News Media Scammed by 'Free Energy' Hoax 928
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.
Has everyone forgotten cold fusion...? (Score:2, Insightful)
max inglis
incredulous (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is more inportant than Guinness. Nothing.
Re:Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, my 5th grade science fair ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah well, to be young and inquisitive and stubborn
Re:Not just the major outlets (Score:4, Insightful)
Bah. Science at its most basic *does not* say that the laws can never be changed. It just says that you're probably better off not trying to break them.
A real scientific mind would be intriqued by the concpet of such a shakeup, and could at least spare such a grand hypothesis enough time to think up a suitable experiment or twenty.
Just because magnets are the domain of quacks doesn't mean they don't attract.
Re:Not just the major outlets (Score:3, Insightful)
(Yes, I know zero-point energy is real. No, I don't think this crank from Ireland could even explain the concept.)
OK,
- B
Re:Has everyone forgotten cold fusion...? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it tends to support the criteria used by the 'new media', ie internet or cable news:
(1) No need to use history or past events or have any knowledge of them;
(2) Don't bother about using journalists with any background in the subject;
(3) Don't bother with attempting to get knowledgable source when you don't know anything about the subject being reported;
(4) If the story was carried by any other organization online or on cable, assume it's totally accurate and don't bother checking it out, no matter how far fetched it may seem (if they can figure out it really is far fetched).
Claims versus facts (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Erm, sorry to have to say this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This isn't so dumb... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll believe anything (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:1, Insightful)
Please note that I am playing devil's advocate here, and I expect this device to be proven a hoax. But let's go ahead and get in there and prove it. That in itself should be fun (though possibly very trivial).
Most likely, we'll find that it is not true, but the device warrants looking if for no other reason than to figure out how it pulled off the hoax. I doubt the Slashdot editors have done so.
Need more details (Score:1, Insightful)
- 4 100W light bulbs/4500W draw on batteries
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.
- Surplus Energy
I certainly don't believe this energy is coming out of nowhere, but that doesn't mean it's not there. The machine could be drawing power from ambient heat, various radiation, or even chemical reactions with air/water/gasses.
This probably is a hoax, but let's give it a little more consideration before totally dismissing it. I'm curious to know what really is going on in that box. Even if(though) it's not creating power from nothing, it could still be a viable power source.
Zero Point Energy != Perpetual Motion (Score:2, Insightful)
However, claiming that it does not work because it's power source is zero point energy [sciam.com] 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.
*cough* WHATEVER *cough* (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Not the first sighting of this device (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
-
Energy Hoax (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
-
hey (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Why would we need such a machine... (Score:3, Insightful)
Parts Wear Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
I believe Fermat wrote (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [mathpages.com] to check it out in more depth.
I found the Fermat reference really fun, but perhaps it's just us (ex) math types...
Time to Get Serious (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This isn't so dumb... (Score:4, Insightful)
Michael comments on the 4500W drawn by three 100W bulbs. That's not how I understood it. Rather, the "Jakster" drew 4500W, with which it powered the three 100W bulbs and "created" at least 4500W to resupply the batteries. Thus: it acted as a "free" energy device.
Though I don't understand why a free energy machine needs a power source. That seems a bit counter-intuitive
Battery powered? (Score:3, Insightful)
Junk Food News (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
travesty of journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're gunna read something, read this (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Punish but not reward intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Laws (Score:2, Insightful)
---
Re:Give the author credit. (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect that Reuters just thought twice, and pulled the story.
But I don't think the story itself is so bad, it's more a "human interest" story than a science story. It's well-disclaimered:
Experts contacted by Reuters were wary, citing the first law of thermodynamics which, in layman's terms, states that you can't get more energy out than you put in.
"I don't believe this. It goes against fundamentals which have not yet been disproved," said William Beattie, senior lecturer in electrical engineering at Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. "These people (Jasker) are either Nobel prize-winners or they don't know what they're dealing with. The energy has to come from somewhere."
Re:Claims versus facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me a T-shirt, please, Michael (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Laws (Score:2, Insightful)
---
Re:Free Energy not impossible (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually I'd have to say that they've had absolutely no success. No one has yet demonstrate free energy. Now this, of course, is a personal evalutation. I've read the stuff on free energy, and thought about their "demonstrations" and it is clear to me that there are huge problems with a lot of the supposed demonstrations.
Of course, just because I have this personal evaluation, and a lot of other scientists would probably agree with me, doesn't mean I'm correct. Perhaps you have missed this, but there aren't many people who hold absolutes sacred in science. Scientists are more than aware (except those pesky members of the church of grand unification) that their laws are not absolutes and may not be fully correct. However, if they had to take a bet, at any given moment that a phenonmenon which they think they understand particularly well will behave according to the laws they know, they'd be rich off the wagers.
Furthermore, to press the issue further, I'd just like to point out that the "three laws" are actually not laws as in postulates but more like derived concepts. This is because thermodynamics is best viewed as coming from stastical mechanics which has its microscopic basis in quantum mechanics. In fact, things like the infamous second law are notoriously hard to think about for nonequilibrium and microscopic systems where thermodynamics is a poor approximation. So if you are going to attack something, you'd probably better go after quantum mechanics (more specifically quantum field theory) or the physical theories that lie on top of this quantum edifice.
dabacon
Re:Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're talking about the news, where their idea of balanced reporting is putting the scientist backed by 99.99% of the scientific community next to the crackpot theorist and giving them equal time.
Re:This isn't so dumb... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thorough investigation may be appropriate in some cases. Is it really a good idea to slam the door on free energy just because we have theorems that say it can't happen? Just because we accept the laws of entropy doesn't mean there isn't an infintesimal chance they could be proven wrong. People once thought the earth was flat.
The USPTO didn't say "absolutely no perpetual motion patents," they just imposed an extra requirement to weed out the fakes; a candidate invention must run for a year in a room at the patent office with no external power source (or something to that effect). Only then can the invention be considered worthy of further investigation.
To my knowledge, nobody has been confident enough in their perpetual motion machine to put it past the USPTO's preliminary test. However, if a machine passed, surely it would be worthy of at least some further investigation.
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe the Jasker machine is anything but a hoax, but at the same time, I don't think we should categorically dismiss all perpetual motion machines. It is infintesimally probable, yet still possible, that one could be built. But no way should Reuter's be covering any perpetual motion machine that hasn't passed the USPTO's preliminary test.
Re:Laws (Score:1, Insightful)
This was in the lifestyle section, geniuses. (Score:2, Insightful)
free energy (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Give me a T-shirt, please, Michael (Score:3, Insightful)
"Not surprisingly, this topic is red hot with controversy -- sharply dividing a world scientific community still on its guard after the ``Cold Fusion'' fiasco of 1989"
and
"Experts contacted by Reuters were wary, citing the first law of thermodynamics which, in layman's terms, states that you can't get more energy out than you put in".
The experts were anything but "wary"! Touting this 'invention' as a "red-hot controversy" and stating that the scientific world is "sharply divided" on the question of its legitimacy both strongly imply that scientists believe it might be true. Complete rubbish.
The popular press has a really nasty habit of trying to sensationalize science and pseudoscience alike, and they often fail to distinguish between the two (as we see here so blatantly). Michael's criticism of this story is legitimate, IMO.