Talk:Steorn/Archive 1

message: I don't think it has anything to do with XBox at all. It is false informtion regarding breaking the laws of Thermodynamics. I suspect it is a way to harvest email addresses or try and remove investors from thier money. - Archeus 194.46.236.89 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sent a request to BBC News to look into this story, as I don't trust the credulous American press to look through the right end of a microscope, let alone evaluate press releases about seemingly impossible physics feats. (These are the same folks that presented a blob of chocolate that at best resembles a bird as a miraculous mini-statue of the Virgin Mary.) I have no idea how likely BBC is to pick up on this request, but it is in their neck of the woods, so to speak. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scam 

message: Anyone care to get the image for the infobox of the company's logo.  I really don't know how to go about getting it. Niall123 12:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company logo for Infobox 

message: Steorn.com goes back to 2000. If you go to that web address it now routes you to steorn.net. I was actually able to find details of thier companies address at 2000, but didn't seem any point to add it to the story. --Dark archeus 07:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age? 

message: Does anyone have any technical details?  Has anyone here given them their email? Paul Studier 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the metal disks in the device are intended as flywheels, or homopolar generators, both of which have featured in previous claimed "free energy" devices? -- The Anome 14:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Although it is not entirely clear from the picture, I think it is not a homopolar generator.  It appears that the disks are held by "C" shaped pieces of aluminum with no coils or magnets close enough to do anything, and no wipers to remove the charge.  Therefore, the disks are probably just flywheels. Paul Studier 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical details

message: With all the media attention it has been getting, is it almost worth giving this article a "current event" tag, or do you think that the process will go on for long enough (or not result at all) and this short media attention will just die down... Smartaalec 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Event?

message: I believe this article no longer qualifies as either a "Organization-related" stub or an "Energy" stub and those should be removed. Additionally I think the overwhelming amount of Keeps on the deletion page means it no longer qualifies as a candidate and the box should therefore be removed. Imlepid 05:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we're out of stub territory, so I've removed the tags. (Whether the content is sufficiently broad, accurate, or properly sourced is a different issue.) Only an admin should remove the AfD tag, as part of the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steorn. We'll just have to wait for this to happen. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The deletion process states that the deletion tag remains there for 5 days, and a decision is made at the end - we still have to bare with it for three or four days guys... Smartaalec 10:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, an admin may decide that such an overwhelming "keep" vote would warrant a "speedy keep". But they have to make the call, and I suspect it's usually only done if the nomination was in bad faith. (The improbability of the company's claims, combined with the initial 2 obscure news reports and the potential for a staged commercial promotion, supports a good-faith nomination, regardless of the outcome.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptors/Deletion 

message: Has anyone actually seen this advert in the Economist or know when it is air to run? The only reference I can see to this happening is from Steorn itself. Would like to be sure. --Archeus 10:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Steorn have a link to a PDF of the ad on their website, but as for an actual hard copy of the ad in the economist, no - i haven't seen one. Its certainly an interesting prospect that the ad may have been completely fabricated as well, but for it to get this much attention over an ad that never existed would make the world seem just a bit too gullible in my eyes. Smartaalec 14:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've seen the ad: it's in this month's Economist. -- The Anome 14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on page 5. I have it in front of me. I love this bit in the ad:ImagineA world with an infinte supply of pure energy.Never having to recharge your phone.Never having to refuel your car.Is that the best result they can imagine?  What about not having to pander to the middle east any more? How's about everyones income in the world increasing dramatically as a result of not paying for heat or light or a/c? What about an instant end to global warming? No, no, no, the main thing is that you don't have the inconvenience of having to recharge your mobile phone. Curtains99 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Energy that's "free to create" doesn't automatically lead to "free for everyone." Steorn plans to profit from the technology by licensing it. That said, I think three of the biggest areas of impact of "free energy", if it does indeed work and can be easily engineered to work in different industries, will be end of global warming, interplanetary travel and desalinization of sea-water. --Orangehues 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It will be the end of all three of them?  I'll definitely miss interplanetary travel.  (but seriously, if we'll be able to pull infinite amounts of free energy out of thin air, wouldn't that increase global warming rather than decrease it ;-)
For those of you with a copy of the relevant Economist, could you cite a specific date and/or issue, so we can properly cite it? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's this week's (19-25 August) issue. I've added the date to the reference. Beest 21:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For the sake of redundancies sake, I have verified this. It is just a page or two past the table of contents. Paul Studier 02:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Economist 

