Talk:Steorn/Archive 3

Irrito
I have been looking at edits made by Irrito here and on the talk pages of other regular editors. He appears to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of attempting to mislead or promoting Steorn or having an agenda. Such bad faith accusations are out of line and will not be tolerated.

Turning to the edits themselves that I have reverted:
 * 1) . In no way does this improvement of the language by using simpler words where the longer one was uncessary mislead. Please explain.
 * 2) . This is one, relatively minor comment which fits into the article better than the lead and doesn't need reinforcing in the lead. It also introduces formatting errors and bad reference citing.
 * 3) . Of course this makes sense. Steorn put an advert out and this sentence reports that they got a lot of responses. How does this not make sense?
 * 4) . Information is from the Irish Times, ie a independent and reliable source in the absence of any reliable contradictory information.
 * 5) . That is not what MacDonald said. This is simply factually inaccurate.

I think I've made my point. Please enter into a sensible discussion about these edits and what your concerns are before editing the article again. If you continue to accuse people of bad faith, attempting to mislead and having agendas, I will seek to have you blocked so please note this warning. GDallimore (Talk) 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now whoa back there. Let's look at your examples.
 * The reference says "....(Steorn), today announces that it has.....". You changed the article from "announced" to "said that" which is petty IMMHO. Steon just didn't offhandedly say something, they took some trouble to make an announcement which they probably thought was very significant, and which was rather important to people/media observing developments surrounding this technology. Announcement was definitely the pertinent word.
 * You said info he added was "relatively minor comment which fits into the article better than the lead", but then you axed it from the article entirely! Why didn't you fix the formatting etc and move it down the article. It is relevant to the perception of the company.
 * Why do you ask Irrito "How does this not make sense?" Irrito said it didn't make sense "at that location". He didn't say the passage didn't make sense, but that the place where it was positioned in the article didn't make sense. I think quite a few people could agree with him.
 * Ah, yes, but maybe the uni's official info could be used as a ref as well, this.
 * MacDonald did not conclude anything. But you replaced it with equally inaccurate information, namely " Dick Ahlstrom, writing in the Irish Times, concluded from this that the technology did not work". Ahlstrom concluded no such thing. The heading of the story the reference takes us to says "Irish 'energy for nothing' gizmo fails jury vetting".  Failed jury vetting is fact -- not Ahlstrom's opinion. His intro says the plan "for limitless supplies of free energy has been dashed by the revelation that something cannot be produced from nothing." He reported the revelation, a fact -- not his opinion. ".... an international jury said yesterday it did not work.". The jury said so, fact -- not Ahlstrom's opinion.
 * I don't know Irrito and have never interacted with him/her in any way. I have a general interest in such technology, and watchlist Steorn for developments. I was surprised by your comments about Irrito here. Maybe you could nurture him instead of threatening to have him blocked. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say thanks but I don't want to invite a bias, when you did nothing more then provide an objective review. Thanks for your objective review.Irrito (talk)
 * The paragraph already had three "announces" and it was just good style to change them - quoting a Steorn press release designed to puff themselves up by using important sounding words like "announce" is clearly not good encyclopedic writing, in my view. On the other hand, the meaning has not been changed at all. This just happened to be the first edit made by Irrito along with an edit summary accusing me of "continuing to mislead". If you think there is a good reason to change it back, I'm not too bothered either way, but accusing me of being misleading is not a good reason.
 * The reference is still there (reference three) and is used in the first paragraph of the "views of the technology" section where it fits very well because it responds to the claim by Steorn that they have used magnets to breach conservation of energy.
 * Except it does make sense at that location for the reason I gave. The article talks about the advertisement and the call for a jury and that sentence then reports that 420 scientists responded within 36 hours. How can this possibly not make sense? Irrito's edit remove this useful information entirely - which was at least better than the previous time he made a similar edit when he managed to move it into the middle of another sentence.
 * No, that would be original research. We have nothing to confirm that the Ian MacDonald found on that website is the same Ian MacDonald who was on the jury. In particular, it is a breach of WP:SYN without a reliable source confirming this connection.
 * Sorry, but you're wrong here. The announcement from the jury at no point used the words "the technology does not work". Instead, these are the words of Ahlstrom in his reporting and are therefore his interpretation of the announcement from the jury and his opinion as to what they meant. I believe that it is necessary to make this clear in the body of the article to comply with Reliable_sources, alhough you'll note that the lead states it as fact.
 * As for Irrito, this edit, accusing McGeddon of being mad, is completely out of line in response to his carful explanation of WP:OR. this edit, accusing him of being biased and having a CoI is also not acceptable. Having been accused of attempting to mislead myself, I think a very strongly worded warning was both necessary and appropriate. GDallimore (Talk) 08:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a pity to have to say this, but some of the edits by Irrito are borderline trolling. This seems to be a continuation of previous POV pushing against Steorn. As before, chill out, the laws of physics are under no great threat here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI
This user is currently the subject of an incident on the administrators' noticeboard. (He cut-and-pasted the whole thing here himself, but there's no need to duplicate the content.) --McGeddon (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually your are wrong as readers of this discussion may not be aware of the other page. IN addition, you and others attacked me in this discussion which was also on the other page.  I am going to complain about you and your selective deletion.    AGAIN, your action here evidence the reason why you should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia.67.94.16.18 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I have provided a link to the discussion so that other readers are aware of it. (For reference, I inadvertently deleted the previous part of this section, which has now been restored.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At the ANI discussion, Irrito gave a number of reasons why he thought his edits were appropriate. Although he should have (and was asked several times) to make such comments here, I believe the removal of the copy and paste is an issue with Irrito because of that. I am therefore copying an pasting the relevant parts of the ANI discussion here for further discussion.


 * Mr. McGeddon failed to mention that he has done his utmost to down play the pit falls of Stoern. He does this by playing up Stoern claims, without criticism in the first party of the article.  In doing so, he placed subject matter in places it does not belong--such as the jury of scientists Stoern hired in the first and third section, but does not mention, until the Jury section, that in fact Stoern's claims of scientific legitimacy was not supported by the Jury.


 * Moreover, the McGeddon appears to be very selective in his editing, e.g., he will allow Stoern's unsupported claim (Steorn disputed the jury's findings[6] and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology, the jury had only been provided with test data on magnetic effects for study.) to exist while claiming that a search on the University of Alberta's (U of A)website that returns no results as to Mr. McDonald's association is not supported by a 3rd source.

Moreover, I had a secondary source which I cited that Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A, which MCGeddon and his sockpuppet quickly edited out--even though it met the requirement of a secondary source AND McGeddon had no source to dispute this fact. Irrito (talk)


 * You seem to be mixing up a number of different people


 * Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A - maybe but who cares and what's it to do with the article?
 * Dr. Ian McDonald is the Chair, Department of Ophthalmology at the UA
 * Prof. R Ian MacDonald who is involved in the Steorn stuff can be found here and his profile fits what Steorn claims - if needed, I'm sure I could dig up some papers that provide conclusive proof of the university affliction. — Cameron Scott


 * See, you fall into the trap. You could but you did not.  Moreover, we are not discussing whether you could or you could not.  The issue is whether my posting with a independent secondary source should have been deleted.  If so, then, using the same rule, shouldn't Stoern's claim that the jury did not have the right data,which is not supported by any proof, be allowed to stay in the article.  I guess this boils down to is this a fact article or a new arcticle.Irrito (talk)


 * I think Cameron has it absolutely right. You have clearly mixed up three different people. Cameron also DID (although you appear not to have read the link he gives, or recognised his sarcasm) provide evidence in the form of a paper he has published that Ian MacDonald is indeed of the Electrical Engineering Department of the U of A. This on its own is enough to dismiss all of your assertions that Ian MacDonald is either a doctor or a dentist or an ophthalmologist.
 * Even if Cameron had not had this brainwave, the information you are trying to add is not adequately sourced. Yes, you have a source saying that there is someone called Ian MacDonald who works at the UofA in the department of Ophthalmology. I agree with you there and will not dispute it and nobody else is disputing this either. However, what you DO NOT have a source for is your assertion that this Ian MacDonald is the SAME Ian MacDonald that headed up the Steorn jury. That is the reason your edits along those lines are inappropriate original research and why they have and will continued to be removed from the article if you continue to make them.
 * Ultimately, we have a reliable source, the Irish Times, identifying who Ian MacDonald is and your research is therefore wholly unecessary as well as managing to be completely wrong.
 * I think enough people have given enough reasons why you have made a mistake, and have explained this to you carefully and with great patience. Please now desist from making these edits since you will be editing against a very clear consensus and doing so is disruptive, as evidenced by the protection that this article has received. GDallimore (Talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

unlock
Since the majority of editors are in agreement (or so it seems from reading the talkpage) about the broad direction this should take, can we get an unlock so we can get on with it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, as long as we can avoid WP:STUFF.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If that happens, we need to build a sockcase based on the behaviour (which is frankly easy to spot) and go from there... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked the protecting admin if he will unblock. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've unlocked it. The discussion looks to have been constructive. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not sure about the recent change to the lead by an IP. I'm not going to get involved in content though, so I've left it. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have reverted it but someone beat me to it - it's editorial commentary of the sort we don't put in articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that the cite of the jury is no longer working. This is not a huge problem, but the claim that Steorn plans a launch in late 2009 needs a cite. Here Steorn says that it "is now focused on commercial launch towards the end of this year, at which time academic and engineering validation would be released concurrent with public demonstrations”. Not quite sure what this means, but it could be used in the article-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's cached here which is not usable for our purposes but is handy for reference. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Unworkable Machines
Cameron, your reason for deletion of my external website does not appear to be justified as the standard for external links is:

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. They must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Here, the museum of unusable machine link’s is relevant to information that at this time cannot be cited into the article. As, the museum demonstrate the history of perpetual motion machines, which is what Steorn machine is. Please either explain yourself or undue your deletion of my edit.Irrito (talk)


 * That link would go on the Perpetual motion machine articles because it's is a general link about the concept, it is not specific to Steorn and does not mention steorn. If we wanted to highlight the link to Perpetual motion machine, we would use an internal "see also" link, you notice the difference? A similar example is that the Microsoft page does not have external links to general sites about personal computers and so on. On that basis I (and clearly others from the reversion) do not consider it to be "on-topic". If that site had a page on Steorn, that would be a different matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition of this link appears to be thinly veiled POV pushing against Steorn. As agreed before, it is enough to say that the claim has not convinced mainstream scientists. This link is not directly related to Steorn in any way, and in my view fails WP:EL. Irrito is living up to his/her name, and could be seen as a WP:TROLL if this sort of thing continues.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well he's certainly a SPA (Single Purpose Account). --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's worth reading beyond the first paragraph of a policy. See WP:ELNO #13. We should avoid linking to: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject." --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is frustrating to hear phrases like "content dispute" being used when a look at the talk page usually finds Irrito in a minority of one. The article could do with some tidying up, but it is not going to say that Steorn is a perpetual motion scam etc due to the need to maintain WP:NPOV. Time to wake up and smell the coffee here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I love your comments, Ianmacm. They don't serve the factual allegations, or reporting on subject website--you are like a cheerleader.  Following your logic the world would still be considered flat.

