<!--quoteo(post=1759894:date=Mar 18 2010, 11:37 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Mar 18 2010, 11:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759894"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not fairy dust. Nanites, duh.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think we both know it's the same thing.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
edited March 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1759889:date=Mar 18 2010, 08:08 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759889"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you should know that what you just said is fallacious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I shouldn't, because it isn't fallacious. You are being more than a little patronising with your attempts to explain circular logic to me, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just trying to be helpful.
I am guessing that you think that my reasoning is circular because I left detail out for the sake of being pithy. I accept that this is likely my fault, but I don't think it justifies your attempting to explain basic principles of logic and and the philosophy of science as though I was completely ignorant, or to imply that I am a dogmatist.
I am not actually accusing free-energy "proponents" of not publishing papers. What I am saying is that the evidence that they do provide is insufficient for them to be taken seriously by proper scientists. That <i>is</i> scientifically justified and it is <i>not</i> based on circular reasoning. Of the views a) and b) which you attribute to me, b) is the only one I actually hold. Twenty-two scientists examined Steorn's device and saw no evidence that it was capable of producing three times the energy it consumed.
As a second point, respectable journals won't touch papers on free energy with a barge pole, because those papers are uniformly silly. If a well-crafted paper chock full of actual scientific evidence was produced, it would be slow on the uptake, but it <i>would</i> be considered sooner or later. Again, this is not circular, because the silliness of the papers is in no way contingent on the fact that they do not get published.
<!--quoteo(post=1759848:date=Mar 18 2010, 04:16 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 18 2010, 04:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or their machine is working by another mechanism and they are ( intentionally or not ) misrepresenting it.
There is nothing new in this. Check out the wikipedia page for a very long list of failed attempts at perpetual motion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pe...motion_machines</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That falls under forgetting to carry the two, although I suppose it would more accurately be described as forgetting to check which exercise you're supposed to be doing.
But yes the three basic possibilites are:
1. It's perpetual motion and energy is being created which as far as we know is impossible.
2. You buggered the calculations and it isn't producing energy, this is very likely as people do it all the time.
3. It's drawing it from something you haven't looked for, in which case what you have is a very nice conventional generator which turns an outside force into electrical energy, and which simply happens to run off some currently unidentified power source, but which isn't perpetual motion. This is improbable but quite possible within the laws of physics, and equally lucrative if the source turns out to be plentiful and the generator inexpensive to produce.
If I submitted a paper claiming that magic is real and I can kill you by saying magic words or sticking needles in a doll, nobody would take me seriously, and nobody would jump to my defense. Anything that claims to violate the first law of thermodynamics has the scientific credibility of a Harry Potter book.
You disagree? Show us how it's done. Teach us the lesson of a lifetime. You claim to have a device that can produce energy from thin air - hell, from less than that. No coal, gas, oil or fissile materials required. That's great! Mass-produce it, undercut every single energy provider and laugh all the way to the bank. It's curious how you're "not looking for investors." I guess the benefit of that is that you won't be convicted of fraud when your device turns out to be nothing but stage magic.
There is no "dogmatic suppression of radical new thinking" going on here. A claim this ludicrous demands concrete facts to back it up. Without concrete facts, denying these claims is not suppression, it's good editorial practice. The point of scientific journals is to present credible science, not the drivel that some two-bit hack conjures up. Accusing the journals of "suppression" because they won't print this is like complaining that book publishers won't print your super-awesome Sephiroth/Naruto slashfic.
<!--quoteo(post=1759876:date=Mar 18 2010, 08:40 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 08:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759876"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1759836:date=Mar 18 2010, 05:34 PM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Panigg @ Mar 18 2010, 05:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm not sure how Steaoms machine works, but the thing I linked is basically sucking energy out of the vacuum. The vacuum of space is not empty. It has energy warping in and out of existence. (Afaik this is proven by science). So, they place a negative charge in vacuum and the positive charges stick to it. Viola, energy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you. I mentioned that exact thing just a few posts before, at least now I know I'm not just making it up.
