Slashdot Mirror
News Media Scammed by 'Free Energy' Hoax
The General Electric corporate empire was scammed - they modified the story with a skeptical headline but otherwise left it alone. The AOL/TimeWarner corporate empire didn't have any problem with the story. The Environmental News Network, which probably should know better, didn't.
Now I know that wire stories are often run with minimal verification - each paper or website assumes that Reuters, or UPI, or AP has checked the story for veracity before it went out. And I know that reporters and editors can't be experts on every field of endeavor that they report on.
But this is Basic Science. The Three Laws (everyone loves the Second Law[1]) are not a new thing, and they're not going away any time soon. This should have been taught in junior high. There's a simple, well-known test that Reuters could have applied to this story: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". This claim is the most extraordinary of all - free energy, perpetual motion, whatever you want to call it, and it demands proof beyond question. Reuters is running this story based on an anonymous inventor. Is that extraordinary proof?
But wait, I said perpetual motion. The phrase "perpetual motion" is one which sets off alarm bells in people's heads, so the anonymous inventor was quick to head off that thought process:
"But he is keen to head off the notion that he has tapped into the age-old myth of perpetual motion. ``Perpetual motion is impossible. This is a self-sustaining unit which at the same time provides surplus electrical energy,'' he said."
This quote is simply embarassing. It parses to "Perpetual motion is impossible. This is a perpetual motion unit." The inventor must be snickering in his Guinness right now to have snuck that one past.
The story gets better when you read it several times. Three 100 Watt light bulbs created a drain of 4500 Watts, according to the nameless inventor. That would be an impressive feat all by itself, except that it's total nonsense.
The piece would have made a good humor article. A properly skeptical and properly educated Reuters reporter could have examined these claims, poked holes in them, and published a story that simultaneously reported on the claims and educated the public about why they are a load of hogwash. Too bad that's not what happened.
Maybe you'd like to take a crack at evaluating their claims? You think you can examine their device a little more critically than Reuters? Give them a call.
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy. To test this claim, I'll send a Thinkgeek t-shirt to the first person who finds a retraction of this 'free energy' story published by Reuters or any of the newspapers/media outlets that ran the original story. *Any* of them. I don't expect to pay out.
Update: 01/24 16:38 GMT by M : CNN has updated their story with a new headline and several new paragraphs at the end, which qualifies. A couple of people also noted that ZDNet appears to have taken their copy of the wire story down. Lucas Garsha was the first to email, so he gets a t-shirt. I wasn't clear whether the claim should be email or in the comments, so I'll also send a t-shirt to the first commenter noting this, which appears to be skia.
[1] This is a fine world that we live in, where I can find a website devoted to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Not only did he scam most news agencies, he drinks Guinness.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
How quickly we are to jump to wondrous conclusions. I doubt this is a real application of the zero-point effect. I guess all the news media personell who were working 12 years ago when cold fusion came out have moved on and weren't around to lend caution where it was needed?
max inglis
Someday, I'll live in a world where every child grows up with a decent science education and critical thinking is encouraged...
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
But the *$!? lameness filter won't let me type it in.
Carousel is a lie!
-- Homer Simpson
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
I don't know about that assumption that the media/news outlets never do retractions. If you do read an actual physical newspaper, you'll see that usually on the editor's page they do print retractions and corrections.
It's quite possible that a) they don't even know that the story is wrong, b) no one has read and analyzed some tiny newstory from AP/Reuters/etc.. and c) no one has told them it's wrong.
Why don't you write your local paper that ran the story, and let them know? How else are they going to know to print a retraction/correction?
"If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness."
Nothing is more inportant than Guinness. Nothing.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
If you're going to draw the line, please finish it.
If you require "extraordinary proof" to refute science, why not define what you need? I agree that running a light bulb for three hours isn't that impressive, and this is probably a scam of some sort.
But on the same time, science demands that we ask "what if this is true?". If he really has a free energy device, what amazing thing could he do to prove that it works?
My own suggestion: go to an ivy-league school (heck, any college) and set the darn thing up powering something that causes a healthy drain. (*not* a lightbulb... well, maybe a strobe light or something that really sucks up the juice) and let it go until it stops.
Once the bulb stops, plug it into the wall and see if it starts. If it does, the invention's probably not free energy. If it doesn't, plug in another bulb and see how long THAT one lasts.
A year or so of healthy drain would be enough to prove free energy, don't you think? Or at least, enough to get the damn patent and immortalize the freakish invention.
Well, doesn't this bring us one step closer to the Infinite Improbability Drive ?? Hmm ??
I wonder if the inventor will prove NP=P and provide a 2 terraherz processor that can be overclocked indefinitely with zero waste heat.
:-)
Personally, I think this story is a hoot!
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
"The 58-year-old electrical engineer, who lives in the Irish republic and intends -- for ``security and publicity-avoidance reasons'' -- to keep his identity a secret, has spent 23 years perfecting the Jasker Power System."
Ummm... Mr. Jasker... I think we let the cat out of the bag.
Next time you are handed one of those promotional AOL CDs with a "free 70 hours", here is your new retort:
"So is that Free as in Beer, Free as in Speech, or Free as in Energy?"
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Maybe that Mendocino guy could use this to power the town without all that nasty electromagnetic radiation?
sulli
RTFJ.
Troll? Please note use of ;-) emoticon.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
PS - Sorry if I botched 'c'. It's been a long day.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Boy does this story take me back ... when I was in 5th grade this concept was the basis for my science fair project. I was *convinced* that I could make it work somehow ... some of my prototypes were combination wind tunnels (powered fans) and windmills (turbins/fans generating power) with my hopes of somehow using the right combination of equipment to generate more power from the turbins than it required to operate the wind tunnel and tapping into the surplus. Boy was I a dumb naieve kid! I didn't know much back then ... but I knew I loved experimenting. I still remember being absolutely *crushed* and hating my science teacher when he tried to explain to me that it was impossible -- laws of conservation of energy and all that jazz. I just did not want to believe him.
:) I guess the folks at Reuters are about par on my mental development at 5th grade ... sheesh.
Ah well, to be young and inquisitive and stubborn
Groove Salad -- a nicely chilled plate of ambient grooves and beats.
A long while back the U.S Patent office got so many of these "perpetual energy" machines that the office head put down the policy that the inventor had to submit a working prototype. The office would then set it going and if it was still running a year later, they would consider the patent application. This cut down on the number of applications considerably.
A two hour test run is bullshit. Let's see it run for 2 years in an empty room, then we'll talk.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Wouldn't it be ironic, the one time slashdot takes a high headed journalistic stand, it's for a some crazy story that some time from now turns out to be true.
J
The CNN article that's linked to here is the one I read. While it seems silly they even bothered to run this story, they at least offered significant skepticism and the words of several expert-types who said it was probably a big load of crap. In other words, they don't need to correct themselves, because they never said "this is true".
There have been a number of people working on 'free energy' for some time, and some have had a good degree of success. Check out http://www.nexusmagazine.com/freeenergy.html for a summary of some of them, and some links.
And this 'three laws' thing? How many other laws of science have been revised, updated or completely discarded after new discoveries were made? How about the phlygisten theory? Earth is the center of the universe? The single shooter theory? Perhaps these laws of thermodynamics are only valid within a particular context, and the free energy comes from outside that context?
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
Isn't that what a (non rechargable) battery does?
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
I have invented this awesome technology. I call it "battery bootsrapping". Just take any ordinary battery operated electrical device and start it up with the batteries in place. While the apparatus is running, remove the batteries. Voila! YMMV, but my palm operated for exactly 0.00013 seconds before dying... zero point energy!
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy.
All of the reports said "So and so CLAIMED to have done X and Y." Reporting a claim is not the same as getting a story wrong. I'm not saying that they SHOULD have published it but I don't see why they should publish a retraction...
Then you power three 100W light bulbs for an hour. That's only 0.3kWh, or probably close to $0.05 worth of electricity.
Upon demonstration to the reporters, the three batteries on the outside are left with an "increased charge". The machine put out more than it took in *.
The secret: Four car batteries are in the box. It's self repleneshing! Demonstrate this to enough reporters, using nwe external batteries each time, and it will run forever!!!
Sigh.
*Editor's Note: If only more women were like that.
It has been a pipe-dream of inventors since Leonardo da Vinci...
... and, apparently, it still is.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
that means I'll never have to stop to charge my Segway Human Transporter!!
Quite frankly, in my experience at least half of the Slashdot stories about physics are incorrect, whether due to hoaxes, a submitter who didn't understand what he was talking about, or an editor who just had to stick in that sentence of his own to prove how smart he was.