Cameron, I am going to ask you again to undo your delete. The fact that all perpetual machines are machines that fail to work is related to Steorn's claims. Moreover, it demonstrates the uphill battle Steorn has.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I'll just add that I fully agree with Cameron, McGeddon and Ian, although I don't think quoting rules is necessary. It is plain common sense that there is no need (or even use!) for an external link to something that does not discuss the topic of the article. This is not an article about perpetual motion machines, it is an article about Steorn and their particular perpetual motion machine. If someone wants to learn about other perpetual motion machines, they can go to the wikipedia article on the topic.
 * I'd add that my view doesn't diminish the McGeddon's or Cameron's comments, it's just my personal preference to avoid relying on rules where the application of common sense is sufficient. GDallimore (Talk) 18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * so, would you people would agree that if there is a crediable reliable source claiming that Steorn's orbo is prepetual motion machine my exertnal cite goes in?Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I thought linking straight to a paragraph of policy might save some time here.
 * But no, Irrito, adding the link has nothing to do with whether or not Orbo is a perpetual motion machine. The Museum of Unworkable Machines is a site about the wider topic of perpetual motion, and, so far as everyone can tell, it doesn't actually mention Steorn. For the same reason, we wouldn't have an external link to a general site about Irish businesses, or a directory of full-page ad campaigns - if a reader wants to find out more about a broader or related subject, we should point them at the Wikipedia article about that subject, not an external link. History of perpetual motion machines seems a good see-also link. --McGeddon (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

indeed,because we would add a "see also" link to perpetual motion machine where that link is already present. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 6 hours
Which I will extend if necessary. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

editprotected request for sourcing in the lead
Just a small change to the lead since the sourcing has got messed up. We can then be sure to get straight to work on the actual content/phrasing when the article is unprotected. The text should be:


 * Steorn challenged the scientific community to investigate their claim and, in December 2006, said that it had chosen a jury of scientists to do so. In June 2009 the jury gave its unanimous verdict that "Steorn’s attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy". Steorn are continuing with their plans to launch by the end of 2009.

Thanks in advance. GDallimore (Talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unblocked by request.  Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, even better. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection
The current protection is a pity. However, a quick look at the page history shows that trolling edits from a single user has caused this to happen. People should not get the impression that there is no WP:CONSENSUS about Steorn, because there is good consensus on the basic issues.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Steorn has any breakthroughs in the next week, we can always raise an editprotected request. Maybe Irrito will manage to join in the talk page discussion in the meantime. --McGeddon (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If Steorn changes the laws of physcis you will not need wikipedia to hear about it. Stoern machine is based, my understanding, on David Sannes' machine dark matter motor.  Sannes is a self professed intellectual with no formal training.  If you look at Stoern's blog pages you will get a peek at Mr. Sannes and his ego.  I wish Stoern had the next best thing but I know Sannes and his machine, I even had it reviewed by scientists--informally.  Stoern appears to be nothing more than a very good marketing machine.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I've got no connection with Steorn, and do not believe that the article attempts to promote the company in any way. There is ample material in the article showing why the claim has failed to convince scientists. Yes, the claim has been well marketed, but science is not an advertising campaign, and anyone who thinks otherwise is headed for failure. As mentioned before, the article exists because it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline. You are the only person to have made a huge fuss about the article. Does that tell you anything?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir, you are turely mistake. If you review discussions, then you will find several people who you replied to that feel like I do. Because you made responses to these people, your above commets ring hollow.67.94.16.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Sorry to be suspicious, but judging by the spelling mistakes, this could be a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Irrito. Please confirm if I am wrong.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the spelling mistake as I have to shoot from the hip and don't have time to go over my bad grammar and spelling--and I don't know how to use the sandbox. I like that you are accusing me of sockpupertry, as when I asked you if you were the McDonald in the Irish Times article, you accused me of vandalism--eventhough after you made clear who you were, I said thanks and moved on.  Try to correct your course of judgment.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Just to comment, I don't think it's fair to make accusations of sockpuppeting here. It seems very clear to me that Irrito forgets or is unable to log in at times and has two different IPs, namely and . This is not sockpuppeting as I do not think any attempt to subvert the article or discussions about its content have been made. Having said that, it would be preferable, Irrito, and would avoid any possible confusion if you could always log in before editing. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do my best. By the way, has the history of Sannes already been discussed?Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

The lead
With this article protection, it's given me a chance to think about the lead, and in particular the report on the jury findings. As I see it there are two options. Either we quote the Irish Times saying that Orbo doesn't work or we quote the unanimous verdict of the jury that Steorn had not demonstrated the production of energy. At present, it's a halfway house of a unanimous verdict that it doesn't work, which I don't think is acceptable. I can't decide which is the better of the two options to go with, though.

I like the Irish Times quote because it's direct and unambiguous. I think it's perhaps misleading because it is the conclusion of a journalist, not the actual words of the jury, but so long as the body of the article clarifies that it is Dick Ahlstrom who concluded that it didn't work, then I think that's fine without putting excessive details in the lead.

On the other hand, the precise comment from the during is still pretty damning of Steorn even if it is a bit more ambiguous, so I'd be happy to go with that if people think it would be misleading to quote the conclusions of a journalist rather than the actual words of the jury.

What do people think. Is there a third option I've missed? GDallimore (Talk) 21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes there is, and that's to start looking at the article with accuracy in mind. I'm not fussed about using/not using the Irish Times as a source. I am fussed by your insistence on having Wikipedia inaccurately attributing POV to the journo. Remember what you wrote earlier? ' "The technology does not work"......are the words of Ahlstrom '. Those words are not attributed to him in the reference. Please quote here, from the reference, where Ahlstrom gave his conclusion or opinion that the technology does not work. What particular "conclusions of a journalist" do you mean where you say it would be "misleading to quote the conclusions of a journalist rather than the actual words of the jury"? Please quote them, and then see how they stack up with the following words in the actual reference, phrases like "dashed by the (jury's) revelation that something cannot be produced from nothing", or "an international jury said yesterday it did not work", or "scientists doubted the claims", or (the jury) "posted an announcement on its website that it was disbanding", or the "unanimous verdict of the jury is that Steorn’s attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy".  The journo wrote an accurate balanced report of what others said about the trial. He didn't give his opinion, and you can't produce anything from the reference to show otherwise.  Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * “The unanimous verdict of the jury is that Steorn’s attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy,” it stated. “The jury is therefore ceasing work.” This is not the claims of the journalist. Whether you think or don't think something is acceptable goes beyond the finding of the jury that the claim has not shown the production of energy.  Do you have studies that would counter the jury's finding.Irrito (talk)


