Thermodynamics 2.0

I promised to keep an eye on the claims made by Steorn. After a month, we're at the same point as before. That is, absolutely nothing.

I have read a lot of comments where the thing has simply being dismissed by saying that "it violates the second principle of thermodynamics". That's true, and it's enough for me. But if we say just this, it's like opposing one belief to another - and it leaves the flank open to countless objections, both generic ("did not science change its paradigm a lot of times?") and alt.pop.science-like ("did not Einstein tell us that everything is relative?").

Last week, Engadget interviewed Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn.

Q:"I think part of the reason why people didn't and don't take it seriously is partly because there is no [credible] university affiliated with the research. The fact that you guys were not out to actually invent this new science and that there was no big name physicist behind it at the time is, I think, what is most damaging to your credibility."

No! This reinforces the "sympathy for the underdog" effect, the heroic lone boy struggle against established knowledge. And it makes things worse. The choice among two beliefs is now a decision about whom to trust: the boring old unintelligible physicists (the "thermodynamic conservatives") or those young, nice, courageous boys who are trying to save the world by giving us free energy?

I believe the right answer is that nobody has seen the thing work. Or maybe it is not the only possible answer, but I like to think that it would be accepted by those who don't put much value in believing to the principles of thermodynamics. Until an independent authority is able to reproduce the working machinery, those guys are just making empty claims. Claims that, due to previous experience, are extremely difficult to believe.

©RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA