You mean the theories regarding the *local* conservation of energy? Laws, they are not. Theories, they are, based on our best observations. Not immutable, no more than Newton's "laws" were. The lesson is, don't let the terminology fool you. It took centuries before Newton was "proven" to be not completely right.
Now, I don't know that what they've invented isn't bogus. Personally, I think they've made a mistake somewhere.
But I do know just how dangerous it is for more career research scientists to even *think* about becoming involved in something that smacks of violating physical laws. Especially university scientists. It took Einstein many, many years to get his ideas accepted enough that academics wouldn't dismiss them out of hand - and that was a hundred years ago. Newton, well, you know that story.
With the working economic climate amongst government funded research scientists today (about the only way to get money for pure research in physics is government, as far as I know) I wouldn't blame any of them for not wanting to get involved with what would appear from the first to be a crackpot scheme. Wrecks reputations, you know. Like Sagan's (amongst some)
Which means, that any unique invention that actually *does* work isn't likely to have anyone willing to look at it *unless* the company in question pays for them to go look at it - ie, it's not on the government dime (well, not that the government cares much about funding crackpot research, but that's a whole nother rant). But - these people appear willing to do so with *their own money*(unless the four different articles I've read over the last two days are all wrong, in which case, I'll eat crow without salt)
I guess what really pisses me off is this kneejerk reaction "it's not academically reviewed or peer reviewed science". Neither academic nor peer review are necessarily real indications of the accuracy of a new idea, especially not in our politically correct culture.
If the sole intention of these guys was to make money, they could have put ads in junk magazines like Pop Science and sold hundreds if not thousands of these machines to idiots out there, probably retired fairly rich. It's a proven "business model". They aren't doing that. I agree the Economist was a poor place to put an ad - but not from the attention gathering standpoint, as you point out. But if they were indeed locked out of everywhere else - understandable given the massive amounts of crap that gets spewed towards serious research scientists - where else would they turn?
What I'm trying to say is that the fact that they actually *asked* for volunteer scientists to come and take a crack at debunking what they have, *without even starting* an investor campaign (there are much easier routes, come on!), that says that they think they might have something viable. They may be wrong - hell, they probably are wrong - but at least it indicates an attempt at honesty, and not just snake oil.
And I may be wrong and this may be just another snakeoil scam, in which case this guys company is going to be totally fucked, publishing where he did, if the publicity snows him under, he'll lose any credibility he has in the investment field, as well. But he *invited* the publicity, implicitly. And he's obviously been in business for quite a while (anyone who survives doing security in the credit card and electronic biz transaction for more than six years can't be dismissed that lightly, IMO - I doubt he wants to go out of business).
So either he's completely off his rocker or he thinks he has something. If the former, I hope he gets nailed to a wooden structure. If the latter, well, even the best researchers fuck up. But there is a one in a [pick lottery number here] chance that he may have found something nobody else has seen. It does happen that way, you know. There are many examples in history of people coming up with new ideas (in the strict physical sciences and elsewhere) which were poo-pooed by their "peers" and which ultimately proved to be workable). So until the challenge has happened and the when(if?) the findings are publically published, we just plain won't know, will we?
But in your first sentence, you are assuming motive where there is no evidence of one. So unless you have some evidence of under the table dealings, it's just your opinion.
(domesticated felines recharge by moving thru galactic magnetic field lines. Why do you think they take so many naps? It's their recharge period. But the recharge rate is very, very slow, so they spend much time napping...)
All the theories about the beginning of the universe, and few even consider that the Big Bang had to come from *somewhere* and that maybe that *somewhere* is still there...
I'm a skeptic and cynical as hell, but I'm just as cynical about theories which say we know everything works *this* way as the ones that say *well, maybe it don't* *g*
Or unless you have to have something to convince potential investors. If they really wanted to snakeoil the thing, they'd be advertising it all over already and selling units, regardless of whether or not they actually work.
SB (who really, really does agree that this probably isn't a viable technology, but who is SICK TO DAMNED DEATH of people arguing it isn't when there's no proof one way or t'other)
Centuries worth of students relying on Newton's discoveries thought the same way.
Sorry Derek, you don't understand the concept of theory. It does NOT mean that this is Truth, it means that it is true as far as we currently understand it.
I wonder about that (proper channels) - because even just being *associated* with *any* scheme involving something that seems to violate the laws of physics can be deadly to a career.
I'm sure I don't have to remind you that most pure research scientists nowadays rely on government grants?
I haven't looked at the website yet, but I have looked at some of the articles linked here. So far I haven't seen anything that makes me think they are trying to bilk people of money - quite the contrary, they are willing to spend large amounts of their *own* money to have outsiders look at their technology and vet it for them.
If this proves to be a scam, then all I can say is that anyone brilliant enough to perpetuate a scam in this way should be working for the government - they'd make a killing;-)
"Also at that point -- if the results of the jury are positive -- the commercial development will begin, proceeding with financing, licensing, manufacturing, marketing. Until then, the company is refusing any offers for investment or licensing rights."
That's because competition is driven by greed.:-) I've been reading John Stossel's latest book Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity (published this year) and he makes that point quite well. Recommended reading.
Actually, there's a loss, because moving the object around inside the field would involve a process (likely mechanical) which isn't 100% efficient.
While I don't think they've discovered "free energy", it'll be interesting to see just what they have found. My bet is that they are neglecting something in their experiments. If they have had independent labs confirm their "discover" that make me wonder just where the energy is coming from.
I don't think we can call this one "snake oil" - as they are asking for outsiders to verify it before they start trying to sell it (at least so far as I know, haven't read all the comments yet).
All that said, it'd be neat as hell if they've even discovered something that can produce, oh, 1% more energy than what's put into the process locally. That'd be useful, one could charge batteries with it... and the universe is a pretty strange place.
(and hopefully outsiders looking into it will be able to publish their results, so we can all take a look)
Which means Never. And personally I feel that Never is better, in this case. Morons. Do they honestly think that nobody will crack it and make the vids available on bittorrent or elsewhere?
I didn't say it was the main reason, just another reason. I don't disagree with your point, either, although what it really comes down to is another bunch of assholes thinking they can own everything.
Pham would have had better quality audio over his juryrigged clandestine links;-)
Seriously, Youtube's audio sucks. But I don't go there for audio, I go there to see videos, mostly for nostalgic value. If I want the audio, I can get it elsewhere. *g*
Thanks for the link to Take On Me. The metaphor of a cartoon character trying to make himself real was a pretty strong one for me back in the time; I wasn't aware that Youtube had it, and am surprised they do. It's the only song by that band I ever liked, and that was probably because of the video.
I think another reason for the lack of good music videos nowadays is that few in the hierarchy of the RIAA want to hire anyone with imagination to write something original. Costs money, you know, and hiring an outside writer means they may have to pay royalties (O.M.G.). That may be just what I see. But I agree with you about Artists vs. "artists".
Nowadays for Aha to produce that video, the technical means would be trivial. But the story would not be. Like you said, most "hits" produced today are utter crap, and that's why so many people are looking to Indie and local artists, and why the RIAA is afraid. They should be afraid. Very afraid. Technology is giving the listeners of music choice in what they listen to.
But who's going to decide on when the child is capable of handling it? The government? Testing "experts"? The parents?
I'd go with the parents, but not all parents can or have figured out how to handle driving, drinking or voting, either...
Although I do agree in general with what you said.:-)
One way or another, the introduction of instant communications in a package small enough to fit in a shirt pocket is going to have/is having huge ramifications on society and society's rules, ones that almost certainly won't be sorted out within a generation or two; and I suspect that there won't be any really useful solutions until the generations of people that grew up without them (like me) are gone. But then the tech will continue to evolve... arrr(gh).:-)
Thanks... saw it in a later comment (no pun intended, ow) but thanks. Makes sense. The pressure required and the heat produced would certainly warp the blade. Unless one loves vibration and very wide kerfs it's a throwaway;-)
Damn straight about the finger... over the years I've been pretty inventive when it comes to push blocks, especially with thinner molding and paneling. Can't be too careful, but murphy happens regardless.
Spent a bit'o'time looking at reviews of their saws. I'm impressed, they are very high quality, as others have noted, and their kerf knife (riving knive, splitter, whatever, it's a fucking kerf knife:-) seems very well designed. Certainly seems they are doing it right design and marketing wise. Kudos to them;-)
I want one. I have a bunch of rough sheet to do miter cuts on this fall for a cabin loft... job won't pay for the saw, but the next one likely will.
Just a curious question, why does the blade get trashed when the safety fires?
I'm lusting after one of these saws, myself. While I've never hurt myself on a table saw before, I'm getting older; while more careful nowadays than before, not quite as dextrous, if you know what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the theories regarding the *local* conservation of energy? Laws, they are not. Theories, they are, based on our best observations. Not immutable, no more than Newton's "laws" were. The lesson is, don't let the terminology fool you. It took centuries before Newton was "proven" to be not completely right.
SB
What convinced you of that? Got links?
I'm not unwilling to be convinced - quite the contrary - I'd just like to know why you think so.
Since I was a kid in the 70s I've seen ads in Popular Science and other magazines that were obvious scams.
The company has been around for some time, from what I've seen, and been doing serious work.
*shrug*?