Can you elaborate on that? Where does the claim originate, or something? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I recommend watching the whole thing, but soon after 19 minutes he starts talking about nothing not being nothing. <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo#t=33m"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo#t=33m" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<!--quoteo(post=1759917:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No I shouldn't, because it isn't fallacious. You are being more than a little patronising with your attempts to explain circular logic to me, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just trying to be helpful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't do much if you see being corrected as patronizing. You accused them of not publishing papers when admitting to knowing full well that none will get published in a later post. Circular logic is the least of argument to be leveraged against this.
I won't press on if you're simply unwilling to admit being wrong in any regard. I can only point things out.
<!--quoteo(post=1759917:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am not actually accusing free-energy "proponents" of not publishing papers. What I am saying is that the evidence that they do provide is insufficient for them to be taken seriously by proper scientists. That <i>is</i> scientifically justified and it is <i>not</i> based on circular reasoning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's certainly valid, and I would agree. However, it's also none of what you said previously.
<!--quoteo(post=1759917:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a second point, respectable journals won't touch papers on free energy with a barge pole, because those papers are uniformly silly. If a well-crafted paper chock full of actual scientific evidence was produced, it would be slow on the uptake, but it <i>would</i> be considered sooner or later. Again, this is not circular, because the silliness of the papers is in no way contingent on the fact that they do not get published.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then you are simply too idealistic in your assumptions.
Right now anything relating to taboo subjects in science is rejected prior to review, just because it's a taboo, and so it won't appear in any journal even if the paper is valid in any way. This is nothing new, and it has been going on for hundreds of years. It's contrary to scientific method, which is why it can be assumed to be otherwise, but that's how it is.
Right now you accuse people of not doing something they specifically can't. I don't know how I could be more clear on this.
To be fair I don't think publishing a paper on how I broke the laws of thermodynamics would be a very good idea anyway, people would simply assume I made a mistake even if it was published.
Some things you just need to demonstrate. It would be like saying gravity doesn't exist despite the fact that gravity (and thermodynamics) is visible to us in everything we do. It's just one of those instances when you need to blow something up or make something fly or turn lead into gold in order to prove it.
<!--quoteo(post=1759920:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:42 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 19 2010, 12:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759920"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But yes the three basic possibilites are:
1. It's perpetual motion and energy is being created which as far as we know is impossible.
2. You buggered the calculations and it isn't producing energy, this is very likely as people do it all the time.
3. It's drawing it from something you haven't looked for, in which case what you have is a very nice conventional generator which turns an outside force into electrical energy, and which simply happens to run off some currently unidentified power source, but which isn't perpetual motion. This is improbable but quite possible within the laws of physics, and equally lucrative if the source turns out to be plentiful and the generator inexpensive to produce.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Third possibility being what keeps this the ordeal most amusing. A cheap energy source would do nicely right about now, eh...
<!--quoteo(post=1759923:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You disagree? Show us how it's done. Teach us the lesson of a lifetime. You claim to have a device that can produce energy from thin air - hell, from less than that. No coal, gas, oil or fissile materials required. That's great!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Admittedly that's exactly what they're doing. Hey, it's a good thing either way: either we get the thingy, or we get to laugh, without further deliberations.
<!--quoteo(post=1759923:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Mass-produce it, undercut every single energy provider and laugh all the way to the bank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, any conspiracy seems completely unlikely in light of the fact that there are tons of people interested in covering it.
I wouldn't imagine something like that going on myself, but, really, that's a pretty ironic thing to mention...
Personally, I will accept untimely death of the inventors or corporate merger with an oil company as evidence for the technology. Legal action would be a lot more subtle, because that's actually expected in that case, on the chance that any oil barons are reading this right now. Would you like a look at my CV?..
<!--quoteo(post=1759924:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:48 AM:name=Retales)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Retales @ Mar 19 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759924"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I recommend watching the whole thing, but soon after 19 minutes he starts talking about nothing not being nothing. ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is great, thank you!
<!--quoteo(post=1759926:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:55 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 19 2010, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759926"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be fair I don't think publishing a paper on how I broke the laws of thermodynamics would be a very good idea anyway, people would simply assume I made a mistake even if it was published.