message: The section titled "The invention" appears to be an exact copy of a news article from playfuls.com: "Free, Clean Energy: an Elaborate Prank or the Fundamental Breakthrough?", by Dan Nicolae Alexa. (http://www.playfuls.com/news_001959_Free_Clean_Energy_an_Elaborate_Prank_or_the_Fundamental_Breakthrough.html)  I would just blank that section, except that I'm not sure whether the playfuls.com article is the original source; for all I know, playfuls.com got the article from Wikipedia.  But it seems likely that that section of the Wikipedia article is a copyright violation and should be removed. --Elysdir 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to answer the question, the timestamp on Alexa's article is 20 August, 11:44. As this site is registered in Cyprus, and Alexa's name looks Greek, it's not a great stretch to deduce this is GMT+3 time, making it 08:44 UTC. User:69.174.2.88 replaced the contents of "The invention" with Alexa's text 20 August, 18:25 UTC, so it's almost certainly a copyvio. Thanks to Elysdir for catching this and Dark archeus for fixing it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "invention" section copied from news article? 

message: I did a search on that information. There appear to be two companies at the same address. One is "STEORN LIMITED" and the other is "STEORN NOMINEES LIMITED". The latter was registered in 2005 and has filed in 2006. It used to be a scam years ago in Ireland that if the company was in trouble you move all the assets to the sister company and basically you where immune from people getting at the cash. (Worked for a company 20 years ago that did this twice). I don't know if this is still the case though. --Archeus 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  filed accounts 

message: Just a few points:
you can read the forums but there seems to be no way to register and contribute to them indicating perhaps automation or pre-scripted discussions.
I can't find any hard evidence of the advert appearing in the economist and furthermore we can't say how much they paid for it when we can't even be sure it exists, the article should read "the usual rate for such an advert is"
Baxter001 18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The forums can be signed into (and signed up for) using the 'Sign In' link at the top right of the page Steorn forums page.  The advert was published in the current issue of the Economist on a page facing the contents. Sony-youth 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts over major sections of article. 

message: I'd like to add the following news item to References (numbered bullets area) but I don't see the numbered bullets when I try to edit references. (I'm new to wikipedia)
16. 
The above is to be done to add the following sentences in the last para of section "The Invention":
However, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office adds, "A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices."[13] Steorn have claimed to have completely functional model/s to which the probing scientists will have complete access. "They will be given full access to the company's work, will be able to take the technology home to test in their own laboratories, or recreate the process themselves."[16]
--Orangehues 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  See WP:CITE as a starting point to learning how to do this on your own, and welcome. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another important page for understanding this somewhat odd referencing system is Wikipedia:Footnotes (WP:FOOT). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Edits 