SB
Now, I don't know that what they've invented isn't bogus. Personally, I think they've made a mistake somewhere.
But I do know just how dangerous it is for more career research scientists to even *think* about becoming involved in something that smacks of violating physical laws. Especially university scientists. It took Einstein many, many years to get his ideas accepted enough that academics wouldn't dismiss them out of hand - and that was a hundred years ago. Newton, well, you know that story.
With the working economic climate amongst government funded research scientists today (about the only way to get money for pure research in physics is government, as far as I know) I wouldn't blame any of them for not wanting to get involved with what would appear from the first to be a crackpot scheme. Wrecks reputations, you know. Like Sagan's (amongst some)
Which means, that any unique invention that actually *does* work isn't likely to have anyone willing to look at it *unless* the company in question pays for them to go look at it - ie, it's not on the government dime (well, not that the government cares much about funding crackpot research, but that's a whole nother rant). But - these people appear willing to do so with *their own money*(unless the four different articles I've read over the last two days are all wrong, in which case, I'll eat crow without salt)
I guess what really pisses me off is this kneejerk reaction "it's not academically reviewed or peer reviewed science". Neither academic nor peer review are necessarily real indications of the accuracy of a new idea, especially not in our politically correct culture.
If the sole intention of these guys was to make money, they could have put ads in junk magazines like Pop Science and sold hundreds if not thousands of these machines to idiots out there, probably retired fairly rich. It's a proven "business model". They aren't doing that. I agree the Economist was a poor place to put an ad - but not from the attention gathering standpoint, as you point out. But if they were indeed locked out of everywhere else - understandable given the massive amounts of crap that gets spewed towards serious research scientists - where else would they turn?
What I'm trying to say is that the fact that they actually *asked* for volunteer scientists to come and take a crack at debunking what they have, *without even starting* an investor campaign (there are much easier routes, come on!), that says that they think they might have something viable. They may be wrong - hell, they probably are wrong - but at least it indicates an attempt at honesty, and not just snake oil.
And I may be wrong and this may be just another snakeoil scam, in which case this guys company is going to be totally fucked, publishing where he did, if the publicity snows him under, he'll lose any credibility he has in the investment field, as well. But he *invited* the publicity, implicitly. And he's obviously been in business for quite a while (anyone who survives doing security in the credit card and electronic biz transaction for more than six years can't be dismissed that lightly, IMO - I doubt he wants to go out of business).
So either he's completely off his rocker or he thinks he has something. If the former, I hope he gets nailed to a wooden structure. If the latter, well, even the best researchers fuck up. But there is a one in a [pick lottery number here] chance that he may have found something nobody else has seen. It does happen that way, you know. There are many examples in history of people coming up with new ideas (in the strict physical sciences and elsewhere) which were poo-pooed by their "peers" and which ultimately proved to be workable). So until the challenge has happened and the when(if?) the findings are publically published, we just plain won't know, will we?
But in your first sentence, you are assuming motive where there is no evidence of one. So unless you have some evidence of under the table dealings, it's just your opinion.
SB
Bah, simple engineering problems
(domesticated felines recharge by moving thru galactic magnetic field lines. Why do you think they take so many naps? It's their recharge period. But the recharge rate is very, very slow, so they spend much time napping...)
SB
Nice comeback
All the theories about the beginning of the universe, and few even consider that the Big Bang had to come from *somewhere* and that maybe that *somewhere* is still there...
I'm a skeptic and cynical as hell, but I'm just as cynical about theories which say we know everything works *this* way as the ones that say *well, maybe it don't* *g*
SB
Or how effective your Shakespearan Sword of Lawyer Death +5 is
SB
Or unless you have to have something to convince potential investors. If they really wanted to snakeoil the thing, they'd be advertising it all over already and selling units, regardless of whether or not they actually work.
SB
(who really, really does agree that this probably isn't a viable technology, but who is SICK TO DAMNED DEATH of people arguing it isn't when there's no proof one way or t'other)
Centuries worth of students relying on Newton's discoveries thought the same way.
Sorry Derek, you don't understand the concept of theory. It does NOT mean that this is Truth, it means that it is true as far as we currently understand it.
SB
At least they have hard bodies.
*runs*
"Slow down, cowboy!"
SB
I wonder about that (proper channels) - because even just being *associated* with *any* scheme involving something that seems to violate the laws of physics can be deadly to a career.
I'm sure I don't have to remind you that most pure research scientists nowadays rely on government grants?
I haven't looked at the website yet, but I have looked at some of the articles linked here. So far I haven't seen anything that makes me think they are trying to bilk people of money - quite the contrary, they are willing to spend large amounts of their *own* money to have outsiders look at their technology and vet it for them.
