Steorn's "Free Energy" Jury Comes Back To Bite Them 213
chiark writes "Remember Steorn? Free energy for all, coming soon, and a gauntleted slap in the face to the physics establishment: 'come be our jury, and prove us right or wrong.' Well, 2 years later, the jury's verdict is in, and it's not the validation Steorn was hoping for: '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.' Steorn had the choice to either accept this and move on, or attempt to rebut. Guess which approach they took?"
Re:Fools (Score:3, Informative)
If you believe in zero viscosity (Score:1, Informative)
You believe in perpetual motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI [youtube.com]
Of course, one still can't extract useful energy from such a system. But as a superfluid, as long as the temperature and pressure were maintained, a superfluid fountain would never stop flowing. I think that counts as "perpetual motion". And for those who say one must expend energy to cool a local environment down to create superfluidity, ask yourselves: are there places in the universe where such conditions could exist naturally? As the universe cools over time, should one expect such conditions to become more widespread? Because if so, then what you're really saying is such conditions need not be artificially created and therefor it is a "natural" effect. Weird stuff.
None of which gives us so-called "Free Energy".
Re:I'm guessing (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't look like it. On the page linked to by the summary, the cranks thank the judges profusely, say they understand the judges' frustration, and note that they have always said that there are still bugs in the process. They very carefully avoid actually stating what the judges' verdict was.
In Finland (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't bash the jury. (Score:1, Informative)
Er, he said that being willing to test new ideas scientifically makes one a scientist. The implication is that this is a sufficient condition for being a scientist, rather than the sufficient condition for being an idiot.
It is not a necessary condition for being a scientist -- not all new ideas need (or can) be tested, so frankly, that proposition is laughable. Please, quit being retarded.
Re:If you believe in zero viscosity (Score:2, Informative)