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.
Give the author credit. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Give the author credit. (Score:5, Funny)
In a trailer park on the shores of the Mississippi, a local man has claimed to have invented a perpetual motion human.
To prove his claim, he hooked a car battery up his wife/cousin for 10 minutes while she held a 100 watt light bulb in each hand. After removing the car battery, she proceeded to twitch for more than 37 hours.
Aleady companies are clammoring for the device, known as the "shockway," claiming it will revolutionize the world. "We could have our employees work 24 hours a day," said one business owner. "This could be the most important invention to come out of Mississippi since... since... paternity tests"
Maybe he split the beer atom. (Score:3, Funny)
It is a VERY heavy beer.
I would like to revise the headline for Reuters... (Score:3, Funny)
cya
Ethelred [grantham.de]
Classic example: (Score:3, Funny)
I figure some jerk reporter was pecking some geek to provide him with some juicy info, and the geek made something up...
cya
Ethelred [grantham.de]
Has everyone forgotten cold fusion...? (Score:2, Insightful)
max inglis
Re:Has everyone forgotten cold fusion...? (Score:2)
Whoever got Reuters to carry this must've been dealing with some pretty ignorant people, when it comes to science, and common sense. I wonder if Reuters will notice their error and make some sort of statement. Glad to see /. has higher standards (well, for somethings) than the 'professional' news.
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).
Cold Fusion and the duping of the Media (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Cold Fusion and the duping of the Media (Score:3, Informative)
Not in 3 dimensions. In 2 and 4 dimension, you
can have particles called anyons, with non
half integral spin, which are something between
bosons and fermions. Also the fractionally
quantum hall effect has fractional quantum
numbers. However the parent article is right
when it comes to atoms, you cannot have fractionally quantum states on a hydrogen atom,
without quantum mechanics being wrong.
Not just the major outlets (Score:2, Flamebait)
Someday, I'll live in a world where every child grows up with a decent science education and critical thinking is encouraged...
OK,
- B
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:Not just the major outlets (Score:5, Informative)
How do "know* something is real that's never been demonstrated?
Zero-point energy has a very testable hypothesis: the Casimir effect. Which has been demonstrated. Check this article [lanl.gov] or this one [iastate.edu].
ZPF has been demonstrated (Score:4, Informative)
There have been experimental demonstrations of the veracity of the Casimir Effect [lanl.gov], 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.
Kuro5hin readers aren't THAT dumb... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Kuro5hin readers aren't THAT dumb... (Score:3)
I have discovered a wonderful proof of this (Score:3, Funny)
Laws (Score:5, Funny)
-- Homer Simpson
Re:Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
In Stephen Hawking's Cambridge Lectures [britannica.com], he points out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical, rather than absolute, law. It applies in most cases that we have observed, yet we can not prove it applies to all cases.
The relevant part; tape 2, side 2:
Damn those black holes. Or gravastars. Whatever you want to call them.Zero-point energy probably does exist. There certainly is something there, we have managed to prove that much. I just don't believe that a single person, working alone, with a mechanical background, is going to 'suddenly uncover' the secret. I believe we are, unfortunately, beyond that point in our scientific development.
Almost all of these supposed 'perpetual motion' devices have some mechanical component. Something moving, some clockworks, something. There was even one instance where the reporter noticed the speed of the device was rather random. Upon closer inspection, a small cable was found, leading to the next room. The device was, in fact, powered by an elderly man in a rocking chair!
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", huh?
Re:Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
While you're certainly correct about these things, I believe that this case is different.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, as pointed out by the the parent's poster, is a statistical law. However, it is not only a statistical law derived from experiment (such as, say, "General Relativity agrees with 100.0% of experiments done to date"), but it is also a mathematical theorem (such as, say, "a + b = b + a"). I can believe that a given law of science could be proven wrong. For a theorem which is as deeply rooted as the 2nd law (which is a result of combinatronics), though... This would require mathematics as we know it to topple.
To be honest, I think it is beyond possibility. This, incidentally, also means that the First Law (conservation of energy) is true as well. If energy is perfectly conserved in an ideal system, the change in entropy is zero. If the 2nd law were false and the change in entropy could be less than zero, energy conservation would also have failed.
So, like any theorem, there are conditions that must be met before it is true. What are the 2nd law's conditions?
Answer: Your system must consist of discrete particles that can be in any one of several states. The states do not have to be equally probable. The more particles you have, the more statistically insignificant any deviations from the mean become. Ergo, when you're looking at something macroscopic (like, say, a "free energy machine"), you'll be looking at ~10^(24 or 25) particles... WHICH IS PLENTY.
Sure, it is possible for the entropy in such a system to spontaneously decrease, but it unimaginably, overwhelmingly unlikely. It is very likely that the entropy will increase up to a certain maximum. Therefore, even if you got extraordinarily lucky and saw the entropy drop, it would soon bounce back up again.
That's the 2nd law in a nutshell...
As far as the Zero Point energy goes, I'm a little more fuzzy. Didn't Guth predict that if the energy in empty space fell to absolute zero it would undergo inflationary expansion? I remember reading that somewhere... Anyone?