Some things you just need to demonstrate. It would be like saying gravity doesn't exist despite the fact that gravity (and thermodynamics) is visible to us in everything we do. It's just one of those instances when you need to blow something up or make something fly or turn lead into gold in order to prove it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a pretty clever angle, well-done.
Granted you could do that in a context of scientific paper as well. But, then again, you'd still need to make the gadget to work first.
Granted you could do that in a context of scientific paper as well. But, then again, you'd still need to make the gadget to work first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, maybe, you can write down measurements but you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your instruments, and you can't photograph it in operation because photographs can be faked.
Papers require a certain amount of faith in the author's ability to ensure they are using the correct methods, when it comes to bending the universe over and shoving observable reality up its bum people are understandbaly reluctant to extend that faith.
<!--quoteo(post=1759930:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:09 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 19 2010, 01:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759930"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, maybe, you can write down measurements but you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your instruments, and you can't photograph it in operation because photographs can be faked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Repeatability is what deals with forgery in science. The problem I'm trying to point out is rejecting things before applying, well, science to them. A problem regardless of whether you believe the claims or not, because then it can't be proven either way...
Like you said, the only counter to that situation is having to run before you can walk.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1759925:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't do much if you see being corrected as patronizing. You accused them of not publishing papers when admitting to knowing full well that none will get published in a later post. Circular logic is the least of argument to be leveraged against this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't mind being corrected, even when I'm not actually wrong. What I find patronising is your attempts to explain basic logic to me. What I actually accused Steorn of is pretending that press releases are an adequate replacement for proper science. It is the sort of thing that pseudoscientists do all the time. If they want to be taken seriously I expect them to do it properly and produce valid scientific evidence, even though it will be initially difficult for them, a fact which I am happy to admit.
<!--quoteo(post=1759925:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I won't press on if you're simply unwilling to admit being wrong in any regard. I can only point things out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, go back and have another look at my last post. I've already admitted that I made a mistake in not being clear enough originally. It's obviously lead to a misunderstanding, and I have merely tried to clear that up.
<!--quoteo(post=1759925:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's certainly valid, and I would agree. However, it's also none of what you said previously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's an expansion upon what I said previously. It seemed necessary in order to defend my point beyond a one-liner (well, two-liner).
<!--quoteo(post=1759925:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you are simply too idealistic in your assumptions.
Right now anything relating to taboo subjects in science is rejected prior to review, just because it's a taboo, and so it won't appear in any journal even if the paper is valid in any way. This is nothing new, and it has been going on for hundreds of years. It's contrary to scientific method, which is why it can be assumed to be otherwise, but that's how it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think it's a matter of taboo. Psychic powers and the healing power of crystals aren't rejected because they're taboo, they're rejected because they are unscientific. I think it's more to do with a high level of inertia in science when it comes to accepting new ideas. Rather than being contrary to scientific method, it's a function of it. That extreme level criticism is useful in other areas as well as keeping out the nonsense.
Of course, human nature plays a big role in that too, so maybe I am being idealistic about it. I'm much happier admitting to idealism than circular reasoning.
<!--quoteo(post=1759939:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't mind being corrected, even when I'm not actually wrong. What I find patronising is your attempts to explain basic logic to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have no idea what you're asking for. To correct you, but in a way that won't correct anything?..
<!--quoteo(post=1759939:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I actually accused Steorn of is pretending that press releases are an adequate replacement for proper science. It is the sort of thing that pseudoscientists do all the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But how can you accuse them of that when you know that they do not have a chance of being reviewed?
<!--quoteo(post=1759939:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please, go back and have another look at my last post. I've already admitted that I made a mistake in not being clear enough originally. It's obviously lead to a misunderstanding, and I have merely tried to clear that up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm blind, I don't see it. Like I said, I won't press on for the sake of ######-fight.
If you have any further problems, feel free to review any previous posts, I've already said what I meant.