message: Here is a copy of the form letter they sent out to Scientists. I'm not overly inclined to respond to it (too much information I don't want to give), but appears they are contacting people.
23 August 2006
Dear Applicant,
Re: The Steorn Challenge
Thank you for expressing an interest in joining the panel of 12 jurors that will be selected to test Steorn’s technology.
Based on the initial registration details that you have provided we would be grateful if you could forward, by return email only, a synopsis of your academic career, including the following details:
Education/ Degrees (Name of University);
Current position (e.g. University/Institute);
Research areas (On whose behalf it was conducted);
Published papers;
Honours/Awards; and
Contact details (e.g. University/Institute department - email address and telephone number).
We will contact you again once we have had an opportunity to review all the synopses that we are expecting to receive over the next few weeks.
Thank you again for your interest.
Yours faithfully,
Sean McCarthy
Please note that we will treat your information under the strictest confidence and that we are bound, in any event, by our obligations under the Data Protection Acts 1988-2003 in respect of same.
--Archeus 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that Steorn is going to select 12 scientists to form an academic 'jury'. It might be more credible if an independent body selected the scientists. It would be more credible still if they published their method and allowed the entire scientific community the chance to try to reproduce their findings. I understand they are citing trade secret concerns for their refusal to follow this route. Curtains99 13:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct - an independent body would have been more reliable. But it's also concievable that a) no one would have taken them seriously to setup an independent body. and b) with such huge capital at stake (entire industries, oil and auto for example, stand to lose if this claim is proven) the selection of an "independent body" itself might have been rigged. --Orangehues 19:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letters sent out. 

message: Steorn → 2006 Steorn advertisment in the Economist – The article has little to do with Steorn as a company.  The article was created in responce to, and is substantially about, the controversy arising from Steorn's advertisment in the Economist magazine seeking a jury of 12 international scientists to judge their claim to have invented "a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy." Sony-youth 22:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It would be odd to have an article about a news event whose subject doesn't have an article, implying a lack of notability." - If doing so would imply a lack of notability then it must already lack notability.  This kind of argument is like one person saying to another in an argument, "I can't agree with you because doing so would imply that I am wrong." It sounds like you are supporting my request to move rationale: that the current article has little to do with Steron as a company, despite bearing the company name and the Wiki company template.  Are there any other examples of a company name being the title of a "flagship" article? Sony-youth 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure.  Suggestons for a better name would be welcome, the "Steorn Device" sounds a little too SciFi - maybe "The Steorn Challange" since that is what they used in their mail-out (see above)?  I don't think its possible to say that the company's history is "tied to the device" though since it was founded in 2000 and has not always been about this device (see the results for steorn.com on the Internet Archive). Sony-youth 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The Steorn Challange" sounds better approve in this instance. :) --Archeus 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Requested move


message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Oppose - Steorn's claim of free energy is far bigger than the ad itself; for most people, the name of the company represents that claim and not the ad. --Orangehues 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments
* It would be odd to have an article about a news event whose subject doesn't have an article, implying a lack of notability. Even if Steorn is eventually best known for this event, and even if it proves to be a hoax, this is what makes it worth including in Wikipedia. (This is perhaps the most attention-getting attempt at demonstrating a free-energy device since Wikipedia became a significant web presence, so it would be natural for this to be sort of a "flagship" article that represents our effort to document this ongoing controversy and its players.) Of course, we still need to work to dig up reliable sources for other information on the company, and attempt to round the article out with a broader view of the subject, not just its notoriety. But that will come in time. This is much too new a situation to expect a complete working set of sources, and it will probably take months (at least) for the scientific testing to be performed (or reported on as not performed). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It would be odd to have an article about a news event whose subject doesn't have an article, implying a lack of notability." - If doing so would imply a lack of notability then it must already lack notability.  This kind of argument is like one person saying to another in an argument, "I can't agree with you because doing so would imply that I am wrong." It sounds like you are supporting my request to move rationale: that the current article has little to do with Steron as a company, despite bearing the company name and the Wiki company template.  Are there any other examples of a company name being the title of a "flagship" article? Sony-youth 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure.  Suggestons for a better name would be welcome, the "Steorn Device" sounds a little too SciFi - maybe "The Steorn Challange" since that is what they used in their mail-out (see above)?  I don't think its possible to say that the company's history is "tied to the device" though since it was founded in 2000 and has not always been about this device (see the results for steorn.com on the Internet Archive). Sony-youth 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The Steorn Challange" sounds better approve in this instance. :) --Archeus 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article devolves into a giant heap of press clippings. Newspapers are not reliable sources for scientific topics. It is of no encyclopedic value, to add more and more press stories, and CEO says this, CEO says that stuff. --Pjacobi 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying; I removed a bunch of references in one of my edits to limit them to one. But this does come under Current Event and it's hardly a scientific topic yet. The science doesn't enter the picture until the "Jury" publishes its findings.--Orangehues 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This is turning into a press release for Steorn. We don't need so much quoted text. people can use links. --Archeus 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article devolves 