Re:Laws (Score:3)
To be honest, I think it is beyond possibility. This, incidentally, also means that the First Law (conservation of energy) is true as well. If energy is perfectly conserved in an ideal system, the change in entropy is zero. If the 2nd law were false and the change in entropy could be less than zero, energy conservation would also have failed.
What you're saying here is that because A implies B therefore (not B) implies (not A). That is incorrect reasoning.
It's important to remember that conservation of energy is associated with the time symmetry of the universe. If that symmetry were ever broken, the law of conservation of energy would be broken as well. (We just don't know how to do that yet.)
Also, there is an interesting result in information theory. The Szilard engine (a one-particle heat engine) is capable of turning entropy into useful work. It is prevented from violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics because its memory capacity is finite (erasing memory must be associated with an increase in entropy). If infinite memory were available there would be no theoretical barrier to completely reversing entropy increase.
Re:Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
So the cases where you'd see the 2nd Law not holding are where the probabilities of observing it are much more favorable than 1 in 10^80 or something. This means that you need to be looking at small numbers of particles (maybe 5 or 10 instead of ~10^23 particles for macroscopic objects) for long times. Certainly you wouldn't see it being violated constantly in a 40 pound lump of metal that some guy put together in his backyard.
Gravity, in contrast (according to theory anyway) always works. Full stop. It's not like that it's just an incredibly likely that objects will attract each other, it's a "certainty". It's the same with most of the other physical laws out there. Quantum mechanics is "probabilistic", but in another somewhat different sense, and theromodynamics doesn't really apply on the scale of quantum mechanics anyway. (Thermodynamics deals with the study of "macroscopic" systems with large numbers of particles, where general properties of the set of particles can be expressed. Properties like total energy, volume, # of particles, temperature, pressure, etc.)
Re:Laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose you flip a coin. Everytime you get tails you move an object left, heads moves it right. Question now being. What is the probability that this object ends up at point A given an infinite amount of flips.
It just so happens that it can be proven mathematically that this probability is 1. So there is a 100% probability that it will occupy every and all possible places in that infinite line. Now think of a combination of objects following same sort of mathematical game but with a little more complex rules that allow for, say, 4 dimensional motion(to account for time too).
Some people even think that the universe is just a temporary statistical anomaly(that was given infinite amounts of coin flips).
What the second law of termodynamics states is that statistically in a closed system the amount of entropy, given enough time, always decreases.
So if put a vase broken into pieces in a closed box chances are that when I open it sometime in the future that I still find the same pieces. However, if I had infinite amounts of time at some point in time there is 100% possibility that those pieces rearranged themselves into a solid vase.
The probability of this occuring for long periods of time is infinetly small but again given infinite amounts of time the possibility of it occuring for any given amount of time is 100%.
Then again I'm no quantum physicist..
let's not hang em just yet (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
incredulous (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is more inportant than Guinness. Nothing.
Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Standard Perpetual Motion Device Screening Test (Score:5, Funny)
Succesful completion of this test would be extraordinary and get peoples attention.
Re:Standard Perpetual Motion Device Screening Test (Score:4, Offtopic)
Re:Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:3, Funny)
Attainment is determined by the systematic mathematical application in the defined mode, of the accurately selected operational segments... To reiterate there are no physics heresies, no physics contradictions and no ambiguous claims.
I love that last part. =)
Re:Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:4, Informative)
No, science demands nothing of the sort. Science operates not by proving, by confirming beyond the shadow of a doubt, but by disproving, by testing to failure. When presented with an extraordinary claim, science demands we ask, "How do we prove that this is false?"
In this case, I'd say that proof might have something to do with the fact that he needs 4 12-volt car batteries of at least 60 amp-hours each to provide the 50 amp-hours required to drive a 300 watt load for two hours. Hell, I can do the same thing just by plugging the light bulbs into my wall, but nobody claims that's an over-unity device.
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.
Arthur ? (Score:2, Funny)
And I bet it solves the Stopping problem too (Score:4, Funny)
Personally, I think this story is a hoot!
Oops. (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm... Mr. Jasker... I think we let the cat out of the bag.
Hee hee hee... (Score:5, Funny)
"So is that Free as in Beer, Free as in Speech, or Free as in Energy?"
Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Ahh, my 5th grade science fair ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah well, to be young and inquisitive and stubborn
Re:Ahh, my 5th grade science fair ... (Score:2, Interesting)
For me, it was grade 4 when I came up with the brilliant idea of coupling a generator to a motor and using the power from the generator to run the motor, and draw off the "excess".
However, in a true feat of stubborness, I actually built a small prototype. Well, needless to say, it didn't work. But it would spin for a while before stopping (clearly much longer than just coasting).
Now that I'm all grown up and aware of such scientific limitations, I think I'll built a small, unlicensed, nuclear reactor.....
U.S. Patent office's solution. (Score:5, Informative)
A two hour test run is bullshit. Let's see it run for 2 years in an empty room, then we'll talk.
Dbl std: Perpetual Motion vs. Software Patents (Score:5, Funny)
So why don't they do this with software patents?
wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Funny)
J
Re:wouldn't it be ironic (Score:3, Funny)
Given that ironic roughly means perversely unexpected, this would not be ironic since it would be well in the trend of Slashdot getting basic stuff wrong.