 * The fact that you quote a journalist is why you having problems with me--in part. Do think the journalist has done a scientific review of the findings of the jury? If so, then you don't understand the article.Irrito (talk)


 * I don't understand what any of the above by either Kwa or Irrito is about. The only thing the jury said about Steorn's claim was that "Steorn have not shown the production of energy". That's it, full stop, nothing more. Anything more than that is interpretation by secondary sources. This is nothing to do with promoting a POV and understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources is a core of Wikipedia editing: See SECONDARY. So, when we report the pimary source directly, we need to make it clear that's what we're doing, and when we report the interpretation of the primary source by the secondary source, we need to clarify that, too. Mixing up the words of the primary and secondary sources or putting words into the mouth of the primary source that they simply did not say is inaccurate at best and also, in my view, bad writing style.
 * It's important to remember that the Irish Times report is a mixture of fact and opinion. That "the jury said the technology did not work" is opinion because that is not actually what the jury said and therefore needs to be reported accordingly. Failing to do that is simply inaccurate and saying that my desire to be clear on that point is somehow "inaccurate" does not make any sense whatsoever. On the other hand, that "scientists doubted the claim" is fact, in my view, and can be reported as such without attribution to the Irish Times (not that I think it needs to be since we have plenty of other statements showing doubt in the claims). Other statements fall into various middle grounds between the realms of opinion and fact and need to be treated with more care, but these two examples clearly lie in the black and white regions at the edge.
 * Ultimately, all I am saying is that we should be careful to make sure that we attribute people's words to them properly. Failing to do that or reporting what two people said as if it were a single statement of fact is just plain misleading. Just as we make sure to attribute Steorn's claims to them rather than state them as fact, we need to attribute the opinions or statements of others to those people. GDallimore (Talk) 09:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Minor nitpick, but we aren't "quot[ing] the Irish Times saying that Orbo doesn't work", we're quoting it as saying that the jury's verdict was that Orbo doesn't work. I think that's a fair use of WP:SECONDARY to have a reliable authority (the Irish Times science editor) providing an interpretative claim. --McGeddon (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the lead specifically, I think as it stands it's not accurate (as GDallimore points out), and too "final" -- Steorn claims that this whole deal is still open, and we should report that stance accurately, no matter how farcical we might think it is. So, I would change the last sentence of the lead to state accurately what the jury accurately said ("[it] did not work" is non-scientific and un-encyclopedic in style, apart from anything else), then add a sentence along the lines of "Steorn subsequently stated that they have resolved the remaining problems and still expect to commercialise the technology". johantheghost (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the sources. If nobody's really paying attention to Steorn any more, quoting them directly about how the technology will really, honestly, definitely work next time is possibly creeping into the "unduly self-serving" aspect of WP:SELFPUB, and seems a bit strong for the lead. --McGeddon (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Steorn quotes about how the technology will definitley work would count as primary sources - WP:PRIMARY is fairly strict about interpretation of them when there are no reliable secondary sources. It's tricky, but using Steorn saying blah to say "Steorn said blah" would probably be OK. WP:SYNTH also comes into play, as there are the statements of both Steorn and the jury which conflict, so saying anything that isn't covered by reliable secondary sources is a problem. Guess it's time to be extra-extra-extra cautious.Autarch (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd change "does not work" to "attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy" or the like. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Back again. I think where the lead has ended up is probably about the best option, although I would prefer, from a purely stylistic point of view, to avoid quoting the entire comment from the jury. How about "the jury gave their unanimous verdict that Steorn had not demonstrated the production of energy". Simple, to the point, avoids unecessary direct quoting (which, as I say, I dislike as a matter of style) and, I believe, is still entirely accurate. As for Steorn's reponse, perhaps it's worth including, but I'm not convinced in view of WP:CRYSTAL since it gives prominence to a possible future event only sourced to the primary source. Also, and let's be frank, nobody seriously expects a successful commercial release, do they? However, if we do include it, I'd like to weaken the certainty of it, perhaps just by saying something like "Nevertheless, Steorn maintain that they will be launching their technology commercially at the end of 2009".
 * In the meantime, I am going to request an edit protected to sort out the sourcing of the lead, which seems to have got messed up somewhere. At least then we can work on the text without having to worry about the sourcing as well. GDallimore (Talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are doing--attempting to be as accurate as possible, but in order for the orbo to work it has to produce energy as that is its function. Failure to do so means the technology does not produce energy as design.  I assume in a scientific approach, it can never be proven that the technology does not work because all the possibilities have not been tried--and never will be.  However, Steorn dispute, claiming the jury did not have the right data, is a weak argument as it stands, and is really more of a face saving attempt.  This is probably apparent to everyone reading this, but we are not the child, who cannot understand Steorn's statement, who has come to Wikipedia for information.

Quoting Steorn's claim that the Jury findings are disputable may well be within the rules, but without some scientific review of their claim it is misleading.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Profit
How is Steor able to show a profit of 1,000 euros.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
 * If you're talking about the infobox figure, it's sourced to http://www.steorn.com/about/investor. We don't need proof of how they made that money, and given that the page shows a 99% drop in profits from their previous year, I don't think it's unduly self-serving to report that they only made a thousand euros in 2005. We can quote it under WP:SELFPUB. --McGeddon (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * TO BE CLEAR, I SAID PROFITS. IT IS NOT PROFITS IT IS REVENUE. I understand the source, what I am asking is if you read the source Stoern loss a money. So, is it misleading to demonstrate that Steorn revenues without demonstrating their losses.Irrito (talk)
 * The infobox "revenue" figure was the only mention of €1,000 in the article, so I assumed you meant that. You're right that it's worth adding the profits as well, though, I'll do that. --McGeddon (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppets
It's fairly clear that Irrito is using IP sockpuppets to try and show consensus for his edits where it does not exist and I am about to make a report on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand a sockpuppets it is the use of other editors or other log on to create creditability for my editing. There are times where I do not long in and an IP address shows up. Not all of these IP addresses are mine, but I take credit for the ones that are mind. It is not an evil plot to blow up Steorn page--I am used to automatic sign in feature.Irrito (talk)