When it comes to science news, I don't trust Reuters to get it right, but I do trust them a hell of a lot more than Slashdot. So stop crowing so loudly over someone else's embarrassment.
I wouldn't say that Reuters was completely scammed. They did, after all, put this page not in the Science,or Tech categories, but in the "Lifestyle" category, note that the link directly after the title is to "Ann Landers."
Their view of the thing seems to be along the lines of "Hey, some guy claims he saw the Loch Ness Monster and he's building a submarine to search the lake."
*snicker* According to the CNN report, part of the "evidence" that the 4 12V car batteries were recharged while powering 3 100W light bulbs was the fact that the voltage actually increased from 48.9V to 51.2V.
Could there be any other reason for the voltage (and voltage alone, not power) to increase?
Surely it couldn't be something as trivial as the batteries warming up.... or would that only occur to someone who knows of the (really dangerous) way to deal with a dead battery in cold weather - hook up the jumper cables then short them. If you don't succeed in blowing up the battery, you may have warmed it up enough that it will have enough juice to turn the starter.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed.
Just similar to magic show, we all know it is a hoax. How to uncover the ground truth is the interesting part right now.
This is just my wild guess. The voltage reading looks really dubious to me. I suspect that the system consists of 4 lead-acid battery connected in series and connected to an external power sources.
48.9/4 => 12.2 (voltage before)
51.2/4 => 12.8 (voltage after)
These figures are typical for lead acid for such a charging regime.
He may hide the external power connection through non-cable charging solution (e.g. IPT: inductive power transfer). Probably the only truth in this article is that cheater is (was) an electrical engineer.
The key is that they are light bulbs. Other resistors might have a lot of variability possible in how much power they consume. Here's what happens when you try to put a lot of current through a light bulb:
*pop*
<darkness>
If you can come up with a way to use three hundred-watt bulbs to absorb 4500 watts, I'd like to see it...
So this guy claims to have made a perpetual motion machine? Here are some examples of other "revolutionary" perpetual motion machines--which of course don't work. (from the website of Professor R.P. Feynman.)
The underwater spinning donut
A pulley-based system
and a piston-based machine
The article is a factual account of what the reporter saw, what the "scientist" claimed, and it includes a lot of balancing views pointing out fairly obvious things like the laws of thermodynamics, etc.. The chances of this guy breaking the laws of thermodynamics are infinitismal, but the article doesn't claim any more than that. It is clearly written with tongue planted firmly in cheek ("the most important Irish invention since Guiness"?), and maybe if Americans understood the concepts of "sarcasm" and "subtlety" more people would have got the joke.
3 car batteries drained by 3 100W bulbs in 1 1/2 minutes?! A 100W bulb running at 110V draws (P=V*I) less than 1 amp. 3 of them would draw no more than 3 amps. Sears DieHard deep-cycle marine batteries have capacities of about 100 amp-hours per battery, or 300 amp-hours for 3 batteries.
Neglecting any other losses or AC-DC conversions, and why not, because we're apparently living in a thermodynamically perfect world now, those 3 batteries would power those 3 bulbs for more than 4 days, not 1 1/2 minutes.
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
How about if the inventor of said device allows himself/herself to be locked in a hermitically sealed container with their invention powering a CO2 scubber/Oxygen Generator. Wait 24 hours and open up. Yes/No.
Succesful completion of this test would be extraordinary and get peoples attention.
I was just forced to watch 10 X-files episodes in a row. Every single one of them had the "extraordinary evidence" vanish just before the end of the episode.
They wouldn't have filmed the X-files if these stories weren't true. Reuters wouldn't have printed this story if it weren't true.
Maybe this inventor not only invented a perpetual power source, he also invented HEAVY electricity. Three 100 watt light bulbs for two hours is normally only 0.6kwh, but if he has discovered HEAVY electricity, then perhaps 0.6kwh of light electricity == 4.5kwh of HEAVY electricity. Maybe this machine can convert HEAVY electricity into light electricity. Imagine replacing the engine in your car with a big, shiny dishwasher and a bunch of 12 volt HEAVY electricity batteries. You could charge it up every night, and each day you could drive to work and not use any mains energy or petrol. Wow! What a dream this guy has had, I can't believe nobody ever thought of this before.
Being stuck at home with the flu and 15 DVDs of the X-files can be an enlightening experience. Open your minds, slashdotters.
the AC
You can tell this is a joke, when they say this may be a more important invention than Guinness. Ha!
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Reuters science folks are idiots, out and out.
For those who've forgotten they ran the scam story on the guys who got 100 to 1 compression on random data.
Consistently flawed, and never post a correction.
It crazy, these guys do news and you'd think they'd have a clue. Not a chance.
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy....
Alright, finally, Michael got his chance to vent. Feel good, doesn't it?
It would probably be irresponsible to pull some strings at the newspaper I work at to have a retraction printed just for the t-shirt, wouldn't it...
Oh well.
Username taken, please choose another one.
"A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed."
Why do I have the suspicious feeling that this amazing new "free energy" device is, in fact, a capacitor?
Money does not abide by the laws of thermodynamics.
Thanks for reminding me about K5... I hadn't visited them much since their server problems back in December. Now, about the K5 readers being "...taken in...", allow me to quote the first comment -- I think it sums things up perfectly.
-- END OF LINE.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
First off, do I believe this inventor has created something worth our attention? No.
However, claiming that it does not work because it's power source is zero point energy is short sighted and incorrect. Zero point energy is an actual true energy source that fills all of space. It is a consequence of quantum mechanics. If this inventor truly has harnessed zero point, it would work just like powering the light bulbs with a battery. Unfortunately, I've never heard of anyone really getting zero point energy to do anything useful.
It generates power until the hamster gets hungry and stops running.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Try Googling for two wonderful gentlemen - Dennis Lee, and Joseph Newman.
Both run highly profitable businesses, marketing a, um, nearly-complete free energy machine.
Dennis Lee has been to prison a couple of times, Joseph Newman has married his secretary and her 8 year old. (Google for it, you'll find it). Yet, to this day, they both run multi million dollar businesses on this free energy idea. Why? Because people WANT to believe. And you can be 100% confident that Mr Anonymous Irish Inventor will be sitting on a nice cash pile any minute now...
A retraction by Reuters is not necessary unless the story is not true. I'm pretty sure this hoaxter made the claims, and Reuters merely reported the claims. Corrections are fine, like if Reteurs made a math error or spelled someone's name incorrectly. Wild claims are not a retractable issue because they are just that - claims. Not facts.
If this hoaxter who got national attention, too bad. But the job of a reporter is to report. Reuters did not make an extraordinary claim. The hoaxter did. Yes, Reuters looks stupid when reporting a hoax. Yes, if Reuters regularly reports hoaxes, people will seriously question whether it's worthwhile to read Reuters reports.
If you want analysis of the report, read a science publication. This report is no different than other legitimate reporting. Every day we hear about a *real* scientific study that tells us X causes cancer or X is good for you, and it's up to the public to interpret the news. A prudent person doesn't rush out to the grocery store to begin eating lots of X (or stop eating it) until the evidence is so overwhelming that it's accepted as fact.
A prudent person, when reading this Reuters energy article, would simply say, "OK, come back and tell me again after the invention has undergone peer review and the whole world is excited. Until then, I'll stay connected to the grid."
I suspect that the person is Peter Chambers, and I offer the following evidence:
1. The administrative contact for jasker.com is Peter Chambers.
2. A search on Google.com identifies a Peter Chambers as an alumni of Brunel University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, issued 1972. This is 29 years ago. If he got his degree when he was 29, not unlikely, that would make him the 58 year old unnamed inventor.
Just a thought, and it all hinges on the assumption that the two are the same Peter Chambers and that he got the degree at 29.
If it's bollox, I'm at my Karma cap anyhow, so I can afford to lose the points. With a cap of 50, there's no real reason to make every comment super insightful, seeing as how there's no reward once you get to 50.
There have been experimental demonstrations of the veracity of the Casimir Effect, in which two closely spaced parallel plates are driven toward each other by the pressurre created by the ZPF.
It still doesn't get around the laws of thermodynamics, however. Just becasue it's an exotic energy source doesn't mean the rules don't apply to it. It's just beloved by fringe free energy types becasue it involves the magic word 'quantum', and seems to spring from nowhere.
"Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate"
/. has the journalistic integrity of a high school newsletter. The ones published without an editor. Get over yourself.
oh please.
Unless the story has been seriously edited since first published, it's full of doubts itself. Just because they don't offer any scientific analysis of it doesn't mean they were duped.
inky
Reuters often puts stories on the wire before the AP does, but at a great cost. In general, Reuters stories are:
My rule of thumb in posting wire stories on washingtonpost.com was that I would treat Reuters stories as a "heads up" and then wait for the AP version. If no AP story appeared and I still wanted to post the story, I'd run it through a spellchecker and then subject it to careful scrutiny.
