[QUOTE=FRDE]
It seems like a peculiar sort of con to me.
Normally people set things up in such a way that they can get away with the proceeds, that or the scam is open ended (they think).
[/quote]
This scam is open ended. They’ll just take investment, claim to spend it on never ending further research, and if absolutely necessary admit they were wrong (but never admit they knew all along that their device didn’t work).
Cite? Firstly for the proposition that they are touting to scientists at all, and secondly for the proposition they really are touting hard nosed and sceptical scientists.
They are not touting to scientists, they are just trying to obtain some validation from scientists (no doubt to gain investor credibility).
What (beyond perhaps a rather charming faith in the good nature of your fellow man) makes you think they will actually choose hard nosed skeptics from the thousand they have to choose from?
You will note also that their webpage which supposedly gives details about “the challenge” gives no details whatsoever as to what the “jury” will be permitted to do. For all we know, they will be permitted to sit in a lecture theatre while some hokey demonstration is performed with all the openness of a David Copperfield illusion. If I was keen to generate credibility, and I really believed in my product, I would state as part of the challenge that the “jury” would be permitted to design their own tests. But instead there is nothing beyond a load of marketing speak which says nothing at all.
Let’s not have any illusions here: they are not claiming efficiency very slightly beyond 100% at the 4th decimal place, or something. According to the Guardian article, we are talking about 285% or even 400%! That’s not hard to measure. Nor is it the type of minor bump explicable in terms of unintentional leaching of energy from the environment. These guys are either massively, massively incompetent, or scammers.
Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring their claims that they have had their invention validated already. They say that they have no less than “eight independent validations electrical engineers and academics with multiple PhDs from world-class universities”. So eight independant engineers and academics are also deluded?
Not only that, but they say that they have gone into partnership with “a European micro-generator company to develop prototypes”. You don’t go into partnership without some due diligence, particularly when your partner-to-be claims to have invented something that is inherently incredible. So the engineers etc at this European micro-generator company have all been fooled as well?
Your “lone wolf employee” theory also has no credibility for the same reason.
Still further, their whole Pons & Fleischmann excuse is just lame. Sure, after Pons & Fleischmann no reputable scientist is going to unreservedly leap out and say “Steorn’s machine definitely works, our understanding of thermodynamics is dead”. But of the supposed eight independent electrical engineers and academics with multiple PhDs from world-class universities, surely at least one would be prepared to say at least something, however reserved and cautious. Heck, it’d increase my willingness to believe in this device about a thousand fold even if someone independant would say “I’ve seen the device and performed some basic tests on it. Ultimately I remain sceptical and there is more testing to be done, but at least at the moment I am not able to explain current test results”.
Instead what we have is a smoke machine powered by a couple of unknown guys, with no independant sightings of fire whatsoever.