<!--quoteo(post=1759939:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think it's a matter of taboo. Psychic powers and the healing power of crystals aren't rejected because they're taboo, they're rejected because they are unscientific. I think it's more to do with a high level of inertia in science when it comes to accepting new ideas. Rather than being contrary to scientific method, it's a function of it. That extreme level criticism is useful in other areas as well as keeping out the nonsense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like you already admitted, you're a bit too idealistic. Taboos are absolutely nothing new to neither science nor human society in general.
Reactionary behaviour by popular opinion is to scientific method what anarchy is to law. Scientific process is made difficult by the methodology one has to observe, not by lack of salesmanship. Science is not mob rule.
I don't think comparing the first law of thermodynamics to "public opinion" is fair. The first law of thermodynamics is as close as you can get to undisputable fact while still keeping an open mind. If your theory violates that law, "guilty until proven innocent" is a fair approach.
This is a fraud.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. They are presenting this to the public and bypassing the scientific community because they know the public will believe anything that is publicized enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1759947:date=Mar 19 2010, 02:15 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think comparing the first law of thermodynamics to "public opinion" is fair. The first law of thermodynamics is as close as you can get to undisputable fact while still keeping an open mind. If your theory violates that law, "guilty until proven innocent" is a fair approach.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The law itself, no. Public approach to it, however, very much so.
I know it's mind-bending to realize that everything can be falsified, but it's also about as an important bit of knowledge as you can get, and indeed one of the fundamentals of science itself. We can always be wrong. Mind, this is also to never be confused with actually being wrong.
More on-topic: if the thing is working, I think it more likely it draws energy from some other source (metal wear?..); I also don't mean to defend perpetum mobile specifically, but scientific method itself from popular misconceptions. I also refuse to invest any certainty in either condemning or praising the weird thing until any further info surfaces - anything else, I think, would be rather unfitting for a skeptic.
<!--quoteo(post=1759959:date=Mar 19 2010, 03:04 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Mar 19 2010, 03:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly. They are presenting this to the <b>public</b> and...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To the <b>engineers</b>. Give the guys at least some credit, they could be starting a church right now or something...
I see what Insane means about the patronising attitude. I kind of know that the first law of thermodynamics can be falsified, yes. Also, it's spelled perpetuum.
Fitting for a skeptic would be to take a skeptic approach. This thing isn't fundamentally different from any other perpetuum mobile. It is basically the classic water wheel/pump approach, but with electricity instead of water. The scientific method does not concern itself with irrefutable certainty, because that slips into religious dogma. Science concerns itself with certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and it IS certain beyond reasonable doubt that this device is nothing but stage magic. The creators have done nothing that David Copperfield couldn't do, and if HE were the one who had made this we'd all wink and say "yeah right." You're not keeping an open mind, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Frankly, you remind me of people who keep insisting that evolution by natural selection is "only a theory." Well, so is the first law of thermodynamics.
Here's the kicker: can we construct a falsifiable experiment?
The falsifiable experiment for something like this would be a way to measure the increased energy generated, sans energy input to the system. Not quite sure how you'd measure that. Just letting stuff run under camera isn't enough. It just shows that it's being powered continuously, the question is by what?
I mean, I could stick a solar panel on my roof and call that perpetuum energy, but in reality it's obliviously (at leas it hope it is) coming from the sun.
I'm also extremely skeptic about it since electric motors are notoriously inefficient. Large water turbine, though, are close to 90% efficient at capturing energy, but that's a serious undertaking and the scale of that little doohickey is not large enough.
Also, running on the assumption that "it isn't published, it's fake" isn't completely valid. Corporations do this all the time. It's called preventing others from copying what you're doing, aka keeping the technology proprietary. Intel actually publishes quite a few from their labs, but mostly because the Comp Architecture world is awesome like that. However, they typically keep any software and specific design specs used to get those result under wraps so that they can make their new processor.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1759964:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:22 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know it's mind-bending to realize that everything can be falsified, but it's also about as an important bit of knowledge as you can get, and indeed one of the fundamentals of science itself. We can always be wrong. Mind, this is also to never be confused with actually being wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not actually true. There are a lot of things that it is impossible to falsify. I could tell you that there was an invisible chocolate teapot orbiting on the far side of the Sun and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, even though you would be justified in telling me I was a fool.