Something like this story could still get through, but the point is that news organizations should know to be more careful with Reuters.
Has anybody read this page? Wow, it's clearly a hoax just by the language. Here's a bit:
The credibility of the system is definitively established and can be interpreted and demonstrated as being "the practical application of accepted techniques".
There are no stages in the operation of this invention that require any constituent component to perform at anything other than that being, within its capability or in accordance with its specification.
All the parts for this invention are in practical and productive everyday use. The methodology technique is accomplished by the innovative application in logical sequence of specifically selected constituent components whose performance compliment each other and function in co-operation.
This is part of a brief description of the device. It's all like that.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Just for a second, let's say that these fools DID invent thier magical energy machine. Are they really the heros of the world? Not if they are trying to make a profit off of thier device. By keeping it secret, they would be worthy of a serious lynching, not a hero's parade. I am all for the progress of science and inventors getting paid for thier work, but when something like this comes around, it is simply too valuable to humanity to try and profit from. If the man who eventually finds the "cure" for cancer (not just a treatment, an actualy honest to goodness cure), or AIDS, or old age decided that he was going to only give it out to the highest bidder the world would be very very displeased. Free energy would transform the entire world forever. It would solve hunger (by providing palnts with energy for food, day and night, everywhere in the world), overpopulation (by providing the energy to get into space), poverty & crime (energy and money are interchangable, few realize this. When energy is free, economies will change on an astronomical scale), war (with limitless energy, everyone will have railguns, making even minor skermishes as pointless as thermonuclear war), everything.
If these men are telling the truth, they will go down in history as villians.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I agree that science holds many mysteries still but this claim holds all the hallmarks of a hoax. The 4 car batteries are an obvious tip off.
Inconsistent claims such as this: ``Perpetual motion is impossible. This is a self-sustaining unit which at the same time provides surplus electrical energy,'' he (the inventor) said
So the inventor claims that a perpetual motion (break even) machine is impossible but one that supplies surplus energy, well that's easy.
I want to see this guys electricity bills for the last 17 months.
First off... Laws were made to be broken.
Second, I'm going to reserve my judgement either way untill this device has been hauled into a credible (I.E. non-fossile-fuel paid) lab for testing.
Perhaps he actually did it, perhaps not. He may just be a nut, he may be the current version of Tesla.
As for his statement about perpetual motion... The story gives no idea if there's any motion at all in the mechanical sense. So, instead of just knee jerking and saying that it's a load of crap so it's not worth looking at, people should say "let's test the device and see if it does what the inventor says it does." Get that thing up on a platform, make sure there's no hidden power leads, have a disinterested third party take a look at the insides for batteries and the sort, and if it passes all those, run it under a load and see if it runs down. Would be quite a simple test, and more conclusive than the attitude of "You can't break the laws of physics so it's a load of bull." Over time in physics as with any science 'laws' are changed to fit what is currently known. A new thing/way pops up that violates those laws will require a complete rethinking of laws that scientists have come to consider unbreakable canon, and will cause them to have to throw out works of theirs that use the laws that have become invalid.
So, it's completely in the best interest of the fossile fuel industry, and 'big science' that this device be disproved using any means possible.
Before anybody takes it seriously enough to put it to the test.
-
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
On the other hand, is such a hoax any worse than the current hoax we all live under, the one that says that Oil is necessary for our survival and operation?
I mean, science and small companies have been operating clean coal and wind energy power at less than half the cost of oil or even natural gas for years now, and yet the media would have you believe we "have" to support the terrorists so we can get their oil.
So, given the general state of the media and its coverage of energy, and the gullibility of the American public on this matter, I don't see why it's so unbelievable they'd buy into a "free energy" scam.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Turns out that this scam is actually by the editors of Social Texts who have been waiting all this time to get their own back on Alan Sokol.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I can't resist: Cheap Irony: Are you now going to correct yourself on the subject of corrections?
Now, what merits a correction, that's lots of fun fodder for media analysis. Of course you won't have to pay out on the challenge, because this sort of article isn't the type of material that is thought to require a correction (but if you were fair, you'd send me a Thinkgeek T-shirt anyway for catching you out above :-)).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
And I have a second task as well. Slashdot is occasionally criticized for getting a story wrong, even though we diligently correct ourselves when necessary. My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy.
Now wait just a minute. Every paper has a retractions section, and are usually very prompt in retracting things they get wrong. Your theory with all due respect, is completely and utterly wrong.
Slashdot occasionally will retract things, but I think "diligent" is going a little overboard. And the retractions slashdot DOES print are usually very vague and defensive (when was the last time you saw "We made a mistake and didn't research this enough"; it's usually "Uhh this may not be totally accurate").
Secondly, what exactly would they retract in this case? This is the story: "Irish engineer claims to have invented free energy machine". Which is totally accurate. Now most people here would agree that they shouldn't have even given this guy any attention, but the article does cast a lot of doubt on whether it works.
FINALLY, as someone who has worked with newswire feeds, I can assure you that they often DO run retractions, but these take the form of advisories along the lines of "Article portrays incorrect information; it should read ". It's up to the individual newpapers to decide how to handle it, whether to withdraw the article, correct it, or print a retraction.
I know I'm kind of going on a rant here, but this was a ridiculous claim. I like slashdot, but I really don't think the editors are entitled to take a high-handed position on editorial fact-checking. Look how often stories are summarized inaccurately, or old news is portrayed as new, or stories are repeated, or incendiary editorial comments are thrown in to skew the story.
...when our planet is constantly bombarded by more energy than we could ever need? The radiation (heat, light, and other forms) that hits our planet daily from our Sun could, when captured, easily satisfy our energy needs. In effect, we are already using that energy since most natural resources that we consume are simply stored energy from the Sun, locked up millions of years ago by biological organisms.
Anyone check out the wording on the website? It sounds like it was generated with Emacs dissociated press. Now that is a prepetual source of gibberish.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
And yes, I realize that A Modest Proposal was a satirical political statementa and has an incompatible context (and was sarcastic in nature, unlike this post), but it still sounds good as a subject line, and was Ireland-related, sho up yersh. I gesh th'Guinnesh is gettin' to m'.
The article states: "the device can run indefinitely -- or at least until the parts wear out, adding that he has supplied all his own domestic power needs free for 17 months."
But, hold on... What causes parts to wear out, typically? Friction, or the heat energy that is associated with friction. At the very least, "wearing out" indicates a change in the physical or chemical characteristics of something. Change can only come through the transfer of energy. So, either the device is able to create not only enough power to light bulbs and keep itself running, but also extra power to wear out its own parts!! I guess it's too efficient for it's own good.
Holes in the story ALL OVER the place!
There is no news. Thats the problem with this story.
The reported stated claims made by an individual as NEWS. it isn't. It is claims by an individual, who probably is getting free beer from all his buddies because he scammed the press.
"It is impossible to divide a cube into two cubes, a fourth power into two fourth powers, and in general any power except the square into two powers with the same exponents,...I have discovered a truly wonderful proof of this, but the margin is too narrow to hold it."
He was a really clever guy, but that was really far out... =)
The difference of Fermat and this "inventor"-guy of course beeing that Fermat is/was a very merited scientist, and his credibility made it possible for him to sneak this one past.
Follow this link to check it out in more depth.
I found the Fermat reference really fun, but perhaps it's just us (ex) math types...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
"In a demonstration for Reuters, a prototype -- roughly the size of a dishwasher -- was run for around 10 minutes using four 12-volt car batteries as an initial power source. Emitting a steady motorized hum, the machine powered three 100-watt light bulbs for the duration."
It sounds like the box contained a bunch more batteries, and a DC-to-AC inverter (the "hum"). If the box contains 5 12V batteries, the 4 external batteries would be charged (at least initially). The combination of 9 12VDC batteries, could keep 3 100 watt bulbs going for a long time (probably at least a day, enough to wear out any news reporter).
