These groups will be irrelevant in a few months

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message

News wrote:
"Derek Broughton" wrote in message News wrote:
"CM" wrote in message
A scam is deception for money,
They are not asking for money.
Of course they're not. Con's _never_ ask for money up front - they get you to volunteer it.
They will not accept money even if you offer. I fail to see where the scam is, if there is one.
You can't possibly know that.

They have openly said they will not accept money.

There _is_ either a scam, a hoax,

I can't see one. Please point out where.

or complete scientific stupidity, because it is provably not possible to do what they claim.

The only stupidity is what you write. No one has tested it and it is being tested over the next 6 months. We shall see. Your rambling, which is based on the laws of physics, is just that.,.ramblings. The stupidity is anyone who thinks that these man-made laws explain all about matter and sundry. They may have tapped into something outside of current knowledge. The history of these laws is one of being added to or amended as knowledge is increased.

If these people believe they have something as big as this and they don't need external money to prove it, why should they want money before the full patent is issued?
You _do_ know that they won't get a patent for it either...

If it does what they say it does they get a patent.

They would be fools to unnecessarily get others in at such an early stage.
Of course they would - my point precisely. They'll get others "in" only after they've adequately set up the con.

I can't see the con. Please point it out? And don't babble about a con you might "think" is there with no proof. A panel of Scientists will verify the claims. If they conclude it doesn't work then it disappears into thin air and no one will offer money at all.

If it does do what they say then they get the lot. Once proven then they strike deals with companies who will make the motor.
I.e., _scam_.

Please point it out. Assertion not proof.

They say they have something and can replicate it.
Pons & Fleishcmann said the same.

They did. These have a panel of Scientists to prove it does or doesn't before having a media splash. Ponds and Fleishman never.

They openly say they have a team of independent scientific testers to verify their claims and will not accept any money even of you offer.
"They openly say". We have _their_ (and your) word for it. That's NOT independent.

All the Scientists ARE independent. The calibre and who they are we will get to know.

Funny how you started posting under what looked like a real name, but now that there's a bit of heat you've turned anonymous.
I have been News, and only News, for about 8 or 9 years or so. Do a Google.
OK, so perhaps you're not "Dan Reyes"

Never heard of him until this thread.

- however, googling is never going to prove that to me, any more than you or Dan are going to "prove" this isn't a scam by quoting Steorns press-releases and websites.

I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear scam and I will be convinced. If you imagine one then in your mind there is a scam. I'll wait until April.

"CM" wrote in message

If the gizmo works, is that overwhelming evidence?
If it works by trickery (and there are many ways to pull off the deception) that is hardly "overwhelming evidence".

Not over many months with a team of reputed scientists there is not.

News wrote:

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message News wrote:
They will not accept money even if you offer. I fail to see where the scam is, if there is one.
You can't possibly know that.
They have openly said they will not accept money.

Do you get scammed often? You're the sort of victim cons look for. Cons will _always_ tell you they don't want your money - right up to the point where you're ripe for the picking. Believing that they won't take your money because _they_ tell you they won't is just making it easy.

There _is_ either a scam, a hoax,
I can't see one. Please point out where.

Claiming an overunity device is _by definition_ one or the other. Insisting that it can't be because they tell you it can't is terribly naive.

or complete scientific stupidity, because it is provably not possible to do what they claim.
The only stupidity is what you write.

No. I'm trying to help you here, but you insist on being insulting. On your own head be it.

No one has tested it and it is being tested over the next 6 months. We shall see. Your rambling, which is based on the laws of physics, is just that.,.ramblings.

It's based on the LAWS of physics. If you can't get that through your head, there's no point in further argument, except:

The history of these laws is one of being added to or amended as knowledge is increased.

Please cite _one_ instance where an accidental discovery led to a new source of power. It hasn't happened since fire - and one can argue that even proto-humans were already aware of fire, just not what they could do with it, or how to start it at will.

If it does what they say it does they get a patent.

No, it doesn't. It would require changing the law in the US and other countries, because the patent laws now _specifically_ exclude perpetual motion devices.

They did. These have a panel of Scientists to prove it does or doesn't before having a media splash.

In the first place, how do you figure that? They have already made the media splash. In the second, name one of these Scientists. They "freely" assert that every scientist (really, it doesn't need to be capitalized) who has agreed they have something will only do it "off the record". Extremely suspicious.

All the Scientists ARE independent. The calibre and who they are we will get to know.

LOL.

I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear scam and I will be convinced. If you imagine one then in your mind there is a scam. I'll wait until April.

<plonk> -- derek

"Terryc" wrote in message

Dan Reyes wrote:
By the way, Steorn is hosting a party in Dublin on Monday November 28 at 8pm. The venue hasn't been chosen, but it will be at a hotel in the centre of the city.
lol, do you have shares, or are you an "employee"? Seems it isn't only women that will let themselves be screwed for a cheap drink.
What I want to see is a paper clearly outlining how the device works,i.e "the science (new or old)" behind the device.

In April I believe. That much has been said.

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:33:34 -0400 Derek Broughton wrote:
You can't possibly know that. There _is_ either a scam, a hoax, or complete scientific stupidity, because it is provably not possible to do what they claim.
No it is not. What they claim is contrary to currently accepted theory but nothing is provably impossible. Personally I think it is likely to be a hoax but I'd love to be proved wrong.
The modern ignorance of science is astounding. Yes, it is provable.