message: Steorn → The Steorn Challenge – The article has little to do with Steorn as a company.  It was created following the announcement of, is substantially about, and serves a public interests in the "The Steorn Challenge". Sony-youth 08:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand humbly corrected. But I still prefer to have the article at "Steorn" and focus efforts on rounding out the article over time, even if the most notable aspect of the company remains the challenge. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support - A better title for document. --Archeus 09:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: @Jeffq: "The Steorn Challenge" is the official name used by the company.  See the letter mailed out by the company above. Sony-youth 09:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand humbly corrected. But I still prefer to have the article at "Steorn" and focus efforts on rounding out the article over time, even if the most notable aspect of the company remains the challenge. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: As I understand it the picture shown is the device on a testing rig. The update to the comment suggests it is not the device at all. If this is the case then the picture should be removed. --Archeus 09:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture is not the device at all. Its a test rig which doesn't even have the device on it. --Archeus 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does Steorn state that the item on this picture is NOT related to the device?Trade2tradewell 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Device. 

message: As I understand it the only patent released by the company has nothing to do with the device. So I have removed its references. There are patents for the device but none of them are public at this time. --Archeus 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked reference was for Steorn's patent application. They have not been awarded any patent yet. The patent application describes part of the mechanism behind the claimed device. Steorn have filed several patent applications and continues to file them (which is one of the reasons they can't make schematics of the device public) of which the one is public and others will go public. This is an important reference and should be kept. --Orangehues 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Restored.--Orangehues 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I understand it if it refers to the magnets going through a shield to block the signal then it has nothing what-so-ever to do with the device and Stoern have mentioned this. If its a new patent just released then its fine but last I heard there was nothing public. --Archeus 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I double checked the contents of the patent and it has in fact nothing to do with the device at all. They have stated this themselves on thier website. See reference 17: http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=41&page=1#Item_0 . Removed reference --Archeus 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Restored again with altered description. First, the article makes a reference to "LEMA" so it's relevant here. Second, Steorn has said in various interviews that they have been working on this invention for the past three years and six months ago decided to go public. This application was filed on 6th April, 2006 so it's obviously related though Steorn might like to deny it. Third, if you read the patent, it's clearly related with gaining energy around magnetic fields. --Orangehues 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "so it's obviously related though Steorn might like to deny it". This is speculation and you are not putting forward a NPOV. Secondly I have read the patent it has absolutly nothing to do with gaining energy around magnetic fields. If anything its trying to point out how to save energy but at no point mentions that it is creating/gaining energy. I think with Steorn also saying that this has nothing to do with the device should be enough to not include it. Which brings us back to what the title of the page is about. Is it about the company or the device? --Archeus 10:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Corrected repeated error of misrepresenting a patent application as a patent.--Orangehues 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding whether the patent application is related, The Guardian certainly seems to think it is. They have an entire article on Steorn's application for "LEMA" patent but I guess that's just speculation rather than cold hard commonsense. --Orangehues 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can find numerous people/sites that claim its part of the device but the simple fact is Steorn themselves have said it is not part of the device. Could Steorn be lying? Possibly, but until thats proven saying it is part of the device is incorrect. --Archeus 07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent 