It doesn't sound like much of a trick from the description.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Hamster Power
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
I doubt that anyone here needs a point-by-point debunking, but just to show how fuking stupid the journalist was: "A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed." Not true. The article describes the place as "cold". Car batteries run on a process that requires ions to drift through a solution. I haven't done any calculations, but my gut tells me that the hotter the battery, the greater the open circuit voltage should be since the chemical processes producing the electricity will go faster. All they've proved is that the batteries warmed up during the test (assuming their voltage was measured with everything disconnected to ensure there was no fraud in the measurement taking), quite plausible since that's what batteries do when you use them. "which remained lit during a short power cut." Attach a fly wheel to a generator and motor. Cut power to motor, fly wheel continues to drives generator for a while. "``The draw on the batteries was estimated at more than 4.5 kilowatts. With any existing technology the batteries would have been drained flat in one and a half minutes,'' the inventor said." Ok, 4.5 kW, at about 50 V, you're talking about roughly 90 Amps of current! Considering that the power dissipated by the battery's internal resistance is I*I*R, you're talking about 91kW being dissipated by each battery if the internal resistance was 1 Ohm (1 ohm internal resistance is reasonable, isn't it?). Those fuking batteries should have exploded. All I have left to say is, "Reuters, you're about 2 months early for April fools day." BlackGriffen
My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so readers are left with a false picture of accuracy.
/. going to print a retraction of this obviously false statement?
So...is
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-- Homer Simpson
Sorry, I just had to do it
It was supposed to be an electric car that ran for a week without refueling at speeds up to 90 MPH. Tesla reportedly built a generator to demonstrate it that ran off of permanent magnets and vacuum tubes purchased at a nearby electronics store. He said the energy to power the car came from "the ether". The stories I've read have been a little mysterious, much like the man himself. This search found this link to an article about it.
I figure some jerk reporter was pecking some geek to provide him with some juicy info, and the geek made something up...
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
I don't know how many of you know about Mancow, a nationally syndicated broadcaster beaming out of Chicago, but he did a better job of messing with the media.
He sent out a press release stating that, to publicize his program, a set of billboard ads depicting the Juniors from last years' election (that would be Al Gore, Jr. and George Bush, Jr.) sparking up the large-sized blunts, to steal a line from Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.
He watched the media report on this; to his amazement, Fox News Channel, CNN, and all the local network affiliate newscasts all repeated, word-for-word, this news release.
Problem was, of course, it was untrue.
Now, before you say 'it's another cold fusion insident', think about fuel cell technology. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if any of the scientists who are currently working on fuel cells at least had a pilot light under their ass because of the concept of cold fusion. After all, fuel cells create energy from hydrogen and run cool, right?
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Ok. We have three 100W (watt) lightbulbs, and a drain of 4500W durring a two hour run. This means that the lightbulbs used 600W of power durring that time leaving 3900W used by the machine its self. There was a ten minute "startup" time using four 12Volt car batteries. A decent car battery has a capacity of 50Ah (amp hours, which is "is the amount of energy charge in a battery that will allow one ampere of current to flow for one hour"). So unless I calculated wrong, the "free energy" machine was able to take in about 3600W per battery (assuming the battery fully discharged, provided all of its rated charge, maintained a voltage of 12V and ignoring any internal resistance in the battery. And yes I know this is kinda a bogus number). A more likely/realistic output would have been about 1500W per battery. Multiply that by four batteries and you have "!gasp!" 6000W. Subtract the 4500W the machine consumed and you are left with plenty of energy. I'm not entirely sure about my calculation method here so prove me wrong. If the machine ran for a longer period say, a few days, and without the startup batteries, I might be impressed.
"I've figured out what's wrong with life: It's other people." -Dilbert
I think Hawking would say this.
Thanks to the crew at www.mchawking.com we now know how Stephen feels about the second law; and by extrapolation, how he feels about "Energy from nothing".
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Measuring a voltage on the batteries AFTER the light bulbs were powered vs. during the powering of the light bulbs makes it sounds like the car batteries have internal resistance like any battery out there. This is commonly known as putting a load on a non ideal voltage source.
At the end of this story, michael notes how major news sources do not correct themselves as the righteous Slashdot does.
What exactly is this, however:
"Dozens of submitters, some of them quite credulous, have written in pointing to this Reuters story about an anonymous inventor who claims to have solved the universe's energy woes. It's amazing that Reuters ran this story. It's even more amazing that news media across the country are running it too."
The first part of this statement reflect upon Reuters with neutrality. Michael says the story is about an inventor who claims. Following this, Michael makes it seem like Reuters had placed their endorsement on the story by calling their posting of it "amazing". It's not so "amazing" that even reliable news sites post stories of claims. Reading the artcile shows its not so amazing. Reuters doesn't believe the scientist. Slashdot thinks Reuters does.
Michael whines about how people attack Slashdot editors' journalistic integrity, but here's an obvious example. Reuters was not scammed. Their integrity is intact because they retained bipartisanship in regards to the story. It's not their place to judge the claim as true or false. It is however their position to report the claim. News sources must be neutral so that the public can draw their own conclusions. Of course, the editors at Slashdot don't seem to understand this. They are extremely biased, and instead of letting the readers decide for themselves by simply reporting on the fact that news sites are themselves reporting such a claim, michael has drawn the conclusion that everyone believes it.
So keep whining about how we all flame you for not having integrity of the journalistic sort. It won't change how Slashdot does its reporting.
Why bother.
You people are just prooving that "Dog Bites Man" (which is real news, but happens often) does not make good news, while "Man Bites Dog" (the infrequent type of news that has no bearing on your life) is news.
Junk Food news is the weapon of the large media conglomerates. After all, if you're busy laughing at "Man Bites Dog", you're liable not to see the dog about to bite you, sneaking up, unreported, from behind.
Which is to say, if this story is so incredulous, why support and motivate the desire for the APs and Reuters of the world to print this kind of stuff? Do you think they are interested in bringing you news that affects your life, or more interested in bringing you news you lap up, laugh, argue over, and dis, and ultimately has no direct bearing on your life (until this thing hits mass production, of course).
"Old man yells at systemd"
> The office would then set it going and if it was still running a year later, they would consider the patent application.
So why don't they do this with software patents?
There used to be a time when reporters and news people were intelligent with critical skills. It's obvious those days are gone and news have become Stone Philips. Do I really care if some news personality wears nice designer suits and has a personal stylist? Fck no. So called main stream journalism has no more credibility than the national inquirer. This is truly sad. I'm not even going to bother with the contents of that so called "news article."
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
The author of new super machine noticed, that it works especially well when placed above buried electricity cable or by the aerial electricity wire hangers. "The Zero Point energy loves our current electricity transports and seem to be attracted to them".
:)
In other stories today, Irish electricity company filed for chapter 11, citing as a reason mysterious drains of electricity from its systems at undisclosed location in Ireland. Company insider says, there were numerous sighting of a man with something, that looked like a washing machine, by systems, experiencing power drainage. He was not identified, and referred to in company's files as simply "an electricity pirate".
*the above story is completely fictious
Hyperom.com
Newspapers often print retractions. They just print them a week later buried on an inside page. (If you look carefully, you can often find them. Sometimes you can even figure out what they are retracting.)
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...but, it's old news...
It's called the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). It can run for years on a single supply of fisile material, augmented by uranium filtered from sea water. Not only is it, "an energy source that is unlimited," to quote its head of the project, Dr. Charles Till, but it is possibly the safest nuclear reactor ever designed. Unfortunately, anti-nuclear power activists bringing false claims before Congress in 1994 lead to the decommissioning of the project by then President Clinton.
The unofficial IFR site
A wonderful interview with Dr. Charles Till
Two quick and probably easy-to-obliterate points:
.. well, you need energy to set up winmills and to maintain them. That doesn't mean that they arn't able to collect more energy than it took to set up in the long run from a source that seems limitless (if inconsitant, in this case.) My point being, there's nothing in the laws of physics that says that this machine can't use energy to allow it to collect energy from other source (neutrinos? heat from the sun? i know, its a long shot .. ) that is so near being limitless that it might as well be, with such a small amount of energy required to get it going such that the energy required to maintain it or get it going is insignificant compared to the energy it creates due to it's ability to harness the yet-to-be-identified energy from an energy source that is 'outside the box' of conventional science.
... we've alot to gain by saying "Well, I'm skeptical, but I'll hear you out", and very little to gain (other than an evening's chuckle) from rediculing it before we're filled in on the details. Cell phones were invented 30 years before they became insanely well ingrained in society. This is in part due to people's perceptions and lack of desire to believe in anything that has the potential to significantly alter their world in ways they cannot fathom.
1) If the machine requires energy (my interpretation), then
2) Don't forget how many scientists/explorers were ridiculed in their day, unknown until years later, for thinking 'outside the box'. Gallileo, Columbus, yadda yadda. Some were jailed for their claims.
It's definately a long shot. Really long. The Segway was claimed, in its early days, to be an invention that 'revolutionizes' the world. Whatever. My only point is that society honours its live conformists (all the naysayers) and its dead troublemakers (Gallileo). I'm interested in knowing more. Calling it a hoax because you read a Reutors story (in which your whole issue is that Reutors knows nothing, so it's kind of a self-defeating judgement) only does a disservice and perhaps delays an important discovery in a world where we will only believe the crazy stories from institutions and people who've already gained our trust.