 * I removed this from the article on the basis that a) the first quote is already in the article but presented in a npov manner and b) because we would never have such a expanding laundry list in an article. Even if he's not banned due to the sockpuppeting, I think that Irrito simply does not get what we do here and why NPOV is important and a topic ban might be in order. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The chief issue here is insisting on edits that go against consensus. All of the regular editors have shown patience when this occurs, but it uses up time that would be better spent on genuine article improvement.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As it current stands the article seems to be stuck in a loop where he adds something, it's removed, it's explained why it's removed, so he then moves onto something else, it's removed, it's explained why it's removed, so he then moves onto something else... the only other thing I can suggest is user:adoption but I've never seen that have much of an impact on those types of cases. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick note: some of my edit, this morning, were incorrect (technical issues)

,and I am thankful for Cameron's deletions of some of my edit,but his full deletion was unjustified. It is ture that some scientist comments were already in the article but not others. What I would like to do is have a place in the article, without Steorn's comments that track, scientists comments on the technology.Irrito (talk)

I'm done - we are just going to get edit war after edit war and the admins as per usual (not Doug btw) are as much use as a cock-favoured lollypop. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Irrito is wrong that one of the quotes was removed when it wasn't in the article already. The article already said that conservation of energy is fundamental to physics. The only difference Irrito has made is to attribute it to the person who said it (which I don't think is necessary since it's a pretty firm statement of scientific fact) and to put it in the first paragraph of the "views of the technology" section which messes up the section because that first para is specifically about Steorn's claims that they are using magnets to generate energy and the responses to that claim. It works far better in the second paragraph, where it is already! I am therefore removing it again. GDallimore (Talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask that you take note of the fact that my edits did attribute the statement to the author and it included the statement that STeorn's claims go against 2000 years of physics. Lastly, this is really a case of creditable science and creditable people.  Leaving in the person who said and his position really lends to the weight of what Steorn is attempting to accomplish.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Is it not a far stronger statement if we make it a statement of fact, which it is? Hence, in this case, we don't need to attribute it. GDallimore (Talk) 07:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to start a RfC, but first......
I was about to start a RfC about deliberate insistence by one editor to include inaccurate POV into this article. However, at the RfC page it says the first step should be to talk to the other parties first. Ergo, I am here.

I changed part of a paragraph to "In June 2009, the Irish Times reported that the jury had announced its unanimous verdict that "Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy", which is concise and totally accurate.

GDallimore reverted (two edits) to ''In June 2009 the jury announced its unanimous verdict that "Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy". Dick Ahlstrom, writing in the Irish Times, concluded from this that Steorn's technology did not work."''

His second edit summary said --"What the Irish Times did do is analyse and interpret this verdict, and as the only reliable source to do so this MUST go in the article."

Note there is no mention of restoring the inaccurace POV about the journalist. Suddenly, Wikipedia is back to inaccurately saying that Ahlstrom concluded something where he in fact did not. He reported the jury's findings, with balance and fairness, without stating his own conclusion or own judgment on the effectiveness or otherwise of Steorn technology anywhere in the Times report.

Further up this page you can see where I asked GDallimore to quote where the reference says Ahlstrom gave his conclusion or opinion that the technology does not work. He didn't. Having regard to Verifiability saying a source cited "must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article", could editors read the reference here and demonstrate where it says Ahlstrom "concluded .... that Steorn's technology did not work" as our article claims. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Essentially what Dick Ahlstrom does here is to report on what the jury said. The jury did not find any evidence of free energy, said so and was disbanded. I'm not convinced that Dick Ahlstrom shows anti-Steorn POV in this Irish Times article, but it might be best to stick to the plain facts rather than including what Dick Ahlstrom thought about them.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, "concluded" is a misleading verb to use here. So long as we cite the source, we don't need to name the journalist. I'd maybe go for something like "In June 2009, the device was shown not to work[1] when the jury announced its unanimous verdict that "Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy".[2]". --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the subject article the jury, based on the data given, found Steorn's claim has not shown the production of energy. (In addition, the purpose of the jury was to give Steorn's claim creditability.) Why would one want to include the reporter's opinion.  Doing so dimishes the jury's finding.  Thus, Kaiwhakahaere point is well taken. the Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Although it is beyond the scope of the article, it is worth noting that even if the jury had agreed that the machine produced free energy, it would not have amounted to very much. The jury was hand picked, which would not satisfy the normal rules of peer review. If you cannot get a hand picked jury to agree with you, what chance is there with fully independent people?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kaiwhakahaere, I did explain why this is an opinion by the jounralist even if you did not read it or failed to understand it: The jury did not say the technology did not work. That is fact and indisputable. Therefore, the statement in the Irish Times that the technology does not work is not a report on the findings of the jury and certainly not a statement of fact, but a statement of opinion by the journalist. As such, the source of this particular opinion must be made clear per Reliable_sources.
 * As a second reason, the jury apparently were not even shown a device or given a chance to test it. This is clear from the ambiguity of their statement and the follow up comment by Steorn about what they were actually shown. Therefore, the jury were not even in a position to say that the technology did not work. Sadly nobody seems to have picked up on the apparent fact that Steorn completely reneged on their deal to have a jury of scientists test their technology and share the results with the world, so we can't report that. Instead, the only third party conclusion we have is Dick Ahlstrom's.
 * Irrito, as the only independent, reliably sourced report on the findings of the jury, we have to report what it says. That's just common sense to ensuring adequate discussion of the event.
 * McGeddon, I don't like the word "concluded", either. It's not the word I originally chose when I first found this source and added it to the article. I said Dick Ahlstrom "intepreted this to mean" which I think is wholly accurate and explains why he has to be named as a source of the opinion. User:Mahjongg changed it to "concluded" with the reason "non-rehtoric wording", which I didn't dispute, but still don't really understand. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, that this is not a statement of fact, we do need to name the journalist. GDallimore (Talk) 07:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I changed the (then new) sentence "interpreted this to mean that the technology did not work" to "concluded that the technology did not work". I did it because the sentence gave the impression that "it was just his interpretation of the juries conclusion", which I found a non-npov way of stating things. Actually I would have liked to just change it to "concluded this to mean that the technology did not work", but I thought that would result in a very crooked sentence. If you see a better way to express this please do. Mahjongg (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The "jury process" is still unclear. Did the jury get to test or even look at one of the actual machines? The citations are not clear on this issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More media hype than science
THE ARTICLE STATES: Unbound by practical business requirements, integration within existing product lines, funding realities or, for that matter, the laws of physics (see case study on Steorn Orbo), fictional products can introduce heretofore little-publicized technology to leapfrog their hopelessly-constrained physical competitors. In this section, we will learn the key principles of ATTAP (All Things To All People) design. Students will develop internet rumor sites regarding a transformative electronic pet elephant that will be evaluated by a focus group consisting of three blind men. Students will not want to miss the lecture on buzzword-compliance for embracing leveraged synergies via wireless purpose-built green social networking.

THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE: We really lucked out. We convinced our good friend Ross Rubin to write a new weekly column for us called Switched On which'll cover everything related to digital convergence, the connected home, and all those other multimedia buzzwords that marketers are tossing out these days. Fortunately, Ross knows how cut through all the marketese and get straight to the heart of the matter, as he does with his inaugural column about the new iPod.

I am not willing to sit through the agreement between the three of you for the purpose of supporting your own agenda--as you did to Kaiwhakahaere. You what it your way no matter what, then lets take it to a third party, or you better point to some very clear argument.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC).


 * You've been given clear arguments - it's not my fault you are unable to accept them and continue to insist on edits which really are not supported by the source. In the clearest terms: The source does not say that Steorn is more media hype than science. That's it, full stop, end of argument. In fact, this joke column only mentions Steorn in the briefest terms. Therefore, the column really doesn't have anything useful to include in the Steorn article and, even if it did, all that could reasonably be added is that Steorn's claims are outside the laws of physics - something which far more reliable sources have already said several times.


 * I'm glad that your not willing to "sit through agreement" because I'm not willing to argue this further with you when you're acting like a jerk and accusing people of having agendas - again. Stop with the baseless accusations of bad faith; or are you going to accuse anyone who shows agreement in disagreeing with you of being sockpuppets again? I'm done here, rant all you want but you've proved yet again that you're not someone who it is possible to engage in a sensible discussion with. GDallimore (Talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not worth covering "Steorn was namechecked in a 2009 Engadget blog post that parodied vapourware technology", and it's certainly inappropriate to present the parody as "Steorn's technology claims have been criticized as more media hype than science". We already have solid quotes of "Steorn's free-energy claim was a ruse to improve brand recognition", "merely an elaborate hoax", "stands to reason that Steorn has re-tooled as a Web marketing company" and "people have accused Steorn of engaging in a publicity stunt", we don't need to water that down with an unclear summary of a one-line joke.
 * Feel free to issue a WP:RFC if you'd like the input of a third party, but I'd remind you - again - to assume good faith of other editors. --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your argument failed, fails, and continues to fail to look objectively at the article. All you three see is an attack on Steorn (which I guess you get paid to protect), and then you three engage what appear to be rote statements.  You and your gang are ABSOLUTELY WRONG, you have given me what you people feel is good arguments but fail to provide what reasonable rational people thinks is good arguments.  First, it appears clear that no matter the reason for the editing you three support each other no matter what.  I know about some of your metals for editing but I don't believe you do these things in good faith.  There is good evidence that you three are self interested and this instance is yet one more example.  You attempt to down play the information because other can make comments but the author was hire, as explained above, to demonstrate where the hype leave science.  And parody, as you describe it, is some of the best form of communication. Water down: god bless you.  You have taken the statements that you claim are already in the article and water them drowned them.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm pointing out that the article already has four strong quotes that criticise the media hype of Steorn (four strong quotes that your imaginary cabal of Steorn employees is 100% happy to have in the article), and that adding a weak "Steorn was also briefly parodied once" adds nothing to that.
 * If you're going to continue personally attacking any editor who disagrees with you for being "paid to protect" Steorn and believing that they will revert you "no matter what", other editors will find it much harder to take your points seriously. Continued personal attacks will result in a block, as per WP:NPA. I think I'm done here. --McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I am willing to compromise. But this is really hard because I understand the purpose of your editing.  (I would be less likely to believe you don't act in good faith, if you could demonstrate one place where you people did not agree.)Here, is my good faith compromise: we use the article as a supporting citation.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC).
 * What do you mean by "use the article as a supporting citation"? --McGeddon (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, your saying that you won't assume good faith of certain editors until they meet certain criteria is not assuming good faith. The whole point is that you should try to assume it, to consider a best-case scenario where the other editors are genuinely here to enforce Wikipedia policies and improve the content of the encyclopaedia, and have no axe to grind or shadowy employer to appease.
 * Please resist making any further comments about other editors' motives until you have read and understood at least the lead section of WP:AGF, Irrito. --McGeddon (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrito, I wouldn't want you to be left with the impression that it's just you against McGeddon, Cameron Scott and GDallimore. I'm against you as well, for the reasons already stated. It was classy of you to offer that olive branch in the same paragraph where you refer to other volunteer editors as "you people" and accuse them of bad faith. Good luck with that.  I urge you to read the article through once more, with an open mind. It doesn't push the point of view that the technology works.  Spiel496 (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (I would be less likely to believe you don't act in good faith, if you could demonstrate one place where you people did not agree since this article is the only place we all edit, that's a bit of an odd demand. You are the only single-purpose account amongst us. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is my take on all of this: the phrase "More media hype than science" is an apt description of Steorn. The media lost interest some time ago because of Steorn's repeated failure to come up with the goods in a way that would satisfy an independent minded person. Steorn satisfies WP:GNG because of the amount of media coverage it has generated, but has not done anything to shake the foundations of physics.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is continue support that, at least among, technical and science reporters STEORN's technology leaves science behind and is more a marketing scheme than science ("Unbound by practical business requirements. . .or the laws of Physics" (see case study on Steorn Orbo)). Because the article continue to report the same information does not make it weak nor does it weaken other parts of the article.  It either reconfirms what we already know, or teaches us something.  The gang can not stand it, because it is one more straw on the back of STEORN's unsustainable claim.  Lastly, this article continue to confirm that STEORN's technology is not creditable.  And Cameron Scott can go suck and egg.Irrito (talk)