message: This article is complete nonsense.  The laws of Thermodynamics and of conservation of energy make it quite clear that a 100% efficiant or better machine is impossible.  Additionally the page smacks of advertising.  I'd like to nominate this article for deletion.
G. McVey 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been and done, and the consencus was a clear "Keep" vote. See Here. Smartaalec 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: as mentioned, already been nominated. Incidently 100% efficient or better is not impossible (according to the laws) just so incredibly improbable to be impossible. ;) --Archeus 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If this device is real it need not break the law of Conservation of Energy. That law only applies to isolated systems and we do not know for sure that the known physical universe is an isolated system. If the device drew energy from an unknown source then it would seem as if it were creating energy. KittensOnToast 14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: I see someone has a page up at Steorn Ltd. Anyone care to duscuss merging the two? Or putting up a suggested merge banner? Or even redirect Steorn Ltd to Steorn. 
For those that don't know, Ltd after a company name means limited liability, and I think the American Equivalent is LLC. It's not necessary to include the Ltd after a company name under Irish law 80.169.139.106 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted that one as copyvio (it is not OK to make Wikipedia articles by copy'n'paste) and re-created as redirect. Anyway, there wasn't anything not yet in Steorn. --Pjacobi 16:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Steorn Ltd 

message: Hello. I have made some minor changes to the validation section, replacing statements that are predi ctive ("results will be published") with statements that are facts-based("steorn state that results will be published"). I think it's the right move, but it now feels a little clumsy, some one may want to re-write but avoid ridiculously empirical statements about future events. 84.12.164.237 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validation edits 

message: We need better citations then Peswiki. Its just a wiki and a lot of what is mentioned in the links wouldn't even be acceptable here as facts. --Archeus 08:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peswiki 

message: http://www.steorn.net/forum/index.php
Suggest referencing the separate FAQ categories as individual message threads. Steorn intends to have a reliable forum from here on out, however the index page itself will likely change as the Closed/Sticky threads are modified or removed. It does seem reasonable to expect that a FAQ thread will always be visible at the top of the main forum however its better to be safe and thorough with more specific threads, or an archive of them. 68.175.117.12 06:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQs posted 

message: OK, it seems a longer explanation is needed.
* Harold Aspden doesn't claim to give the theoretical base for Steorn's technology.
* Steorn doesn't claim that their technology is based on Harold Aspden's theory.
* No third party reliable source claims a connection
Therefore, it is original research to link these two
Pjacobi 18:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with PJacobi.  A google search for steorn & aspden together, eliminating wikis and speculation on the Steorn forum, shows no reputable source linking them.  Steorn, in fact, has asserted so far that it has no theoretical explanation for the effect. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I could agree with your arguments, but aren't you overreacting? We are talking about a link under See also section. WP:NOR rules apply mainly to the content of the article itself. I see See also as a section where links exist to the articles which editors have found interesting. If I were to link Aspden with Steorn it would be because of his research and very much because of his critique of science today. Putting Aspden under See also makes absouletely no claim about Aspden giving an explanation to Steorn findings (which we do not yet know if are true), it's rather pointing to another notable scientist with similiar outsider's reputation (what could be considered as WP:OR, but.. it's only See also). And he is often put forward on discussion forums about Steorn. My decision would be to put a link to "Harold Aspden" (not "Aspden Effect"). Just to make it clear: I won't insist much on this addition, I don't find it so important - you can change your mind about this or not. SalvNaut 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding a section such as Possible Explanations where you could reference a See Also of Aspden. Another one would be a citation for the About section of the Steorn site that speaks exclusively of their anti-fraud expertise: Together with their 3-4 year timeline, a reasonable interpretation is that they are in a data gathering phase to ultimately show the willingness of the public to trust. 68.175.117.12 03:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume for the sake of this discussion that Steorn actually has something.  They have released no technical information and they have declined to speculate about what might be responsible for the effect.  Any speculation here about a theoretical explanation for the Steorn effect -- if any -- falls 100% in the category of original research. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I repeat it again - having "Harold Aspden" under "See also" makes no connection with possible explanation. For me it is like pointing: "Look, this guy made controversional claims about fundations of physics, too". To emphasise: I am very glad that someone has put Aspden here, as I am very happy to have read about him. For me it was very relevant and informative (about variety of views in today's physics) and I've never jumped to conclusion that his theory explains Steorn. SalvNaut 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apsden 