I'm only saying
"Old man yells at systemd"
I just can't help thinking of this quote from Carl Sagan as I read about this story:
"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at Newton. Of course, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
A search of their site says negative.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
If you have your view settings low enough to read this (or it somehow gets rated up by the people who do...)
look at
Eric's History of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines
lots of failures. Thats a given.
also there is how to become a Free Energy con man
"THIS INVENTION EFFECTIVELY GUARANTEES THE CONTINUITY OF MANKIND".
No, that would be sex.
No sig, sorry.
No sig, sorry.
What Reuters observed and concluded, and wrote, would be the most likely conclusions.
1) The black box, when connected to batteries, can increase the voltage by a significant amount - which probably means that more energy was in the batteries at the end of the trial.
2) Despite "creating" energy, it is may not be inherently a perpetual motion device. Perhaps it is only capable of a certain quantity of power, no matter the input power, which is not enough for it to sustain itself without an external power source. With a perfect battery, that would be perpetual, but we know there isn't such a thing. Also the device could be drawing any amount of current to operate, not just the power for the lights.
IMHO, Slashdot's conclusion that "Reuter's report is flawed" is flawed. However, there is something to be said for obeying the current laws of physics. I'm with the parent of this post. I think they used a system which already had a significant amount of energy in some form.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
We, the "wise", and "in the know" of the world, quickly punish the "stupid" and "ignorant" media corporations and people that let this travesty of fact slip through. And yet, we will never reward, few ever even considering, those in the mass media who instantly saw and dismissed this as the rubbish it is. More media will dismiss this than acknowledge it, precisely because they can see it is clearly not something of merit.
:)
Yet, in this system, where intelligence in the form of denial is never rewarded, how can we ever expect the mass media to churn out the truth, in any extravagant form? Look at how we, on this forum, are lashing out at the media that fell for this dup (presuming, of course, that it, in all likelihood, is), yet we will turn around one day and ask "Why does every reputable media corporation cover the exact same material?"
Every media entity that has published this will get attention; I have noticed some magazines mentioned that I would never otherwise have known existed. They are being rewarded with advertisement for their folly. And yet, the media that sensed this folly and avoided it, are relatively punished.
Or so goes my rant.
'Zero point energy has been proven to exist,' he told Reuters.
Yep, Zero Point is quite good... there's pretty much 'zero point' in his machine anyway...
when the audience watching a play or movie knows more then the character(s) speaking the lines on stage.
No, ironic is getting a lecture on proper usage of an English word by someone who couldn't pass a grade two English course.
Ok This is not correct Tesla claimed to have been able to harness power from the earth. The earth does carry a charge and does have a magnetic field there the earth does have potential energy.
Tesla patents claim that by getting the correct receptor the power of earth could be tapped for free. This would make metering electricity impossible.
Interestingly he was never able to complete his experiment due to J.P. MORGAN. Morgan ended up controlling Tesla's patents and the Tesla Co. Morgan also a huge influence on Tesla during his life time. Morgan was making a lot of cash from inefficient power distribution and lighting. Morgan owned General Electric, US steel and Guegeniun Cooper Mines and some power companies like Niagara. GE made a Mint of Niagara Falls. All of these interested made Morgan huge profits due to inefficient technologies like the hot Edison light bulb. Tesla's cold and efficient flourescent light bulb patent was also controlled by JP Morgan. Thus it was a full 50 years until fluorescent light came out commercially.
So next time you pay your 'metered' power bill or change those crappy GE built hot light bulb reflect on economics or greed of capitalist like jp and there affect on history and SCIENCE!!!
Michael boasts that Slashdot corrects errors, while other media do not. I challenge him to correct or defend his mistakes that I point out in this post.
Sims claims that the second law [of thermodynamics] makes such a wonderful machine impossible. If as he says this "should have been taught in junior high," then I guess he did not go to a good enough junior high school. The experts quoted in the Reuters article are much more correct, "citing the first law of thermodynamics" instead.
An explanation, for those of you who also went to the wrong junior high: The second law states that the total entropy of any closed system cannot decrease. This limits the efficiency with which engines can convert heat transfer to work, and requires that heat transfer can only flow from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. These facts are sufficient to rule out a mechanical perpetual motion machine -- that is, a machine which recycles its energy continuously, never ceasing its motion. But this inventor does not claim to have built such a device.
What this inventor does claim is to have found an unknown source of energy. Such a device need not violate the second law. What it does violate is the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. I am not being pedantic here. A 19th century scientist looking at the plans for a nuclear power plant would say that it violates the first law, not the second law. In science, these details are important, and it is vital that you get it right!
Reuters: 1 -- Slashdot: 0
When Sims says that the device is indeed desibred as a perpetual motion machine, he is more-or-less correct. Possibly what the inventor tries to say is that his machine is not a perpetual motion machine of the second kind,which operates without energy input, thus violating the second law. But it is clearly a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which has some magical energy input, and thus violates the first law. I'll give Sims the benefit of the doubt here.
Reuters: 1 -- Slashdot: 1
Next Sims states that three 100 watt light bulbs cannot possibly use 4500 watts of power. In fact, he calls this "total nonsense." But the truth is, we know practically nothing about these bulbs and the way they are run. Are they incandescent? Fluorescent? Neon tube? We simply don't know. They don't appear in the picture Sims linked us to. But in any case, 100 watts is the power consumed by the bulb run at some particular voltage, such as 110 VAC, or whatever they use in Ireland. The bulbs could well be run at a higher voltage, and would consume more power that way. Obviously a filament bulb would burn out. Even a neon lamp might run into breakdown voltage! But there is a simpler explanation -- the inventor just has some other load in parallel necessary to the functioning of the machine (a wormhole generator, subspace stabilizer, or whatever wacky thing he uses to get his energy from). Sims is not totally in the wrong here, but he really cannot to call the inventor's claim "total nonsense" when we have no idea what the experimental setup was.
Reuters: 2 -- Slashdot: 1
Finally, Sims claims that Slashdot is different from "other media" because Slashdot "diligently correct[s] [itself]." Well, here is his big chance to prove this. If he doesn't want to change the bit about the wattage, that's okay with me. But his clear misapplication of the second law of thermodynamics is a glaring error which demands satisfaction.
It appears CNN has fallen for it too!!!
This is not a hoax. I happen to have seen the device working, and I can tell you that it does create energy out of nowhere, something we've been taught that we cannot do. Just like turning lead into gold, which is also very much possible.
Actually, not only have I seen the device, but I once met one of the inventors. As a matter of fact, I know one of the inventors personally. To be perfectly honest, I am actually the lead inventor of this system. I'm going to market it and make a fortune that will make Bill Gates look like a beggar on the streets! I will use this device to create warp drive, and the conquest of the universe will begin!
OH WELL.
The Reuters story doesn't once say "this is true," either. In fact, they go to great lengths to explain why the guy is probably a crackpot.
I'd like to see a retraction from Slashdot on this one - since, unlike the Reuters story, the Slashdot story is actually false, in that it claims Reuters was wrong. But Reuters was scrupulously accurate - quoting the man's claims, then quoting experts, then explaining the claims and why they're unlikely to be possible, while never once stating that he's legit or even that it's very likely he's legit.
Can I get my T-shirt now? I'd like it signed from Michael, "I admit I was wrong, and futhermore, I don't understand the first thing about journalism. I expected all journalists to take my side in stories rather than presenting a balanced viewpoint. Now I see what an idiot I was."
Thanks.
Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.
If Reuters science is this bad, makes you wander about the accuracy of their other news sources.
To whoever invents the next great energy creation tool that seems to put out more than it takes in - could you please do the rest of us and yourself a favor.
Keep it to yourself
Use electrolysys to make tons of hydrogen
Become a billionaire by selling it on the market at below market rates.
And when you die, let the world know how you did it in your will.
Thank you
Ummm...Actually...Bottled Guinness now comes with super cool widgets that not only keep it cold, but give it a perfect head.
For more info, either read my writeup about it Here on JesusGeeks.net or go straight to the source: Usa.guinness.com (it has a cool flash animation showing how the new widget (which uses nitrogen) works). Or you can go see Wired's story on the same subject. 13.5 million dollars in R and D went into bringing you cold guinness with a head.
So stop your whining!
The anti-salmon
With a warp drive that compresses space ahead of your vehicle, and expands it behind your vehicle, you can break the 300,000,000 km/sec speed limit law. However you are still not travelling faster than light in any frame of reference you will arrive at your destination as if you had. You also won't suffer the relatavistic problems of near-light speed travel.