The fundamental that I think you are referring to is that anything that is unfalsifiable is also completely unscientific.
<!--quoteo(post=1760008:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see what Insane means about the patronising attitude. I kind of know that the first law of thermodynamics can be falsified, yes. Also, it's spelled perpetuum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No one likes to be corrected: we tend to treat attacks on our ideas as attacks on our ego. I can't do much more than ask you not to do that.
And yes, you're right, thank you.
<!--quoteo(post=1760008:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fitting for a skeptic would be to take a skeptic approach.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sceptical approach is demanding supporting evidence for a claim before accepting it, this includes both proof and disproof. Dismissing something out of hand - or worse yet, in spite of evidence - is the opposite of scepticism.
Thus, I refuse to judge the doohicky until it's properly examined. I think it's bogus, of course, but I won't confuse personal hunch with evidence.
<!--quoteo(post=1760008:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This thing isn't fundamentally different from any other perpetuum mobile. It is basically the classic water wheel/pump approach, but with electricity instead of water. The scientific method does not concern itself with irrefutable certainty, because that slips into religious dogma. Science concerns itself with certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and it IS certain beyond reasonable doubt that this device is nothing but stage magic. The creators have done nothing that David Copperfield couldn't do, and if HE were the one who had made this we'd all wink and say "yeah right." You're not keeping an open mind, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Frankly, you remind me of people who keep insisting that evolution by natural selection is "only a theory." Well, so is the first law of thermodynamics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes and no. Yes, it's yet another water wheel; no, it has no been proven either way yet, less of all "beyond shadow of a doubt", there was no scientific examination of the device.
You're engaging in the old fallacy of "open-mindedness". "Open mind" does not mean "accept only this and nothing else" - "Law X is always true no matter what" - it's not rocket science, "open-mindedness" is being open to accepting every possibility (before it's disproven).
I'd also rather not be directly insulted, if you don't mind.
<!--quoteo(post=1760018:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's the kicker: can we construct a falsifiable experiment?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's pretty much a requirement in this sort of situation. Someone needs to build a device on their own, then we'll know if it really works...
This is not out of question as apparently they're licensing the tech for mass production - ten bloody million in investments, seriously?.. - that's a pretty easy way to see if it works, I think.
<!--quoteo(post=1760018:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, running on the assumption that "it isn't published, it's fake" isn't completely valid. Corporations do this all the time. It's called preventing others from copying what you're doing, aka keeping the technology proprietary.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait... What? Corporations keep working technology secret all the time so that means it's not working?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760022:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:08 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760022"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's not actually true. There are a lot of things that it is impossible to falsify. I could tell you that there was an invisible chocolate teapot orbiting on the far side of the Sun and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, even though you would be justified in telling me I was a fool.
The fundamental that I think you are referring to is that anything that is unfalsifiable is also completely unscientific.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely agree with that, quite right.
However, I was more drawing attention to the fact that no scientific understanding is exempt from re-examination, and that indeed correcting mistakes is the cornerstone of science itself. So it doesn't matter how much weight and public trust any theory has collected, one experiment to the contrary is still all it takes to disprove it. Hell, that's what got Einstein famous (sort of): he disproved (or improved, rather) Gravity itself by correctly accounting for anomaly present in the orbit of Mercury.
So... I suppose I'm as open to the idea that a couple of PR consultants from Dublin will disprove Thermodynamics as I'm open to the idea that a patent clerk from Germany will disprove Gravity. One had already shown something for himself, let's see what'll it be for the other.
I don't think anyone here is holding their breath, but that doesn't make the matter any less interesting, not to me anyway.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Planck
Honestly, how can you fault me for not taking a device seriously which is purportedly powered by magic? You seem to think I won't accept it even if it can be proven to work. That's wrong. If it works, it works, and that's that. But right now, all we have is youtube. And frankly, if I am to watch stage magic on youtube, Penn & Teller are far more entertaining.