 * The above comment is well out of line due to violation of WP:NPA. The claim that the article is somehow pro-Steorn propaganda has been made by Irrito before, but is not supported by my reading of the article or that of other editors. Irrito could ask for a WP:RFC here, but his track record of accusing other editors of bad faith is unhelpful.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ianmacm comment is just plane WRONG there are third party that have either attempted to edit the STEORN page which demonstrates the same or similar view the article I promote now or third parties have reviewed the gangs' blocking attempts and found them to be suspect. The general approach by the gang is to gang up and justify without reason their decisions.Irrito (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC).


 * The other editors have bent over backwards to listen to Irrito's concerns about WP:NPOV in the article. It is not good Wikipedia practice to accuse other editors of bad faith without strong evidence, and it is disappointing to be having a debate which rakes over old allegations in this area.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted to pipe in. I finally registered because, typically, i just do little spelling fixes and vandalism removes anonymously. this article however, i wanted my name on, since everyone here is so quick to sockpuppet, bias and gang cries. I read this article from time to time as a place to launch from in keeping up on the Steorn Orbo and Steorn's claims about it, I find the whole thing fascinating to follow. I will not waste more time qualifying my comments, but make them now.
 * Irrito, i've read this article. my interest is john q. public, i have no vested interest in steorn succeeding or failing beyond my own glee for the technology, or the entertainment value of their failure. The article well displays the fact the Orbo has failed in all chances Steorn has allowed it to be demonstrated or reviewed, to whatever strange qualifiers they required for the reviews, and their excuses for why the reviews are negative. This is called objectivism, and the article displays it. Also, ti displays a common sense writing rule: don't repeat the same thing. A written document can be reread, a reader will be insulted if you repeat the same things - even if someone else says it. It's unnecessary if it adds no new insight or value, but only adds criticism and bias. repetition is, in fact, a modifier to create bias.
 * Everyone else... shut up and write. this article is short on facts, more needs to be found. but this article should focus on Steorn the Company, not Steorn the Orbo Product. if we want to get in to the nitty gritty details of the Orbo, the claims around it, all that.. make an Orbo Article. common sense says claims about, information about, details of the Orbo should be on the Orbo page. it's like writing about the PS3's specs on the Sony Company page, it's utter nonsense.
 * Why shutup? this discussion page cracks the foundations of the article and its objectivity and the sincerity of the content by exposing the main editors' bickering and infighting. you are all working together on this article, if you cant get along, someone has to go, or a compromise has to be met - within the strict idea that this is NOT a science journal. it is not a soapbox. it isnt a debate floor. it is an objective, emotionless article that does not assume the reader to be mentally challenged or suffering a memory impairment (so no need for repetition.). In the past, i read this article. but the display this discussion page makes, now i just use it as a link page for the offsite resources, because the contributors' lack credibility and professionalism in their conduct here, the article lacks credibility and professionalism. Tony Vanelli 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyvanelli (talk • contribs)


 * Except there's nothing to say about Steorn as a company except that they claim to have broken the laws of physics. Sony do many things and produce many products. Steorn are a nothing company that are notable only because of the media attention they've received following their announcement. If you can add anything verifiable and worthwhile about Steorn the company, go ahead.
 * Also, an article about the Orbo cannot exist because nothing verifiable has been said about the Orbo since nobody knows what it is supposed to be. Only Steorn's claims to have developed a perpetual motion machine (which they have called the Orbo) and the responses those claims have received are verifiable, so it is all about Steorn. See, for example, Blacklight Power and this discussion: Talk:Blacklight_Power/Archive_3. Hydrino and Hydrino theory both redirect to that article as Orbo redirects here.
 * And despite one problem element, who appears to have left, I think the article is in pretty good shape so I have no idea what your problem with it is. Shut up and get editing if you think you can improve the article. :) GDallimore (Talk) 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree there was a specific 'element' that was the problem. But the interaction by the rest of the contributors to that element colours them and their contributions as much as his. Many people are critical of wikipedia, and it is these discussion pages that often reveal the most important thing to any reader about the articles - the frame of the active contributors as they talk in this space. I can of course hold the 'element' responsible for his actions; but it would be unjust to not hold the other contributors responsible for their reactions - and reconsider the article's veracity and focus as a whole when these active contributors conversations are considered.
 * The article - i again restate what i said the first time - i think it presents the information about the Orbo & claims surrounding it fairly. My irritation is this discussion page and that despite the fact the article is rather fair to the fanciful claims about this product, the tone taken by the contributors in this discussion section still colours the content of the article negatively.
 * Steorn as a company existed before their little Orbo product, and exists beyond the Orbo product. It is obviously not their revenue generator since its existence as even a working prototype is questionable, but they have revenue generating products, two of them - plus another product I consider with some squinty eyed skepticism - ZeroF. If we're being fair, neutral and unbiased.. where are these products, besides passing mention from quotes? I realize so far the Orbo is the sensationalist, 'noteworthy'-ist part of Steorn, i think the Orbo claims and information are justified and well presented - I still know hardly a thing about Steorn, their other products, and really, hardly a thing about their history after reading this. Just Orbo. It seems the sensationalism took too much precedent in the writing here. Tony Vanelli 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyvanelli (talk • contribs)


 * I think you need to read Reliable sources. An article is written based on reliable sources independent of the topic. Nobody reliable and independent of Steorn cares about anything they do or produce so the article says essentially nothing about what they do or produce.
 * As for the "tone" of this talk page colouring the article, sounds like rubbish to me. Someone came along, caused a fuss, insulted and harrassed people and then left when faced with different people using different approaches to try to get him to either contribute positively or f off. The article remains in a form that is essentially identical to what it was before. Any apparent consequential problem with the article is therefore a figment of your imagination. The problem is not with the article or the contributors, but with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes when faced with an unreasonable and unconstructive editor - indeed this is a common problem with any social project, not just Wikipedia, and in the absence of any real authority the only solution is to ignore and minimise the damage of the disruptive elements as much as possible. But this is getting off-topic, so I'm shutting up on this point now. GDallimore (Talk) 20:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Six week demonstration
In my (humble) opinion, its conceivable that such a large battery is able to power the device on exhibition all by itself for the six weeks it's on exhibition. The device probably has magnetic bearings, similar to those used in modern hard-drives, and the rotor probably rotates in a vacuum, so there is virtually no energy needed to keep it rotating, as no energy is wasted in friction of any kind. Even if the device somehow gathers energy from its surroundings, (like the "happy drinking bird" "perpetium mobile" you sometimes see in novelty shops) the quantity of generated energy is so minimal it serves no practical purpose. Only if somehow its proven to be an "over unity device", does it have (scientific) value (to say the least), and only if it can be scaled up to generate significant amounts of energy does it serve a practical use. Mahjongg (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think ZDNet is making a similar point. Without going into that much detail, that's the point I'm trying to get across in the bit about no evidence being shown of over-unity. I really don't think this demonstration is worth more than a few sentences, but if you think you can improve the section, please chip in. GDallimore (Talk) 09:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the ZDNet link I mean. I don't really want to add it in as a source, though, because it's a ZDNet blog posting rather than a proper news article and therefore of slightly dubious reliability. I know some of Rupert Godwin's other blog postings are used as sources, but this one was a bit too critical of Steorn for comfort. Basically, if we add his blog to make overtly negative commentary, then we're possibly opening the door to all the pro-Steorn blogs being used as sources saying how Steorn is going to change the world, something I really want to avoid as over-promotion of fringe theories. GDallimore (Talk) 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We've been scraping the barrel to find sources for the December 2009 demonstration. The mainstream media (BBC, RTE etc) are not the slightest bit interested. Steorn could say on its website that the moon was made of green cheese and it would not pass WP:GNG without additional coverage. This is not a criticism of Steorn itself, but Wikipedia articles should not be guided by other people's hype and spin.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not sure I agree about scraping the barrel. There are four sources that are used. One is Steorn's news release, which I think's sensible. One is Godwin's blog posting on 14 Dec (which could probably now be removed since it doesn't add anything except independent confirmation of the news release). The remaining two are news reports from reliable sources: ZDNet (written by Godwins, but in the news section, not the blog section) and The Press Association. They're brief but say all that needs to be said. I think we'd be scraping the barrel if we starting picking stuff out from the other sources that turn up on Google News, such as "Wired" or (heaven forbid) "The Examiner", but I'm happy with the balance of sources at the moment.
 * But no, we certainly don't want to be pulling in the moon-chesse brigade. GDallimore (Talk) 11:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The December 2009 demonstration just about satisfies WP:SIGCOV, but has not created the stir that Steorn managed in 2006. Steorn has used the December 2009 demonstration to bypass peer review, which is the normal benchmark for scientific claims. As other users have pointed out, a true overunity device would not need batteries in the first place (see The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman et al). Newman's claims were rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office despite legal battles. Claims to have recharged batteries from a machine while it is working would violate all three laws of thermodynamics.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * SICGOV is about whether a topic is notable enough for its own article. It doesn't have anything to say about what information goes into an article. That's WP:Verify, which I have already spoken to in my comment above. I don't know what you're getting and and don't see how any of the rest of your comments help to improve this article, which is what this talk page is for. GDallimore (Talk) 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Steorn has been struggling to attract any significant media attention since 2006. While I hate to agree with Irrito, the latest trial only just about merits a mention in the article, because of the limited media coverage it has received.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Irrito is long gone, what are you talking about? GDallimore (Talk) 17:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And I agree, it only warrants a brief mention. But it definitely merits a mention. So, what point are you trying to make? I'm just really confused! GDallimore (Talk) 17:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is frustrating for the article to become a mirror of second hand information about the Steorn website, which is not a WP:RS. The web is full of free energy claims, but most would not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm not saying that the December 2009 demonstration should not be mentioned, but it's a pity that the mainstream media has moved on and has left coverage of the event in the hands of blogs, which are not looking in detail at the WP:REDFLAG element, as Sir Eric Ash did for the BBC. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, we shouldn't just mirror what Steorn say, and I don't think the demonstration section does that at all. The commercialisation section is another issue, however, and I have therefore made this edit to remove some trivial, useless stuff about what Steorn say they are up to. GDallimore (Talk) 18:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I read most of the news report (translating some) there is a lack of clear evidence of the development of free energy. Most notably the fact that no type of gauge was put on the device (as pointed out in one of the report--ZDnet[?]).  The best the any addition can be made is to state that Steorn did in fact provide a demonstration of their engine.  Irrito (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not six weeks, but rather 5 weeks: december 15-23 and january 5-31, 8 + 28 days = 36 days. See 87.122.67.193 (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)