


----------



## Glenbhoy (22 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Why don't we just let the scientists who respond to the challenge either confirm or rebut the claims.  Whilst the laws of physics as we currently understand accept them state the principle of conservation of energy (something i often indulge in), that does not mean that our understanding will not someday change - commonly accepted knowledge has been proven wrong so often that we should never close our minds.


----------



## joe sod (22 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

Its amazing that these claims only come out at a time of very high energy prices. Maybe its just that the media only takes an interest in them at such times. I remember in the early eighties two trinity college physics researchers that they had found away to achieve cold fusion. This generated alot of interest at the time but it was later proved not to be.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



Glenbhoy said:


> Why don't we just let the scientists who respond to the challenge either confirm or rebut the claims.  Whilst the laws of physics as we currently understand accept them state the principle of conservation of energy (something i often indulge in), that does not mean that our understanding will not someday change - commonly accepted knowledge has been proven wrong so often that we should never close our minds.


Fair enough but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this does not seem to be forthcoming so far. In its ongoing absence it's hardly surprising that anybody with their head even mildly screwed on is somewhat skeptical. As has been mentioned elsewhere rather than advertising in a financial rather than scientific journal and soliciting "scientists" to evaluate their vague claims why not just build a sample/prototype, connect the output to the input and voila - infinite energy! For the moment all the _Steorn _claims bring to my mind are recollections of Flann O'Brien's De Selby and his mad rules defying "scientific" experiments.


----------



## legend99 (23 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



joe sod said:


> Its amazing that these claims only come out at a time of very high energy prices. Maybe its just that the media only takes an interest in them at such times. I remember in the early eighties two trinity college physics researchers that they had found away to achieve cold fusion. This generated alot of interest at the time but it was later proved not to be.




http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/3/8 Not Trinity. Utah and Southampton


----------



## Fintan (23 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*

These guys have received a huge amount of press, one comment I saw asked why they didnt hook up the machine to grid and sell electricty back to the network. 

There is also speculation it is marketig ploy for the new x-box?


----------



## sonnyikea (23 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



ClubMan said:


> For the moment all the _Steorn _claims bring to my mind are recollections of Flann O'Brien's De Selby and his mad rules defying "scientific" experiments.


There is one comment on their forums that links the whole thing to an elaborate marketing ploy for the 3rd season of Lost.


----------



## Howitzer (23 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



sonnyikea said:


> There is one comment on their forums that links the whole thing to an elaborate marketing ploy for the 3rd season of Lost.


 
Strangely enough that's exactly what sprung to mind when I saw their demo graphics on RTE news, the one where there are 3 magnets and a ball rotates between them.


----------



## GeneralZod (23 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



Glenbhoy said:


> Whilst the laws of physics as we currently understand accept them state the principle of conservation of energy (something i often indulge in), that does not mean that our understanding will not someday change - commonly accepted knowledge has been proven wrong so often that we should never close our minds.



Physical laws tend to be generalised and refined at the extremes of their domains of application rather 
than thrown out as just plain wrong.

For example nuclear fission apparently breaks conservation of energy until
one generalises the concept of energy with mass-energy equivalence.
This came from relativity which is itself a correction to Newtonian gravitation.

The old theories still work fine within their domain of application. 

E.g. The old definition of energy will do for that branch of Physics called Chemisty  No offence to any Chemists
in the house who don't usually concern themselves with the nucleus.

As SineWave alluded to, the claim to free energy doesn't appear to be operating at any physical extreme 
which makes it doubly suspect because it would be an unprecedently seismic and disturbing shift in the way 
science has advanced up until now. 

So there'll be no burning of Physics books at the end of this


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2006)

*Re: Claims of "Free Energy" - Real or PR stunt ?*



GeneralZod said:


> So there'll be no burning of Physics books at the end of this


Other than to keep us warm when the oil runs out!


----------



## ajapale (22 Dec 2007)

*Steorn Orbo: Anyone know anything about this Dublin Based Company?*

Steorn Orbo: 

Anyone know anything about this Dublin Based Company? who came 10th in the Wired list of vapourware for 2007

*
*


----------



## rmelly (22 Dec 2007)

*Re: Steorn Orbo: Anyone know anything about this Dublin Based Company?*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn


----------



## ajapale (28 Jun 2009)

*Re: Steorn Orbo: Anyone know anything about this Dublin Based Company?*

Update from Bad Science.

[broken link removed]



> 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 [broken link removed]
> R.I.MacDonald
> Chairman, Steorn Jury


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Jun 2009)

According to the [broken link removed], the owner of the company is not put off by this:



> The dream lives on, however, as Steorn prepares to begin licensing its Orbo technology “definitely before the end of the year”, Mr McCarthy said.
> The company is inviting 300 engineering companies to sign a developer licence agreement, giving them free access to the technology. The call represents a final test of the system, according to the company’s website.


----------



## ajapale (30 Jan 2010)

It seem there was some kind of demonstration today and that  Feb 1 is a red letter day when "phase I will be launched". 

from their website:

......Using a "Victorian Science" approach. It is a technology that has been derived phenomologically [_sic_].  So that explains it!



> *What is Orbo technology?*
> 
> Orbo is a technology that creates energy from magnetic interactions. Orbo provides free, clean and constant energy at the point of use.
> Orbo is a platform technology that can be engineered to power anything from a phone, to a fridge to a car.
> ...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Jan 2010)

That is great news! Phenomenological news in fact!

I think that "phenomological" is their own word derived from 

"phenos" the greek for seeming, or appearing, but not real.

So phenomological , must mean "appearing logical, but really illogical" 

At least they have a sense of humour.


Brendan


----------