<!--quoteo(post=1760040:date=Mar 19 2010, 04:50 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, how can you fault me for not taking a device seriously which is purportedly powered by magic?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not asking you to do that at all. It's easy to think in dichotomy of either accepting or rejecting something - because that's how our brains tend to work - but we can do better than that.
I'm merely explaining how scepticism and scientific method work - namely, that neither accepting nor rejecting claims out of hand is permissible by either - this isn't a particularly huge deal, most of us have misconceptions about both, these few I've shared myself. I also think it's one of the more important understandings one can have about anything.
If you understand that already, then we just have classic miscommunication. Nothing new to the Internet, I think we both know that by now. ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1760040:date=Mar 19 2010, 04:50 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But right now, all we have is youtube.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually it's been in open exposition for the last few months, which is where those videos were taken. I think it's closing today though, so there go the chances of some kind Irishman finding hidden wires or something.
Do we have anyone from Dublin here?..
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... Simpsons ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also win.
It appears they have several videos up, some of which show how the device works. Gonna watch some of them now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish I could make out all the techno-babble in there. The videos also seem rather fragmented, which doesn't help much. Any engineers here to tell us if they're full of it or not?..
To the best of my understanding, the setup they have going would actually reduce lifespan of the battery by all physical considerations, even taking getting rid of EMF feedback on the working magnets into the equation. Probably the most useful bit of info at that point would be knowing just how long can an AA battery like that power a motor like what they'd have on stage - I would expect two hours tops myself - and whether can such a battery be modified to have longer life-span (I would expect yes).
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited March 2010
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, I was more drawing attention to the fact that no scientific understanding is exempt from re-examination, and that indeed correcting mistakes is the cornerstone of science itself. So it doesn't matter how much weight and public trust any theory has collected, one experiment to the contrary is still all it takes to disprove it. Hell, that's what got Einstein famous (sort of): he disproved (or improved, rather) Gravity itself by correctly accounting for anomaly present in the orbit of Mercury.
So... I suppose I'm as open to the idea that a couple of PR consultants from Dublin will disprove Thermodynamics as I'm open to the idea that a patent clerk from Germany will disprove Gravity. One had already shown something for himself, let's see what'll it be for the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not "open minded" on the issue due to the extraordinarity of the claim, as I've attempted to convey. You may call that dogmatic, but it we're to sum up the important entirety of modern physics (post-1600), it is "conservation laws".
Breaking these IS an extraordinary claim, and it is much more extraordinary than what the "patent clerk" named Einstein (I don't understand why people like to use the patent clerk term, it's not like he was isolated from academia or universities while working on either special or general relativity; he was very much involved.) managed to come up with. Note that his results were widely accepted already at the moment of publishing, due to the strong reasoning involved. He never created an experiment; his work was mostly a mathematical exercise of tremendous creativity. His theory was in a line of improved theories building onto the ever-growing mountain that is Physical Theories.
Claiming to break the conservation laws is not the same. It is not "taking an idea and improving it", it is observing something that contradicts every empirical evidence to this day.
That is extraordinary in the word's fullest meaning. I will dismiss it when proof has not been presented, just as I will dismiss ghosts and celestial teapots that live on nothing but the claim itself. There is an important distinction between being close-minded and being a sceptic, and this is a good example.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1760033:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:14 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 01:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760033"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes and no. Yes, it's yet another water wheel; no, it has no been proven either way yet, less of all "beyond shadow of a doubt", there was no scientific examination of the device.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/#more-1233" target="_blank">The device has already been scientifically examined.</a>
Whilst the entire thing is obviously bull######, I'm wondering whether it's actually a scam or whether the company really believes that they've re-invented alchemy.
<!--quoteo(post=1760044:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:28 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 19 2010, 05:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760044"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am not "open minded" on the issue due to the extraordinarity of the claim, as I've attempted to convey. You may call that dogmatic, but it we're to sum up the important entirety of modern physics (post-1600), it is "conservation laws".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, there's nothing I can say to that.
