Official verdict: Steorn didn’t develop free energy technology

Back in August 2006, the Irish company Steorn declared it had developed "revolutionary free energy technology." To back up its claim, they ran an ad in the Economist inviting a jury of independent experts to scrutinize its claims.

It's been almost three years, but the jury has finally delivered its verdict.

The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy. The jury is therefore ceasing work.

So the whole thing was a big waste of time. The mystery is why Steorn even bothered. What did they think they were gaining from this elaborate charade?

Free Energy Technology

Posted on Tue Jun 30, 2009


free Publicity. Dar
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Jun 30, 2009  at  02:45 PM
I'm a little confused here. In the interest of curiosity and my skeptical mind I started looking for Ian MacDonald, the chair of the Steorn jury. Initially I thought that this was the Ian MacDonald at the University of Waterloo but that person is actually in their IT department and not a professor at all. And then I realized, from the obvious tie on Ian's page of the Jury site ( that he is a professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Alberta. So, I started looking for him there. Now, there is an Ian MacDonald at UoA but he's not a professor of Electrical Engineering but of Ophthalmology. Now, again, it is possible this is still not the correct Ian MacDonald but I would think that someone that is so clearly important to this entire project would have at least been noted by the University of Alberta for his work.
I could be completely wrong on all of this but I'm wondering if this is all just a very elaborate hoax in and of itself.
Posted by ceredur  on  Tue Jun 30, 2009  at  03:07 PM
But that's rather my point. In an attempt to garner free publicity, why wouldn't the University of Alberta have this plastered all over their website.

It all feels a little odd to me.

Reading through the product descriptions of Steorn's Orbo, aka free energy product, it really sounds like utter gibberish. I'm not an electrical engineer but it still sounds like a joke.
Posted by ceredur  on  Tue Jun 30, 2009  at  03:20 PM
Given that they freely participated in the testing of their "free energy," the folks at Steorn seem to be true believers rather than conscious frauds.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Jun 30, 2009  at  06:18 PM
It was a waste of time.
Steorn played a joke with the whole world.I was totally frustrated by the verdict.
Posted by Irene Savoia  on  Tue Jun 30, 2009  at  10:03 PM
Three years is too long.I can not imagine why Steorn cheated the whole world.They could benefit from it?
Posted by Jess Holroyd  on  Tue Jun 30, 2009  at  10:09 PM
Steorn's response was predictable:

Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, said "The jury hasn
Posted by David B.  on  Wed Jul 01, 2009  at  03:42 AM
Luckily I came back to visit the Museum right before this article fell off the front page. I'd almost completely forgotten about Steorn. Although the results were as expected, I'm surprised Steorn's website itself is linking to some of the online news of the jury report, especially considering none of their claims have yet been removed from their site.
Posted by Eric  on  Sat Jul 04, 2009  at  01:51 PM
it really sounds like utter gibberish. I'm not an electrical engineer but it still sounds like a joke.
Posted by Compare it  on  Tue May 04, 2010  at  09:22 PM
So, bottom line: How can a real person, Professor Ian McDonald, simultaneously exist and not exist, with no one at the University of Alberta having any knowledge and/or history of his existence? As for Steorn's motives, how about selling stock to the naive who would accept the same old model of an over-balanced wheel - which the Steorn device appears to be?

James Randi.
Posted by James Randi  on  Tue Mar 01, 2011  at  07:31 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.