top

How to Test a Free Energy Device

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Skeptics, sceptics, and Cynics Goto page Previous  1, 2   Page 2 of 2

Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:45 pm PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

I mean its over because that's all we'll ever hear from steorn on the subject - unless they end up in the dock of course.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:42 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

Quote:
I mean its over because that's all we'll ever hear from steorn on the subject - unless they end up in the dock of course.


Well... most of the other Free Energy scams/delusions are still going strong and snaring investors. I'm not sure why Steorn should be an exception except that it asked for and got more scrutiny from real engineers and scientists-- a big error in strategy if it was a deliberate scam.

Sometimes a little historical perspective on the claims is fascinating. Sorry for the cross posting but I can't post on Steorn's forum (banned) and Steorntracker's comments section, though welcome and useful, aren't an ideal forum!

Here are some fascinating things Crank had to say following a visit to Steorn December 2006:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=29503

Condensed, apparently from this:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=29513&page=1#Item_0

(Edit-- another link added) And from an earlier Crank visit (November 2006):
http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=26243

A good thing about the Internet-- it hardly ever forgets. And even then, there's the "way back machine" : http://www.archive.org/index.php

One has to ask what Crank asked for (2 items) to convince her that Orbo technology was real and why her thinking about it doesn't seem to have changed since despite all the disasters.

And if Crank has information about university reviewers who gave thumbs up and jury members, IMHO, it's time for her to squawk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:25 pm PostPost subject:
RunningBare
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 87

Reply with quote

Quote:

And if Crank has information about university reviewers who gave thumbs up and jury members, IMHO, it's time for her to squawk!


Where do you get this stuff from mary?
crank has never been a believer as far as I know, she has always chosen the fence position.
_________________
If it sounds too good to be true...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:49 pm PostPost subject:
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

Hi RB,

Where do I get what stuff? Please follow the three links I provided-- there's a lot of interesting information there.

Let's review a bit. Magnatrix banned me from the Steorn Forum after I pointed out that it is neither difficult nor time consuming to test Steorn's claims. That is still true whether Magnatrix and Crank allow it to be posted or not! Testing the outrageously huge claims made by Sean at various times requires no jury, no developer's forum, no delays. It can be done in less than a week by a few reasonably capable people. Nor would that simple process endanger Steorn's trade secrets-- the device could remain a "black box". Knowing the mechanism is completely unnecessary to evaluating overunity. So basically, their entire development and validation plan is based on nonsense and/or lies. What the heck they're doing in their offices and labs all this time is hard to figure out but so far, it's been about as productive as mental masturbation.

I don't know and couldn't care less whether Crank is a believer or not. I do object to things she does. First, she clearly does not have the knowledge or competence to moderate a forum about issues as technical as those discussed on the Steorn forum.

Second, Crank claims to have information which, properly pursued, could crack the whole "mystery" of what exactly Steorn is doing wide open. She said she knew who two of the accepted jury members were. She said she knew which company Steorn had contracted with to build devices. She said she knew who some of the university types were who had signed off on the "anomaly" (but who, for totally unfathomable reasons, would not admit this to anyone-- like really? someone believes that?).

Yet, a month after the Kinetica farce, which wasted thousands of professional hours and dollars in travel costs, Crank stubbornly refuses to pursue any of the obvious leads she said she had. And note: NONE of that information could be covered by any reasonable NDA's nor would anything she might learn by talking to the jury members, manufacturer, and university types in any way reveal trade secrets. What it could (not necessarily would) reveal is that Steorn are deluded or crooked and have been lying to everyone. Yet, Crank refuses to shed any light on anything reasonable and tangible, preferring instead to make tangential and irrelevent answers to direct reasonable questions. But hey, she likes mysteries! That is, in my view, unconscionable and grossly inconsiderate of others.

The only consolation is that the more time passes, the fewer people will waste time and energy paying any attention to Steorn, except, I hope, courts and investigators for the government and for the investors. Oh... and those of us who wonder how people ever manage to get sucked into these weird things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:03 am PostPost subject:
exco
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 190

Reply with quote

It's becoming more and more obvious to all except those that will not see, that there IS no jury. If Crank says there is one, I believe she is deluding herself.

Fine! Everypne needs a hobby I suppose, and self-delusion is as good as many. But if she wishes anyone else to believe it, then evidence is clearly needed.

I therefore challenge her to put up or shut up about the jury. Lets see your evidence or lets hear no more about it please. Why not name names?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Skeptics, sceptics, and Cynics
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum