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.

  • Fabio Turel |

    I did not want to sum up the theory of relativity: I just reported a commonplace sentence used to summarize it. It’s worse than wrong… it’s senseless!
    Anyway, when you say that “conservation of energy is a basic stone that will never be cancelled”, you are making reference to a knowledge we share, and taking it for granted: the whole scientific method, which includes techniques to correct previous knowledge with newly acquired information.
    My point is that, due to the poor state of scientific education, a lot of people do not share that knowledge and would accept or reject your affirmation of “immutable principles” with a fideistic approach: thus applying often irrational (and highly deceivable) criteria.
    P.S. yesterday I complained about the poor state of artistic education – I’ll end up looking as an education fanatic.

  • roberto dadda |

    The basic idea around Einstein concept of relativity is NOT “everything is relative” but is “everything is in relation with everything else”.
    Thermodynamic principle are basic principles of nature and are immutable, we can go deeper, find other laws but the idea of conservation of energy is a basic stone that will never be cancelled!
    The idea of generating free energy not coming from another form of energy is simply stupid…
    bob

  Post Precedente
Post Successivo