message: Just check this . Anyone from Budapest here?
If you look under Confirmation Tests , there are names of real professors there (checked with Google, Google Scholar). What interesting times we live in, indeed. :) SalvNaut 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  :-) 

message: In the Inconsistencies section we have this
Quote
"Steorn maintains that its invention has already been validated by no fewer than eight unnamed independent scientists and engineers "with multiple PhDs from world-class universities", and found to work, but that none of them were willing to publish their results. The company has declined to name them, citing mutually binding non-disclosure agreements.[10]"
And we have this
Quote
Sean McCarthy has said: "Before we went public, we realised that if we're wrong it could have a very adverse effect on our business, so we're not doing this lightly."
I don't see anything inconsistent with either of these, they are simply things that have been said by the company and can't be validated. There is a major difference between this and something that is inconsistent, indeed judging on some of the reactions about the claims it appears quite reasonable that certain institutions would refuse to go public. Furthermore the non-disclosure agreement is standard practice for unpatented IP. The second alleged Inconsistency is even more baffling, it is simply stating the obvious and there is nothing inconsistent in the slightest here. So you mods please move these statements to a more appropriate heading as this looks like it is going against your neutral point of view rule by claiming something is inconsistent when it isn’t.81.76.84.124 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies

message: While no free energy device has ever been released as a product, claims of free energy have proven to be a successful means of obtaining investment in recent years. is unecessary POV. It implies that the reason for releasing a free energy device is simply as a means to get investment. I have replaced it with a simpler, and less biased, sentenceSparkzilla 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV intro removed

message: Re: edit by 68.175.117.12 at 21:21, 22 October 2006: The cited reference makes no mention of the
claimed free energy discovery, no mention of the PR stunt, and no mention of a fallback plan.
The reference given provides no support for the statement that's been added.
Could you please provide a correct reference or remove the statement.
(Please don't use an incorrect reference as a "stub"). Cheers, PerpetuumMobile 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial history

message: This is an article about a company, not about perpetual motion as such. 
I see that there is much discussion on hoaxes, violating the third law of thermodynamics, nomination for deletion and so on. I think it would help if people considered this as an article about a social phenomenon - STEORN the company, not the device they are selling. It may be a hoax; it may be true; they may be labouring under a misconception; we don't know. But the company does exist, these are real people, the ad in the Economist did happen, and lots of other things besides. This article should document the progress of STEORN as a company and as a phenomenon (obviously properly sourced). In future years - assuming it all turns out to be false, obviously - this sort of information will be very valuable to sociologists if nothing else.
I hope I haven't given the impression here that I support STEORN's claims one way or the other. I don't (although I am fascinated by the whole thing). Ryancolm 17:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, Ryancolm, if you write about people not having a POV, please do not write such things as "assuming it all turns out to be false". Perhaps you are not aware of your own POV. In any case, that is exactly the assumption that has started so many "discussions" here. I do not see many arguments happening over the "assumption" that the claims are correct... for the simple reason that few if any have been making that assumption. At the same time, NPOV means you should not assume that they are false. This is an event unfolding; we should report about the events as they unfold, not attack them from ignorance as many have, and not "assuming". -- Jane Q. Public 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, JaneQPublic, I see your point. I would like to clarify: I, personally, neither know nor assume that Steorn's claims are true or false, nor do I have any agenda one way or the other. I agree with you, JaneQPublic, when you say that this is an event unfolding and we should report the events as they unfold. In fact, that was what I wanted to say. So, I should have said: "In future years - if it all turns out to be false - this sort of information will be very valuable to, for example, sociologists." I do believe that we are in agreement about documenting things, and not opining. Thank you for your measured response. Ryancolm 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for people with a POV