Their view of the thing seems to be along the lines of "Hey, some guy claims he saw the Loch Ness Monster and he's building a submarine to search the lake."
And I'm sure that would cause at least some curious people to follow him and get a look at the submarine that he's building. Except apparently Routers just took the guys word for it and didn't get a very good look at the machine. From the article, "In a demonstration for Reuters, a prototype -- roughly the size of a dishwasher -- was run for around 10 minutes using four 12-volt car batteries as an initial power source."
Size of a dishwasher, eh? Anyone get a good look at the picture of this "prototype?" If you didn't check the link out from the slashdot article, Look here for a look.
Funny, but the grass sure looks pretty big around that machine that's the size of a dishwasher. If that thing was the size of a dishwasher, I would think that the blades of grass wouldn't be that distinct in the photo. Looks more to be about two feet long and a foot / foot-and-a-half wide. I guess that they just have small dishwashers in Ireland!
Yea, the guy claimed he found the Loch Ness Monster and said he's building a submarine to search for it. Only thing is, when someone asked to see the submarine, he was shown a picture of a pop can painted silver.
It's OBVIOUSLY welded shut to keep the excess energy in! Conservation of energy in a closed system, right? Maybe that's just because systems haven't been closed ENOUGH, and it's just been leaking out the whole time! That welding job closed it up good and tight so it couldn't get out, Duh!
Good one, Michael. The irony, of course, is the still incorrect and misleading heading on the "Yahoo charges for searches" story not far below this one.
But anyway, I'm surprised not one bit by reporters not having a basic enough understanding of science to debunk this guy. It's pretty sad, really.
-Legion
Simply try this Amazing machine for 30-days and if after 30-days you do not experience both a huge increase in the amount of energy produced along with longer lasting more intense kilowatt-hours, simply send the machine back to us and we'll refund you 100% of the cost including shipping. With this guarantee, our product must work for you... or we'll lose money on every sale!
Order Now!
Winner of the BURDETT RESEARCH "GOLDEN STAR" AWARD
RESULTS MAY VARY. NOTE: Go to here to be removed.
The demonstration they did was hardly conclusive. As a matter of fact, it's so vague that it pretty much fails to impress the most imaginitive person. The biggest proof that this is a hoax is how empty the 'demonstration' is. I find it difficult to believe that somebody who's so clever they can solve a problem that has been bugging scientists for such a long time, but they cannot do a demonstration that anybody could cobble together fraudulently. I am not electrically minded, but like some people that posted here already my first thought was that they built a capacitor.
Here's what bugs me, hoaxes along these lines are a dime a dozen. You'd think that somebody that's out to prove they invented something 'bigger than the wheel', they'd be loaded with tons of different demonstrations ready to go. I can imagine they'd at least have one big DEFINITIVE demonstration that'd make people go "wow!". But their choice... well I find it laughable.
Unfortunately, my 'proof' isn't very definitive either. I admit that. You'd think, though, that if they really invented such a big thing, they'd know that people would immediately be skeptical. Throwing in a demonstration that is hardly a measure of their claims would seem like a stupid move for a legitimate claim, and a likely move from a fraudulent one.
"Derp de derp."
Unfortunately it is not as good if you happen to know about quantum theory and hermeneutics. The problem with the Sokal article is that it is not actually as nonsensical as he claims. The Quantum mechanics pieces are pure bullshit, the hermenutics pieces are a cut and past job from other sources.
So the hoax does not actually demonstrate what it is meant to. The other problem I have with Sokal is that he is very happy to allow people to believe he is rubishing top rank continental philosophers like Derrida, in fact he only goes after figures that are marginal at best. The only front rank philosopher he goes after in 'Imposteurs Intellectuele' is Kristava, who gained respect for her early work rather than the later work he criticises.
Sokal is quite happy to admit that he does not demolish Derrida in private (we have exchanged email) but is quite happy to let the 'misunderstanding' continue in private.
What it really comes down to is that many theoretical physicists have to have this feeling that they are discovering absolute truth and thus have an irrational hatred of folk who tell them their idea is nuts.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Sadly, this thing hasn't been exposed yet, just dismissed on principle. Its a safe bet to call it a hoax/non-deliberate error, but journalistic integrity (which slashdot never had) would demand an examination of the device not just a general denial.
If michael would take of his James Randi glasses maybe he'd see that the articles themselves are skeptical and there isn't a need for a long "debunking" of something that's already pretty damn suspicious to begin with. Give people a little more credit and you'll be surprised how bright they are. Instead michael is patting himself on the back for providing the unwashed masses The Truth.
It is a VERY heavy beer.
to show the hog's being bathed,
/.!
"Don't assume the light bulbs are the only thing drawing power from the batteries. That's a large box and can hold plenty of other electronic apperatus" - like some BIG deep-cycle batteries and inverters.
"The machine could be drawing power from ambient heat, various radiation, or even chemical reactions with air/water/gasses." - Ambient heat? Look for frost. Radiation? Go look up the solar constant? See any p-v cells or heat exchangers? Neither did I. Chemical reactions - with what?
"This probably is a hoax" - it is.
"Even if(though) it's not creating power from nothing, it could still be a viable power source" - it is - look how much energy this one story released on
The onus is on the inventors to prove their claims, not on us to accept them.
It wouldn't work without the Heisenberg compensator....
Is that anything like the Eisenberg Uncertainty Hotdogs that I see at my local theatre?
Though where the uncertainty comes in is, I think, in what kind of meat it actually is in there.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
It's amazing that Reuters ran this story. It's even more amazing that news media across the country are running it too.
Yeah, especially since [gasp!!] O.J.'s girlfriend is *missing*!
Makes you wonder where the hell the media's priorities are.
~Philly
if someone presented an attempt at a proof of free energy using established formal methodologies, and showing a full understanding of the existing body of knowledge, one might be willing to sit down and give them the benefit of the doubt. But claims of breakthroughs in harnessing free energy invariably always come from individuals proposing new configurations of magnets, crystals, capacitors, or any other easily obtainable items with properties poorly understood by the ignorant.
Whenever the harnessing of a new source of energy will eventually take place, you can rest quite assured that it won't come through the banal realization that "oh, we've never tried arranging curiously strong magnets in the shape of the Number Of The Beast" or any other such nonsense.
-
My understanding of the mathematics of electrical science is... less than it should be. However, the reporter really shouldn't have needed a decent knowledge of science to know that this thing is bullshit. Even a very stupid person should at least raise an eyebrow when they're told, "These four car batteries would normally only power these three normal little lightbulbs for one and a half minutes". That's certainly what raised my eyebrow, even before reading the rest of the Slashdot story and seeing the kilowatt discrepancy brought up.
Science was not required to figure out that this story was bunk. Common sense was.
While I don't know about the story in question, ZPE is not only proven, but Bell Labs and Lucient Technologies announced a couple of weeks ago that they're actually employing it in the manufacture of experimental nano-tech. You can read the press releases. You can see those three letters, "ZPE". So anybody who doesn't "believe" in free energy is now officially ignorant. Which means 60% (or more) of the posters on this thread can just shut their programmed gobs now, please & thank you.
Second. It's FREE energy. NOT perpetual motion. ZPE is based on ambient energy which has been previously un-advertised, (it's been part of human knowledge since around Tesla's time), and has remained untapped by the general public. (Of course, today it's only been given a status of working on the quantum level, and only because its the only fucking way nano-tech is going to work; industry needed the knowledge to become declassified. But there ARE working large scale versions of free power sources. Trust me on this.
--For fuck's sake! Why do you think Tesla, the inventor of AC power generation has been black-balled from history and science for the last half century? Use your massively over-rated nerd brains for half a second.)
Next point: Cold Fusion, (which does indeed work, btw), is again, NOT perpetual motion. It's simply a low temperature system of creating a fusion reaction. It's not magic. The logic behind the process is not wishful in any way. It makes solid sense. The only reason Cold Fusion has been so heavily resisted is that those in power don't want you to have it. --M.I.T. purposely fudged their results of a working Pons & Flieshman model during the big hoopala after the cold fusion paper was published. Several big institutions got the set-up working. M.I.T. fudged their results and used their clout to kill Cold Fusion and to maintain support for their hot fustion research programs; this was researched, documented and aired by one of the big news outlets. (CBS, I believe, made the hour documentary back in the early 90's.)
But the programming still sticks. It runs deep, and tech-geeks are prime targets, because even though they are only pawns, they remain in many ways, the engineers and keepers of today's reality.