If this proves to be a scam, then all I can say is that anyone brilliant enough to perpetuate a scam in this way should be working for the government - they'd make a killing
SB
I wish I had mod points today so I could bring you up to where that comment deserves.
SB
FTA
"Also at that point -- if the results of the jury are positive -- the commercial development will begin, proceeding with financing, licensing, manufacturing, marketing. Until then, the company is refusing any offers for investment or licensing rights."
Doesn't sound like that to me.
SB
Yeah, if we could harness the self-perpetuating vacuum that seems to exist between too many people's ears...
SB
That's because competition is driven by greed.
SB
Actually, there's a loss, because moving the object around inside the field would involve a process (likely mechanical) which isn't 100% efficient.
While I don't think they've discovered "free energy", it'll be interesting to see just what they have found. My bet is that they are neglecting something in their experiments. If they have had independent labs confirm their "discover" that make me wonder just where the energy is coming from.
I don't think we can call this one "snake oil" - as they are asking for outsiders to verify it before they start trying to sell it (at least so far as I know, haven't read all the comments yet).
All that said, it'd be neat as hell if they've even discovered something that can produce, oh, 1% more energy than what's put into the process locally. That'd be useful, one could charge batteries with it... and the universe is a pretty strange place.
(and hopefully outsiders looking into it will be able to publish their results, so we can all take a look)
SB
The worrying possibility is that 'repeating ones history' may be a good species survival trait..
Isn't that what the Darwin awards were created specifically for?
SB
Which means Never. And personally I feel that Never is better, in this case. Morons. Do they honestly think that nobody will crack it and make the vids available on bittorrent or elsewhere?
SB
I didn't say it was the main reason, just another reason. I don't disagree with your point, either, although what it really comes down to is another bunch of assholes thinking they can own everything.
SB
Pham would have had better quality audio over his juryrigged clandestine links
Seriously, Youtube's audio sucks. But I don't go there for audio, I go there to see videos, mostly for nostalgic value. If I want the audio, I can get it elsewhere. *g*
Cheers,
SB
Thanks for the link to Take On Me. The metaphor of a cartoon character trying to make himself real was a pretty strong one for me back in the time; I wasn't aware that Youtube had it, and am surprised they do. It's the only song by that band I ever liked, and that was probably because of the video.
I think another reason for the lack of good music videos nowadays is that few in the hierarchy of the RIAA want to hire anyone with imagination to write something original. Costs money, you know, and hiring an outside writer means they may have to pay royalties (O.M.G.). That may be just what I see. But I agree with you about Artists vs. "artists".
Nowadays for Aha to produce that video, the technical means would be trivial. But the story would not be. Like you said, most "hits" produced today are utter crap, and that's why so many people are looking to Indie and local artists, and why the RIAA is afraid. They should be afraid. Very afraid. Technology is giving the listeners of music choice in what they listen to.
SB
Not to mention the crap most children are being fed by the school system. I consider that an even worse danger, overall, than junk food.
SB
But who's going to decide on when the child is capable of handling it? The government? Testing "experts"? The parents?
I'd go with the parents, but not all parents can or have figured out how to handle driving, drinking or voting, either...
Although I do agree in general with what you said.
One way or another, the introduction of instant communications in a package small enough to fit in a shirt pocket is going to have/is having huge ramifications on society and society's rules, ones that almost certainly won't be sorted out within a generation or two; and I suspect that there won't be any really useful solutions until the generations of people that grew up without them (like me) are gone. But then the tech will continue to evolve... arrr(gh).
SB
"wild raging storm" -- "wild particle storm" ? :-)
Well, I liked it, anyway. But I've always loved JD's Calypso.
In another way of looking at it, Voyager is headed out in the Black...
SB
Thanks... saw it in a later comment (no pun intended, ow) but thanks. Makes sense. The pressure required and the heat produced would certainly warp the blade. Unless one loves vibration and very wide kerfs it's a throwaway ;-)
:-) seems very well designed. Certainly seems they are doing it right design and marketing wise. Kudos to them ;-)
Damn straight about the finger... over the years I've been pretty inventive when it comes to push blocks, especially with thinner molding and paneling. Can't be too careful, but murphy happens regardless.
Spent a bit'o'time looking at reviews of their saws. I'm impressed, they are very high quality, as others have noted, and their kerf knife (riving knive, splitter, whatever, it's a fucking kerf knife
I want one. I have a bunch of rough sheet to do miter cuts on this fall for a cabin loft... job won't pay for the saw, but the next one likely will.
thanks again
SB
Just a curious question, why does the blade get trashed when the safety fires?
I'm lusting after one of these saws, myself. While I've never hurt myself on a table saw before, I'm getting older; while more careful nowadays than before, not quite as dextrous, if you know what I mean.
SB