irish free energy device

[gezgin]

today i read about irish (steorn)free energy device ,and waiting other scientists investigation results..

http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx

Steorn: inventors of infinite energy, destroyers of laws of thermodynamics?
Posted Aug 18th 2006 11:48AM by Ryan Block

We're sure most of you are well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the second law, which states that putting energy into a system will always result in a loss in potential output -- these are the reasons why everybody buys gas, why we pay for electricity, and in many ways why the world economy is shaped the way it is. Which is why whenever someone comes along and says they've developed a technology that undermines hundreds of years of scientific study with the ability to create boundless amounts of free energy with no emissions, well, you have to imagine we'd cry snake oil -- but it would seem Steorn, claimers of such an absurdity, has already launched a PR campaign to circumvent naysayers such as ourselves. In fact, the Irish tech company issued an ad in The Economist announcing a challenge to 12 of the worlds' finest scientists -- to be chosen by them (hey, is Hwang Woo-suk available?) -- to step forward and disprove their infinite clean energy technology. And once their technology isn't disproved -- and they obviously believe that it won't be disproved -- they'll begin licensing it to the world's energy companies (and charitably freely licensing it for rural water purification and electricity generation). If it's the real deal then after all the congratulations are all over and we've reevaluated the fundamental underpinnings of physics as we know it, perhaps all humanity's energy ailments are finally going to come to a close. But the chances it could be a large PR hoax toying with our desperate need to revamp our global energy situation? Well, let's just hope Steorn proves us all wrong and changes science forever.

[Clarky]

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).

wayhay! atlast people are getting it right and saying COP instead of efficiencey

[Tzigone]

Will they narrow it down to 12 people - you know that'll have someone screaming "bias" no matter which 12 they choose or what method they use to choose.

How long will that take? How long will the validation procedure take? How will the results be made public? I assume the identities and credentials of those on the "jury" will be made public?

I also wonder what'll happen if they don't all agree, especially if it's evenly split.

[mark australia]

They say it will take several months to test the results. I smell scam. Also they made comment no one committed to paper before...if you pay a professional scientist or researcher they always produce a report.
Mark

[hartiberlin]

Here is their patent:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2006035419&F=0&QPN=WO2006035419

Makes sense to me, slide the magnets past the shield,
as the next magnets are also attracted to the shield, it is
probably pretty easy to move the shield left and right.

But, if you need less energy to move the shield or the magnet base carrier
and have an output coil be induced output energy in it,this is still a question..