I'm glad michael was there to explain to us why he's smarter than Reuters though.
Insight from Carl Sagan (Score:5, Funny)
"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at Newton. Of course, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
At least they went for skepticism (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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.
Free Energy not impossible (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Free Energy not impossible (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. The knee-jerking robo-geeks! (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:Free Energy not impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, if the cosmological constant is real (probably) and is due to a non-zero vacuum energy (quite possibly), then energy is not conserved globally. But even if this isn't the case, you can get "free energy" out of an expanding universe with relative ease: just tie a string to two masses and wind it around an axle, place the masses many megaparsecs apart, and let the expansion of the universe pull them apart and consequentially spin the axle. Just make sure you can keep extending the string for all eternity, and you're set until the mass of the length of string becomes comparable to that of your masses on the ends.
Really, though -- our universe is symmetric under time translation to very high accuracy for the distances and timescales that engineers are interested in, so in that regime yes, energy is conserved.
Wears out... (Score:2)
Isn't that what a (non rechargable) battery does?
bootstraping (Score:2)
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...
Re:Claims versus facts (Score:3, Insightful)
All righty then... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Here's how it works--- (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Pipe dream (Score:2)
... and, apparently, it still is.
great! (Score:4, Funny)
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.
A little credit to Reuters (Score:5, Informative)
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."
But the voltage *increased*!... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:But the voltage *increased*!... (Score:5, Informative)
This is not necessarily what's going on, but I thought I'd mention it. It's even more likely that the external batteries were mostly discharged, and connecting them to the device simply allowed them to be topped off by some fully charged batteries hidden inside the device. The open-terminal voltage of a healthy, charged "48V" Pb-A pack at room temperature is typically 52-53V, and an external pack voltage of 48.9V would indicate a pack that was mostly discharged (or had some weak cells). Parallel it with a fully charged pack inside the device at 52-53V, and it would be entirely reasonable to expect enough charge to transfer from the internal pack to the external one to bring the latter's terminal voltage up to the 51V range.
Judging from the size and shape of the device and its reported performance, I think it quite reasonable to file this "invention" in the "hidden battery" subcategory of perpetual motion frauds.
Re:But the voltage *increased*!... (Score:3, Informative)
My conclusion: charging device (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Perpetual Motion website (Score:2, Informative)
The underwater spinning donut [york.ac.uk]
A pulley-based system [york.ac.uk]
and a piston-based machine [york.ac.uk]
This isn't so dumb... (Score:5, 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
A Challenge to Michael Sims (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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!
really... (Score:4, Funny)
This is an old scam (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Understand journalism before being critical (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Re:Understand journalism before being critical (Score:3, Informative)
This might be a case of a non-harmful hoax. However, this is the same type of person who claims to have a cure for AIDS, or can talk to your dead relative for $900/hr. People get suckered in by this stuff, and Reuters has a DUTY to check out the story with some experts.
A single witness does not a credible or reportable new story make.
Re:Understand journalism before being critical (Score:4, Interesting)
Example:
Notes on possible identity of inventor (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Notes on possible identity of inventor (Score:3, Informative)
54 High Street
Bangor, Bt20 5BZ
The registrant and webmaster of diyhousesales is:
Peterprint
54 High Street
Bangor, Down bt20
UK
So, he's got his name all over a bunch of seemingly unrelated sites. Chances are that the connection is what he claims it is: website designer with causewayonline.
Google address search for the curious [google.com]. It seems he shares the building with the chamber of commerce (unless causewayonline [causewayonline.com] is a total fake). From this link [bangor-local.com]:
Organisation:-Chamber Of Commerce
Where:-54 High Street BT20 5AZ
Contact:-Alan Freedman
Phone:-028 91
Anyone want to call the chamber of commerce?
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!
Battery powered? (Score:3, Insightful)
What would Stephen Hawking say about this? (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks to the crew at www.mchawking.com [mchawking.com] we now know how Stephen feels about the second law; and by extrapolation, how he feels about "Energy from nothing".
Speaking Of Journalistic Integrity... (Score:4, Redundant)
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.
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).
Wonderful math... (Score:3, Informative)
World Energy Demand Solved... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [berkeley.edu]
A wonderful interview with Dr. Charles Till [pbs.org]
Re:World Energy Demand Solved... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
New idea? (Score:5, Funny)
"THIS INVENTION EFFECTIVELY GUARANTEES THE CONTINUITY OF MANKIND".
No, that would be sex.
No sig, sorry.
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.
Has anyone looked at the official website? (Score:5, Interesting)
Increase Your Energy by 581%!!! (Score:4, Funny)
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 [goatse.cx] to be removed.
But it has a really nice case (Score:3, Funny)
Hook this man up! (Score:3, Funny)
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whoo-boy. (Score:2)
Re:Illegal (Score:2)
PS - Sorry if I botched 'c'. It's been a long day.
Re:Junk Science debunked by Junk Science! (Score:2)
*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...
Re:Reuters (Score:3, Funny)