Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012
     
    This thread is to collect questions for Ian MacDonald, the Jury chairman, who has offered to respond next Friday. I will let him know that there is no need to do this as an event - he could just look at this thread as and when he has time.

    It would be useful if we could stay on topic in this particular instance, since it will be hard for him to figure out the usual Moletrap chatter.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012 edited
     
    I'd like to know if he has ever had contact or discussions or communications with any of the investors. Whether he has or not, what is his opinion about why they have remained silent and never have participated in on line discussions about Steorn or asked questions at Steorn demonstrations?

    Has he ever seen a device, provided by Steorn or a related third party like ClaNZer, which purported to show Steorn's effect? And was he ever given the opportunity to test or handle a device or witness a test of a device? Did the jury request to see and/or test a device and what was the response from Steorn?

    @Angus: if these get too repetitious, you may have to collate them for Ian.
  1.  
    Posted By: joshsThat's great. I would like to know / confirm:
    1. The text of the jury report to Steorn that Steorn refused to publish.
    2. Did Steorn actively threaten legal action should the anyone reveal the contents of that report?
    3. Did Steorn ever present a device that Steorn claimed demonstrated their claims?
    3.a. If they did, what was the criteria Steorn used to show the alleged energy creation?
    3.b. Did Steorn allege their experiment demonstrated energy creation against objections of the jury?
    4. What did the jury request from Steorn, and what did Steorn provide / how did Steorn react in response to those requests? Were Steorn ever cooperative?
    4. Did Steorn ever reveal the names of any of the supposed eight who Steorn claimed had validated their claims prior to 8/18/2006?

    +1
    • CommentAuthorthehard
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012
     
    Perhaps this one is too personal, more about opinions than raw data, but here is the question anyway:

    Did you think at that moment that the device would never work? And if so, do you think people at Steorn were self dellusional or aware of that possibility?
  2.  
    A copy of mine from the other thread:

    Posted By: PuzzledOfAkalla

    - did Steorn pack the jury with people likely to be believers, or was the selection acceptably unbiased?
    - was the selection done by Steorn alone, or did they have external help?
    - were jury members individually interviewed to assess suitability, and/or what other criteria seemed to be assessed?
    - did the jury ever meet physically, or was communication electronic?
    - was the jury foreman appointed by Steorn or elected internally by the jury?
    - did Steorn ever make any of their inventions available for assessment?
    - did Steorn ever make any more detailed documentation available to the jury than eventually found its way into the public domain?
    - did members of the jury get to meet Sean and other Steorn luminaries in person?
    - were Steorn proactive in providing anything at all?
    - did Steorn ever show anything which caused the jury to think "oooh, that's interesting", no matter how transiently?
    - when the jury ceased work, was that through readily achieved unanimity, or were some members saying "hang on, let's give 'em another six months?"
    - did Steorn attempt to persuade the jury to reverse the decision to cease work, and if so how?
  3.  
    - how did you first become aware of the Steorn claims, and what made you think they were to any extent credible?
    - why did you decide to apply to be on the jury?
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012
     
    Which pubs did you visit?
  4.  
    Did the jury get to examine the device whose bearings overheated in such an infamous manner? What did they conclude from it, if so?

    edit to add:

    Ditto for the "test rig" which Sean had with him at the first Kinetica event.
  5.  
    Was Eric Ash a jury member and willing to be identified as such?
    Whether or not, did the jury discuss his publicly available remarks on the Steorn permanent-magnet motor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6283374.stm) and his assessment that it was a "a case of prolonged self deception"?
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012 edited
     
    Did Dr MacDonald witness any activity by a 'documentary' team?
  6.  
    So this does not become the 95 Thesis nailed to Dr. MacDonald's door I suggest this influence the questions. It is the response I received three years ago from one of the jurors:

    "I was on the jury, to be sure, but we were not shown
    > anything dynamic to examine. The only systems we saw were a couple of
    > quasi-static test set-ups and these did not show convincing evidence of net
    > energy generation. After two years involvement and numerous extensions
    > given to Steorn, we finally called it a wrap. It is curious that Steorn is
    > still trying to market this idea. I would think that if they had anything
    > definitive, it would have been shown to us."
    •  
      CommentAuthorping1400
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012
     
    Have jury members been into comparable evaluations of OU technology before?
  7.  
    I now understand that it is not necessary to put aside time for an interview, but that the idea was simply for me to engage in a forum discussion. That is more convenient for me and I am quite happy to do it while there are still questions I can respond to.