As such, you can always count on the brain-mush factor in people. Slashdot is living proof. Tell them it's not 'cool' to believe in Cold Fusion and the low-ego morons around here will drop the idea like a hot rock in order to jump back into the safety of the modified truths sold to them since birth. --Why do you think you were fed so much 'science' learning channel crap when you were kids? It's because kids are easy to program. Most of the idiots here will argue till they're blue in the face to defend their childhood programming, which makes you no better than kids brought up in hard-core Christian communities. You insist that you choose through free will, but the truth is you've been brainwashed since birth.
-Fantastic Lad
Notice it wasn't put in the Science section? That's because this story was pure entertainment, not hard science reporting.
The shiny metal case it comes in looks like an overclocker's wet dream.
Firstly, a news agency is not excused from stupid reporting by inserting words like "claims" and "seems" in the appropriate places to qualify their statements. It's their responsibility to realize the guy is obviously a kook and not waste our time with it.
Also, it's high time news agencies accept the fact that when they report things, a lot of people aren't smart enough to evaluate the information and just treat is as gospel truth, ignoring the qualifiers because they're too subtle. Reporters need to analyse the information they're reporting on and provide a solid explanation of the principles involved.
I'm always astounded that reporters will go to great length to rehash all of the historical details that lead up to whatever they're reporting about, even if nobody on the planet with an IQ above single digits could possibly have missed it, but don't even bother to check the basic facts they're reporting *on*.
Politics is another subject about which reporting is particularly egrigious in this manner. Politicians make statements that are flat-out lies about verifiable topics, and reporters come along and report what they're saying without checking any of the facts. The unknowledgable reader comes away having heard only the lies and won't necessarily know it's bs.
It's high time that during elections newspapers should start running reports to the effect of "last night candidate A said this and that, and this is true but that isn't..." I'm sure it would improve the overall quality of our government if our elected officials were regularly called out for their lies.
But for science, it's even more inexcusable. If a reporter wants to report on somebody claiming to have broken the laws of thermodynamics, they should damn well stop to check it out before publishing.
If you look about the "About us" page for hydrogen.co.uk you'll see it's based in London. Since I'm heavily into the area and have never heard of such a trust the chances are it is a private venture run from his own home. The fact he is an h2net attendee shows him to be serious about hydrogen as an energy source. I suspect this one is a red herring.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Since the number of currently moderating users in the category "credulous morons" is evidently greater than that in the category "Jews with even a sub-rudimentary knowledge of Judaism," I guess I--of the second category--have to point this out:
"Divrei Yamim B" is " 2nd Chronicles," and you, parent poster, are either an insufferable asshole, or a subtler troll than your grammar would suggest. If it's the latter, good job. If not, become a Christian; you'll fit in better.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Ok, I want to report that I have been abducted by aliens and taken to the far side of the moon. Why isn't Reuters reporting it? They don't have to believe it to report it, right?
Well, then free energy is just around the corner. All we have to do is "pop" in an even smaller universe inside of our universe and syphon off all the energy.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Its a bit sore that the reuters article depicts and even compares the 'so-called' inventors of cold-fusion with this Mr X. The inventors of cold-fusion where really carefull in publicising their work. They showed the complete scientific community their work and at first no one seemed to find a flaw in their setup. They media got the smell of it and then it became complete exarated. When finally the mistake was found they were one of the first to admit it. And now everyone talks 'bout those scammers from the cold-fusion. The scientific career of these people is complete ruined.
And now some weird guy in Ireland makes a machine which produces a whole lot of power. But refuses to give his name and let alone gives permission to check his apparatus!!
I'm quite sure that when one strips this machine their will be a load of car-batteries or other energy supplying stuff.
Energy just doesnt come for free!
-still struggles against the gravitational energy everyday
fleener, you are talking about legal responsibility. Yes a journalist can print any old crap as long as they are not knowingly libelling someone. There are plenty of tabloids that print nonsense, such as "World War II bomber found on the Moon" and "Wife turns hubbie into coffee table", with amusing faked photos. mshomphe is talking about a moral responsibility where if a news source presents itself as having integrity then the journalists should investigate their stories thoroughly and only print what they think is accurate and the truth. I can't remember who, but some prominent US tv personality stated that if Watergate happened today then it would never come to light unless presented as a soundbite to a news conference that provided free drinks.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Of course, dear old Michael Sims at slashdot, the unthinking man's James Randi comes down pretty hard on this one, saying
But in fact, it's Michael's assertion which is, well, embarrassing. If you will allow me the following unproven assertions:
- Michael Sims is capable of feeding himself.
- Michael Sims has a brain and nervous system.
- Michael Sims' brain and nervous system function in roughly the same way as other people's
and the provable medical truth that the nervous system of a normal human being produces low-level electrical activity, then it seems hard to escape the conclusion that Michael Sims is a self supporting system (ie, he can feed himself) which at the same time produces (small amounts of) surplus electrical energy.Of course, Sims isn't a wonder of nature; the electrical energy is produced from the chemical digestion of the food he eats. But nobody, least of all its inventor, made any specific claim that the Jaskers box was a closed system thermodynamically. For all we know, it eats flies. Or perhaps he's invented a cool way to separate out oxygen from the air to run a fuel cell.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Somebody needs to ship this brilliant Irish guy over to California to meet the "Wireless Free" wackos. Certainly his incredible new device wouldn't release any harmful radiation. I mean.. that might break the second law of thermodynamics or something! Hell, this amazing machine absorbes all the deadly cell-phone radiation within a 100 mile radius and simultaneously renders aspartame harmless! How? Sorry, I can't tell you. It's a secret. But honestly.. it does work! Hypochondriacs everywhere can attest to this. Just ask 'em!
No he isn't. He never makes the claim Sims attributes to him. He never says anything about what might or might not happen in a sealed box. That's my whole point.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
If not, why not?
If you have a convincing reason why not, why do you assume that someone else shares your definition of a self-sustaining unit, based on no evidence that this is the case.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Baz
It can go in the same pile as 'The most amazing loss-less compression breakthrough ever"
I hope the journalists who went to his house, checked their wallets when they left... those lepricorns can never be trusted
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The "news" media are a bunch of morons. It's what you do if you can't get a job in sociology or at Macdonalds. They simply and credulously regurgitate anything they are given.
Have you *ever* seen something that you know about reported factually, accurately? No? In that case what on earth makes you think that *anything* in *any* of the news media outlets remotely resembles fact or what really happened? It's all complete fantasy.
Deleted
WTF are you on about?
The journalist consulted opposing views from:
1) Robert Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland
2) William Beattie, senior lecturer in electrical engineering at Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland
Did you notice the article appearing in the "Lifestyle" section, rather than science? Did you notice that the article made extensive use of words like "skeptics" and "undaunted" and referred to the cold fusion debacle? Did you notice that it always referred to the claim in the conditional, as in its last line: "If the Jasker men really are onto something, it could be the most important Irish invention since Guinness"?
Did you even read the article?
The criticism of Reuters by michael is entirely unjustified here. He asks us to keep an eye out for retractions. What is Reuters going to retract? They accurately reported what had happened: some people have made an improbable claim that, *if true and that is unlikely*, could be revolutionary. Reuters consulted some experts who confirmed that it was unlikely; the journo reported seeing a demonstration that apparently supported the claims, but did not claim that the case was proven; the article discussed the context of claims about energy generation, noting that some contributors were serious and others were not. There is nothing to retract.
I guess Michael doesn't read the wires much. Search on Google for something like this and you'll see tons of articles where the wires send out corrections, like this one where Prudential's market value was underreported by 90% at its IPO!! Gimme my shirt!!
Intelligent Life on Earth
Granted, I'm not an expert on local power consumption around the globe, but isn't that why we all have 110/220 switches on our Power supplies?
I suppose I could do a Google search, but then again, I'm not an editor..
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Slashdot often posts articles about these "new energy" devices. However, their energy has to come from somewhere else, typically a dirty "old energy" source.
Sounds to me like this guy belongs in the "Duff Book of World Records".
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
I agree with you on that. The text isn't attempting to be scientifically accurate. After all cubits and handsbreaths are hardly even fixed measures. Using such a text to discredit the Bible is a rather lame attempt. Sort of like in modern journalism they will often say things like "X is as long as three football fields". That's fine... the average person in their audience automatically has a good idea of just how long X is. They aren't trying to be exact, there's no point. I think it's just a matter of what is intended (an approximation) and, as you say, significant digits.
The problem is that it is quite reasonable for a journal that takes an article that is interdisciplinary to look at the part of the article that is in their domain and take the part that is outside on trust.
The media and yourself take it on trust that Sokal is telling the truth when he says he was lying. This is a somewhat odd position to take. But if you start by wanting to believe that the whole field is bollocks then you are likely to believe the assertion because you want to.
In private correspondence Sokal admits that the 'gobbledygok' is in the quotes he uses rather than the main text. And here the problem is that the quotes are 'bollocks' because Sokal claims that to be the case.