See "Thermodynamics, Laws of". -- derek

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:46:29 -0400 Derek Broughton wrote:

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:33:34 -0400 Derek Broughton wrote:
You can't possibly know that. There _is_ either a scam, a hoax, or complete scientific stupidity, because it is provably not possible to do what they claim.
No it is not. What they claim is contrary to currently accepted theory but nothing is provably impossible. Personally I think it is likely to be a hoax but I'd love to be proved wrong.
The modern ignorance of science is astounding. Yes, it is provable.

Yes it is astounding - that there are people who believe that there is such a thing as a scientific proof. Any real scientist knows that all there are are hypotheses which after sufficient testing are regarded as theories and which are ready to be tossed out at as soon as a verifiable observation falsifies them.

See "Thermodynamics, Laws of".

A well established theory with no known falsifications. It is not and cannot be proven. Remember Newton's laws of motion stood for 400 years before the odd little details that falsified them came to light (pun intended).
-- C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see | http://www.sohara.org/

Derek Broughton wrote:

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: No it is not. What they claim is contrary to currently accepted theory but nothing is provably impossible.
The modern ignorance of science is astounding. Yes, it is provable. See "Thermodynamics, Laws of".

There is the point that you can't prove a negative. It's up to those making the claim to prove it and this has not yet been done.
That said, over thousands of years and uncounted inventors, not one person has demonstrated a device that is contrary to the currently accepted theories of physics. An over unity (or perpetual motion) device is the closest thing to an impossibility as we've got in our universe.
Anthony

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Derek Broughton wrote: Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: No it is not. What they claim is contrary to currently accepted theory but nothing is provably impossible.
The modern ignorance of science is astounding. Yes, it is provable. See "Thermodynamics, Laws of".
There is the point that you can't prove a negative. It's up to those making the claim to prove it and this has not yet been done.

You don't need to prove a negative. Use of the first & second laws of Thermodynamics is sufficient to prove that it can't work without an energy input from _somewhere_.
-- derek

Hogwash. Our scientific system is based on these principles.
With that approach nobody can prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4, either.
Certain laws or rules are set down as standards and never provable. The rest of science is built on these "standards" and proven aginst them as supporting or not.
"Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote in message

Yes it is astounding - that there are people who believe that there is such a thing as a scientific proof. Any real scientist knows that all there are are hypotheses which after sufficient testing are regarded as theories and which are ready to be tossed out at as soon as a verifiable observation falsifies them.
See "Thermodynamics, Laws of".
A well established theory with no known falsifications. It is not and cannot be proven. Remember Newton's laws of motion stood for 400 years before the odd little details that falsified them came to light (pun intended).

News wrote:

I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear scam and I will be convinced. If you imagine one then in your mind there is a scam. I'll wait until April.

April 1st would be my bet.

News wrote:

They have openly said they will not accept money.

this sounds like it will make an interesting movie
mk5000
"The dresses I wore in Idlewild are the most glamorous things you've ever seen"--Paula Patton

"Marcus Red" wrote in message

News wrote:
I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear scam and I will be convinced. If you imagine one then in your mind there is a scam. I'll wait until April.
April 1st would be my bet.

Could be, but as it stands this is no scam. Please point where it is. I am wanting to see it.

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

A well established theory with no known falsifications. It is not and cannot be proven. Remember Newton's laws of motion stood for 400 years before the odd little details that falsified them came to light (pun intended).
It is sufficient to point out that Newton's Laws of motion are _still_ true.

His _theories_ didn't adequately answer all the problems presented in a relativistic universe, but the Laws have not been falsified. -- derek

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:30:06 -0400 Derek Broughton wrote:

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
A well established theory with no known falsifications. It is not and cannot be proven. Remember Newton's laws of motion stood for 400 years before the odd little details that falsified them came to light (pun intended).
It is sufficient to point out that Newton's Laws of motion are _still_ true. His _theories_ didn't adequately answer all the problems presented in a relativistic universe, but the Laws have not been falsified.

They have been falsified, in this rather precise sense. The universe does not behave as predicted by Newton's laws of motion.
The relativistic theories do provide a better match to the behaviour of the universe than Newton's laws, however both fail badly when modelling the behaviour of the universe on very small scales where only quantum mechanics gives answers that correspond closely to reality.
it seems to be that you are thinking that I meant falsified to imply some logical inconsistency rather than a failure to model the universe accurately.
I stand by what I said, and will go further to point out that the second law of thermodynamics is one of the very few scientific theories with no known falsifications. Another one is that the universe is logically consistent - it might not be. I would be very surprised if either of these were to be falsified but I do not make the mistake of considering it impossible.
-- C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see | http://www.sohara.org/

"News" wrote in message

"puggy" wrote in message
one thing i did notice most of all is that you defected my original question, would they come up to belfast and test the machine in a location of my choosing, to verify this machine works?
Why should they? They are having a team of people test it in their place. What does Belfast have to offer them?

queens universities Electrical and Electronic engineering department,in the ashby building, which is one of the leading EE departments in the world.
But the department there would quickly find out it's a hoax so there's no chance it would happen!