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.
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?
At least they went for skepticism (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Define the extraordinary proof, please (Score:1, Interesting)
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.....
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.
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.
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."
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:Give the author credit. (Score:2, Interesting)
But did he scam Reuters? Their website [reuters.com] shows no trace of this story, in any category, even "Oddly Enough" -- which is where I would expect a story like this. Searching for the credited author Kevin Smith [reuters.com] reveals about a dozen stories filed from Ireland, but not this one. Nor is there any indication of a correction or retraction to a filed story.
So the question becomes, did Reuters even issue this story, or did someone hack the wire?
magnet device (Score:1, Interesting)
Sounds like the Tesla car (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
I hate it when ... (Score:1, Interesting)
got this off google, think it's pretty apt:
Different kinds of irony. The common form of irony (called situation irony) is when what is expected to happen is the opposite of what actually happens. It requires more then just that though for it to be really ironic. I heard a comedian do a skit about the Alanis Moriesette song and he gives a good example of what would actualyl be irony. In the song there is the line about being stuck in a traffic jam when you are already late. This is not ironic, it is unfortunate. But, if you were a city planner on your way to a convention about traffic congestion in order to give a presentation stating that the city traffic is fine and you got stuck in a traffic jam, then it would be ironic.
Now, dramatic irony is when the audience watching a play or movie knows more then the character(s) speaking the lines on stage. Like in Macbeth when Duncan says to Lady Macbeth "conduct me to mine host" not knowing that she plans to kill him and his host would thus be death.
Verbal irony is the one that is close to sarcasm. In fact, it is what most people think sarcasm is. Verbal irony is when you say one thing but mean something else (like the opposite). So if I were to say "Smooth move" when you messed up that would be verbal irony. This differs from sarcasm because sarcasm is biting speech intended to hurt (so it does not necessarily have to be ironic). It actually comes from a greek word meaning to "tear flesh".
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.
Retractions (Score:2, Interesting)
.
Re:Understand journalism before being critical (Score:4, Interesting)
Example:
Re:Sounds like the Tesla car (Score:2, Interesting)
Tesla patents claim that by getting the correct receptor the power of earth could be tapped for free. This would make metering electricity impossible.
Interestingly he was never able to complete his experiment due to J.P. MORGAN. Morgan ended up controlling Tesla's patents and the Tesla Co. Morgan also a huge influence on Tesla during his life time. Morgan was making a lot of cash from inefficient power distribution and lighting. Morgan owned General Electric, US steel and Guegeniun Cooper Mines and some power companies like Niagara. GE made a Mint of Niagara Falls. All of these interested made Morgan huge profits due to inefficient technologies like the hot Edison light bulb. Tesla's cold and efficient flourescent light bulb patent was also controlled by JP Morgan. Thus it was a full 50 years until fluorescent light came out commercially.
So next time you pay your 'metered' power bill or change those crappy GE built hot light bulb reflect on economics or greed of capitalist like jp and there affect on history and SCIENCE!!!
Has anyone looked at the official website? (Score:5, Interesting)
Telsa / JP Morgan --free power = No profit (Score:2, Interesting)
Tesla patents claim that by getting the correct receptor the power of earth could be tapped for free. This would make metering electricity impossible.
Interestingly he was never able to complete his experiment due to J.P. MORGAN. Morgan ended up controlling Tesla's patents and the Tesla Co. Morgan also a huge influence on Tesla during his life time. Morgan was making a lot of cash from inefficient power distribution and lighting. Morgan owned General Electric, US steel and Guegeniun Cooper Mines and some power companies like Niagara. GE made a Mint of Niagara Falls. All of these interested made Morgan huge profits due to inefficient technologies like the hot Edison light bulb. Tesla's cold and efficient flourescent light bulb patent was also controlled by JP Morgan. Thus it was a full 50 years until fluorescent light came out commercially.
So next time you pay your 'metered' power bill or change those crappy GE built hot light bulb reflect on economics or greed of capitalist like jp and there affect on history and SCIENCE!!!
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?
Sokal Hoax (Score:0, Interesting)
Funny shit!
Re:World Energy Demand Solved... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Speaking Of Journalistic Integrity... (Score:2, Interesting)
How do you figure?
Over-unity claims are a dime a dozen; you can hardly take a peek into the sci.physics.* hierarchy without having about 3 or 4 fall onto your disk. It's standard crankish crackpottery, and these claims have been being made for many decades now. Nobody can produce something that actually does what it claims, the claims are in direct contravention of the laws of thermodynamics, and they're just simply old hat. *Thousands* of people make these groundless claims.
So what makes this one so different that Reuters felt compelled to run an article on it? Why are they ignoring all the other over-unity freaks? Did this one give them free beer?
It's the job of Reuters to only print stories that are actually worth reading. This one doesn't qualify, except that a reporter was taken in by a demonstration in which 3 light bulbs were driven with car batteries.
Re:Laws (Score:1, Interesting)
I am curious as to how the second law is any more statistical than gravity. Does Hawking cite any cases where the second law does not hold?
I would be interested in that as what little I have read of Hawking (Brief read of a Brief History of Time) seemed to me to to show a man who was attempting to mold his observations into his world view rather than the other way around.
It is going to take more than a glib comment from Hawking to make me think that the law is no longer a law because he deems it not to be.
Please let me know if there are any instances where the law does not hold.
Just curious
Re:Laws (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all about statistical mechanics and entropy.. as a system gets larger and larger, the more possible states it can be in, and the more likely some will and others wont exist.
For a few atoms, it can look like a bell curve, with possible states occurring everywhere... but move into a larger system and more states can exist and less states (ie. more likely one) really -do- exist. This is how all the air molecules in a room suddenly don't converge into one corner of the room.. It's just Not Likely. It's possible, but very very very very Not Likely.
Read "Six Ideas that Shaped Phsics" Unit T.. it goes into quite a lot of detail
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: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..