The other problem is that journals like Social Text do not claim to be edited like science journals. Nor is Social Text exactly a journal of the front rank.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Hedrick, chief executive of a company set up with a view to licensing the device in the United States, said the technology shattered preconceived laws of science.
I wonder if ENRON has bitten yet?
Arthur C. Clarke addresses this in 3001: The Final Odyssey. Mankind had tapped zero-point energy, giving them free energy. Problem was, the release of all that energy had a way of significantly heating up the planet...
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
There is nothing thermodynamically or theoretically impossible about cold fusion. Nuclear fusion is well understood and experimentally verified. It just naturally happens under extremely hot/high energy environments, i.e. hydrogen bombs or the sun. Cold fusion is just the idea of doing regular fusion at low temperatures, which would require either an extremely slow cold "burn" with high enough local energy for the reactants but low energy overall, or a nuclear catalyst of some sort which lowers the Energy of Activation, like the CNO cycle (which enhances the reaction but only at high temperatures and thus wouldn't be good candidate for cold fusion).
In other words, theoretically possible, but damned if anyone actually knows how to do it.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
One of the few time I checked their web site there was an article about a VA Beach "Inventor" who created one of those "magic fuel line magnetic gas mileage booster" - just gas running thru a couple of perm mags, JC Whitney sells them; they come up every few years (once the last scam is forgotten) to bite the gullible - local govts have been known to buy them for school buses, etc. I wrote CSICOP about it and, probably coincidentally, someone wrote an article about similar claims.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I'm very aware that many hoaxes are perpetrated of this stripe, and I have a large measure of skepticism when it comes to such claims, but as a scientist I'd have to say that "not proven" doesn't (at this time) mean "disproven" (again, at this time). It's conceivable that this machine is the real deal, for the simple fact that nobody knows yet what it does. As a possible solution that doesn't violate any known physics, what if the machine consumes something unobserved (as yet) for its power? Just because it might produce more electricity than it uses doesn't make it a perpetual motion machine, or necessarily a hoax. What if it eats matter, or gravity, or some other fuel? Until tests confirm or deny these things, it's unscientific simply to reject it with derision. Remember that until Einstein, there was a "law of conservation of matter" that was separate from energy. Although unlikely, it's possible this device is following the laws of physics in a completely unexpected manner. I'll wait until it's proven a hoax before I laugh too loudly, and I suggest all of you consider that as well.
Virg
Of particular interest to me, is Viktor Schauberger, who was an Austrian forester turned scientist at the turn of the 20th century (13th of June 1885 to 25th September 1958). Schauberger's motto was "observe and copy nature" and he claimed to be studying a different branch of technology. He said that all of the technology's we use are explosive, heat generating, outward moving technologies, but the technology he studied and worked with was implosive, cold generating, and based on the shape of the vortex. He had several acomplishments that are quite well documented, and interesting, and some day, I very much hope to re-create some of his experiments. He studied water, agriculture, and other things, applying information he gleaned from his native Austrian forests.
Supposedly, the Nazi's kidnapped him in World War II, and attempted to force him to work on creating a flying saucer, and many believe he came close. He had power-generators, as well. I've even seen supposed diagrams of how they worked, based on a special pipe, the shape of a Kudu Antelope horn. According to what I've read, Schauberger died in America, where he was tricked into coming.
I take no conclusions from this, except that many things are possible, and technology as we know it is not all there is. There have been other inventors people thought were wacko, including Nicola Tesla, but I haven't particularly studied him. I can only recommend the books on Schauberger (available at Amazon, I believe), and hope to see his work followed up.
Anything's possible, Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
The news that they reported was NOT that somebody had invented a new perpetual motion machine. It was that somebody else was claiming to have done so, and since a big enough deal was made of it, it became news, no matter how `bogus' it was.
Reuters did do their part in showing that people were incredibly skeptical of this new invention.
Reuters could have taken the position of the patent office that perpetual motion machines are always bunk, but instead they decided to just report on the news as given, as well as giving conterpoints.
They weren't `taken' at all. They knew it was bunk.
Heck, that's nothing. I built a perpetual motion machine as well, in my own home, with the help of my wife. He's 20 months old now and still burning far more energy than anyone could conceive.
Virg
Brilliant! Invoking God while complaining about dogma. You couldn't make this stuff up!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Take care here. In sophomore physics, they teach that the laws of thermodynamics apply in aggregate, not to specific types of energy. To wit, most people who read this article saw
electricity in -> lightbulbs on -> batteries charged -> more electricity out,
and immediately assume that because the device produces more electricity than it consumes, it's producing more power than it consumes, and these two statements are not the same. An a-bomb produces more heat than the starting chemical explosion adds to it, by changing matter into energy. Until you're certain this device isn't converting some other power source (gravity, matter, or who knows what), you can't claim to "know" anything about whether it works or not.
Virg
The field is called Hermeneutics, it is the interpretation of texts. It has its origins in Theology, in the Middle Ages interpretation of the Bible was everything. Dante's divine comedy is a four level alegory that applied the then trendy ideas of Hermeneutics.
In the early half of last century Heidegger applied Hermeneutics to the study of being. This lead to Satre's existentialism and to the work of people like Habbermas.
The significance of this work is that it forms an integral part of the design of the Web.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
That may be true, but if you where a betting man, where would you put down your money: on it being real, or not?
Persoanllly I'd give anyone 1000 to 1 that it does not produce free energy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The classic example is: I have a sealed box of an odorous gas. I take it into a large room and open the box. The gas obviously will disperse and fill the room; this is predicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you look at the random motions of just one of these gas particles, it would look perfectly OK if you watched the movie "in reverse". However, it wouldn't look ok for the entire process to go in reverse. The reason is that it is incredibly unlikely that if a room is full of gas, then all the gas particles will, by chance, all move into the box in the corner. It is possible, but so incredibly unlikely you'd be waiting for many many times the age of the universe before it probably would happen.
Let's try that (or something similar) out with numbers: Let's take a 10 liter box of air at room temperature, normal pressure, and open it into a 5x5x4 meter room in vacuum.
We can get a crude estimate by saying that at some point in time, the position of an air molecule in the room is random. Let's figure out what's the probability of the air moving into the box.
From PV=NkT we get N=PV/kT=10^5Pa*10dm^3/(1.38E-23J/K*300K)=1E26 air molecules. The probability for one of them to be in the box is 10dm^3/(50dm*50dm*40dm)=1E-4. The probability for all air molecules to be in the box is 1E-4^1E26=1E-104.
If the air molecules move at such a speed that the places can be takes as random 1000 times per second (they don't), the probability of the air molecules being in the box for an instant during one second is 1 to a googol (10^100) against.
Let's get a picture of what a googol seconds is:
1. Take the whole history of the universe, and squeeze that into a ball 1mm in diameter. Cover the whole Earth with a layer 100 meters thick of those balls.
2. Squeeze that Earth into a ball 1mm in diameter. Cover the whole Earth with those balls 100 meters thick.
3. Then squeeze that Earth into a ball 1mm in diameter, and cover the Earth 100 meters deep with those balls.
There you would have approximately a googol seconds!
I doubt, therefore I may be.
The topic you're referring to at the center of the supposed red-hot controversy is the first law of thermodynamics, a.k.a conservation of energy. There is no "debate" on the reality of conservation of energy. It's one of the most well-established facts of our universe. The scientific community is not "sharply divided" on the theoretical possibility of perpetual motion machines (no matter how many posts you might find on that pillar of scientific discourse, slashdot).
In short, it's irresponsible for the journalist
to claim that there is a controversy here. It's inflating a non-story for pure sensationalism.
It happens all the time, and I think it's one reason science literacy is so low in our society.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Sagan actually said "the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
...although a quick google search reveals this quote mentioning Gallileo and others as well, this seems to be the most prevalent and complete. Still no source though (perhaps you have one?)
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
> Let me rephrase: this device produces no more output of any form than is put into it in any form.
This is true, but the article and the builder of this device did not claim that it does, and the big stink on Slashdot stems entirely from erroneous assumptions that this claim was made.
By the way, just FYI, the fissile materials in an atom bomb are mostly not consumed (unless you mean consumed in the same way a car consumes gasoline, which is to say by conversion to a different chemical). When the fission reaction occurs, the material breaks down into daughter products, which releases energy stored in the nuclei of the original material. There is a very slight decrease in mass, which translates to an awesome amount of power simply because matter converts to a LOT of energy. However, most of the energy comes from the nuclear breakdown, not from conversion of matter. Still, the conclusion is that in fact, you are still right that no more energy comes out of the a-bomb than was put in (in terms of material).
Virg