    First let me state that my own interest in this is to get some insight into the odd behaviour of Steorn. I understand that a number of people posting here have considerable experience of “free energy” enterprises.

    To begin with Maryyugo - I have had no contact with any of Steorn's investors, nor did any of the jury as far as I know. However we were given to understand that several of Steorn's employees were the children of some of the investors - these we met but I cannot say we got any particular insight into the investors.

    Some devices were demonstrated at the Dublin meetings, but did not work. In fact during the first meeting the jury waited several days on the promise of a better-built version of the first magnet motor which was to be flown in from a specialist partner constructing it in Holland. It never arrived.

    Steorn seemed initially to think that the jury members should go out and construct their own devices in order to provide independent proof that Steorn's concept was valid. The jury made the demonstration of a working device by Steorn a required first step before they would do anything else. Steorn accepted this. The criteria we developed for "working" were much discussed among the jury and I think they were good ones in the end. The fact that they were never met was the reason why the jury eventually stopped work.
  8.  
    To answer bloodymedia, or joshs:

    There was no final report other than the jury's public statement.

    Steorn did demonstrate one working device that they claimed created energy, but the jury disagreed that there was reliable evidence. The device was later shown advertised by Steorn as a product for "measuring magnetic interactions".
    The evidence for creation of energy was a calculated excess of net torque as the device was stepped around a cycle. It was not a continuous-motion motor and was only intended to demonstrate the magnet ideas that Steorn were advancing. The jury felt that the evidence was below experimental noise levels.


    I would say that Steorn were remarkably co-operative. They acceded to readily enough to the criteria set by the jury. One thing did puzzle me, however. While it was clear at the first meeting that they were unable to demonstrate a working device tot the jury, they nevertheless attempted to show one within months in London at the Kinetica museum. There had been no mention made of any such plan to the jury. Given that the idea of the jury was to validate the device, this seemed very strange.
  9.  
    Posted By: Ian MacDonaldWhile it was clear at the first meeting that they were unable to demonstrate a working device tot the jury, they nevertheless attempted to show one within months in London at the Kinetica museum. There had been no mention made of any such plan to the jury. Given that the idea of the jury was to validate the device, this seemed very strange.


    Well, they were consistent - the Kinetica one didn't work either.

    Do you think they were suffering from some kind of delusion? Nothing they ever did in the three iterations of Orbo worked - not the permanent magnet one, not the one shown later at Waterways (that required batteries) nor the solid state version that Phil Watson tested for the better part of a year. Yet, they made bombastic claims as "always proven to work." Not one of the developers in their various clubs ever succeeded in replication and a great deal of time and money was spent collectively to attempt to do so.
    •  
      CommentAuthorping1400
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012
     
    Good question. When asked now, would the jury agree Steorn were suffering delusion, or that it was more like a smart hoax where acting delusion is a way to get away with it?
  10.  
    Also, when the jury announced the conclusion of work the date was mistakenly said to be January when in fact it was June (the actual date of the announcement). Sean said before the date was corrected that Steorn had found the problem immediately after the jury disbanded that precluded the jury from seeing a working device. How is that this was possible? When did the jury actually inform Steorn that they had concluded convening? And was that date different than the one of the announcement of June?
  11.  
    Posted By: Ian MacDonaldIt was not a continuous-motion motor and was only intended to demonstrate the magnet ideas that Steorn were advancing. The jury felt that the evidence was below experimental noise levels.



    Was it this device?
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2012
     
    Or maybe this one?

  12.  
    To answer thehard: I don't believe I ever thought that Steorn had a working perpetual motion machine. My interest was in what it was they did have that would generate enough interest to sponsor the level of activity they were showing, i.e. the advertisement in the Economist, the expense of assembling the jury, the cost of running a small company etc. That said, I tried to maintain a rigorously open mind on the issue.

    I simply can't assess the motivation. My guess would be that some were deluded by others, but I have no way of knowing whom by who.