At 12:11 AM 12/17/2009, William Beaty wrote:
7. It's NOT the company's number one goal to prove that the invention is
real. The scam company seems to have no goal besides creating an aura of
attractive secrets: secrets which will only be revealed to an in-group
of "superior" blue-blooded investors, while we rabble on the outside are
obviously inferior since we haven't invested and don't know the secrets.
(It's the old "treasure map" trick, playing to your victim's self-
importance.) Scamsters have all sorts of other tricks to appeal to
snobbery or play up to the egos of investors. They also have many really
sensible excuses for not proving that their discovery is real. But
honest companies just sit down and prove their claims beyond any doubt
BEFORE gathering investors. After all, its unethical to take investors'
money for extremely questionable and totally unproven devices as if
they were normal inventions developed by reliable companies.
I wrote that, when? Late 2005? Was that before Steorn's stuff?
I don't know and don't really care. It's right on.
It can happen that a legitimate new invention or discovery can look
like a scam operation. In fact, scammers certainly take full
advantage of that, and will remind us of it over and over, they use
it as part of the smokescreen.
With Steorn, though, the string of coincidences involved has come to
the point where there really isn't any other reasonable hypothesis
except "scam."
Probably half or more of those writing here thought of using a
capacitor. So, okay, supposed they need to get this thing going with
some stored energy. That's completely reasonable. Now, if this is to
be a demonstration of an over-unity device, as distinct from a teaser
that really shows nothing at all except some alleged elements of the
technology, they would know completely that the battery has to go.
Fine. Start with a battery, but parallel a supercapacitor, and then
pull the battery. The supercapacitor will behave as a very efficient
battery, right? But with no complicated internal chemistry where
complications lurk. And then there would be a simple device added: a
voltmeter across the battery. The webcam would show the voltage.
No demonstration alone would prove this wasn't a scam, it's obvious
that there are more ways to fake a demonstration than to discover the
fakes just by simple, hands-off observation. A real demonstration
must be repeatable to be most convincing, repeatable simply by the
transmission of detailed plans. Again, there are possible
complications. What if the inventor has unconsciously done something
that doesn't get documented? That makes it work? This happens, out of
sheer luck or out of intuition. But Beaty has put his finger on the
critical difference between an inventor working with a difficult
technology and a scammer: transparency, honesty, open disclosure, and
there are ways of obtaining independent confirmation without risking
loss of what might, indeed, prudently remain secret for a time.
Steorn isn't doing that. Instead, they are putting their energy into
a scheme that would raise money for them whether the technology works
or not. They are charging for a peek at the technology. This, then,
depends on their ability to manipulate media to generate publicity.
And the fact that so many mails here are discussing this ersatz
demonstration shows that they are succeeding.
The NDAs are really the proof. The NDAs are radically
over-restrictive, requiring secrecy on far more than necessary. Why
would the text of the NDA be, itself, a secret? Obviously, people see
that text before signing the NDA, though possibly they sign a pre-NDA
requiring them to keep the NDA text secret. That pre-NDA text would
still not be covered by the NDA, because it has to be revealed to
people who haven't signed yet. Okay, Hoyt, what can you tell us? How
did the NDA work? What was revealed to you before you signed?
What a legitimate inventor would tell us, as soon as possible, why
the inventor believes that the thing works, or will work when better
engineered. Steorn is talking about an effect, and, indeed, they
disclaim interest in selling practical devices. That takes a away a
lot of burden! However, it means that, in order to make a profit,
they will need to sell the idea itself; what is the basis for
believing that there is a particular way to wave the magnetic magic
wand to get some energy to pop out of a hat of coils? A simple
demonstration of even the smallest -- but measurable -- effect? And
if they don't have that, they have *nothing* but a wild idea, the
kind of thing that is easily based on an error in their analysis.
And they've been at this for years. How many people have signed NDAs?
How many of those are convinced? Why would such data be inaccessible?
Keeping information like that secret can certainly be justified by
the raw self-interest of Steorn. But all this secrecy simply shows us
that Steorn is not acting in the public interest, but solely in their
own interest. Instead of relying upon eventual licensing fees, they
are relying upon income from the investigation. That part should be
free, or, more accurately, should be revenue neutral for Steorn.
Anyone investigating this is going to be making a big investment of
their own time and resources. Note that they have planned disclosure
arrangements, starting very soon with Developer licensing, where they
supposedly disclose the technology but the developer essentially gets
nothing more than a chance to look at it and to play with it, but
gets *no* further rights, not even to what they themselves make with
it. To actually develop an application takes a commercial license,
and the terms of a commercial license aren't even available yet
except by application. And commercial applications in a whole series
of fields aren't allowed. Why?
To me, Steorn is a beautiful example of how to make a situation as
murky as possible while at the same time attracting wide attention.
The demonstration is so stupid it is brilliant. Consider the reaction
we've seen here: they couldn't possibly be that stupid, therefore
there must be something to this.... I'm fascinated by the psychology
behind this. How to create buzz out of practically nothing, a couple
of plastic prototypes that don't demonstrate anything except an
ability to machine some plastic and make a simple motor. With how
much capital invested so far? It looks like much more money is being
spent on publicity and flash than on development, and what does that
indicate? How many years have they had to come up with a
demonstration that actually demonstrates something?