I can only re-iterate that it's not a justified outlook by either naturalistic methodology, or history, or logic and that attacking human knowledge should not be misconstrued as attacks on reality itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1760044:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:28 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 19 2010, 05:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760044"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is an important <b>distinction between being open-minded and being a sceptic</b>, and this is a good example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's terrible.
It's one of the worst false dichotomies I can imagine going around. Either you accept everything unquestionably, or you reject everything unquestionably... It's a sure-fire way to never get anywhere in anything.
Being open-minded or being a skeptic are worth positively nothing on their own. These traits have to work in concord to allow for reasonable line of thinking, they are two sides of the same coin: to be skeptical, you need to wait until evidence either for or against, and to be open-minded you have to wait until evidence either for or against.
<!--quoteo(post=1760047:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:35 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 05:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/#more-1233" target="_blank">The device has already been scientifically examined.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're quoting an examination from 2006, which is also alluded to in the video in OP. That thing broke on-stage, by the way, due to... "Hot lights". (???)
<!--quoteo(post=1760048:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:38 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760048"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whilst the entire thing is obviously bull######, I'm wondering whether it's actually a scam or whether the company really believes that they've re-invented alchemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Halting funding strongly suggest it's the latter.
Comments
I think we both know it's the same thing.
No I shouldn't, because it isn't fallacious. You are being more than a little patronising with your attempts to explain circular logic to me, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just trying to be helpful.
I am guessing that you think that my reasoning is circular because I left detail out for the sake of being pithy. I accept that this is likely my fault, but I don't think it justifies your attempting to explain basic principles of logic and and the philosophy of science as though I was completely ignorant, or to imply that I am a dogmatist.
I am not actually accusing free-energy "proponents" of not publishing papers. What I am saying is that the evidence that they do provide is insufficient for them to be taken seriously by proper scientists. That <i>is</i> scientifically justified and it is <i>not</i> based on circular reasoning. Of the views a) and b) which you attribute to me, b) is the only one I actually hold. Twenty-two scientists examined Steorn's device and saw no evidence that it was capable of producing three times the energy it consumed.
As a second point, respectable journals won't touch papers on free energy with a barge pole, because those papers are uniformly silly. If a well-crafted paper chock full of actual scientific evidence was produced, it would be slow on the uptake, but it <i>would</i> be considered sooner or later. Again, this is not circular, because the silliness of the papers is in no way contingent on the fact that they do not get published.
There is nothing new in this. Check out the wikipedia page for a very long list of failed attempts at perpetual motion
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pe...motion_machines</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That falls under forgetting to carry the two, although I suppose it would more accurately be described as forgetting to check which exercise you're supposed to be doing.
But yes the three basic possibilites are:
1. It's perpetual motion and energy is being created which as far as we know is impossible.
2. You buggered the calculations and it isn't producing energy, this is very likely as people do it all the time.
3. It's drawing it from something you haven't looked for, in which case what you have is a very nice conventional generator which turns an outside force into electrical energy, and which simply happens to run off some currently unidentified power source, but which isn't perpetual motion. This is improbable but quite possible within the laws of physics, and equally lucrative if the source turns out to be plentiful and the generator inexpensive to produce.
You disagree? Show us how it's done. Teach us the lesson of a lifetime. You claim to have a device that can produce energy from thin air - hell, from less than that. No coal, gas, oil or fissile materials required. That's great! Mass-produce it, undercut every single energy provider and laugh all the way to the bank. It's curious how you're "not looking for investors." I guess the benefit of that is that you won't be convicted of fraud when your device turns out to be nothing but stage magic.
There is no "dogmatic suppression of radical new thinking" going on here. A claim this ludicrous demands concrete facts to back it up. Without concrete facts, denying these claims is not suppression, it's good editorial practice. The point of scientific journals is to present credible science, not the drivel that some two-bit hack conjures up.
Accusing the journals of "suppression" because they won't print this is like complaining that book publishers won't print your super-awesome Sephiroth/Naruto slashfic.
I'm not sure how Steaoms machine works, but the thing I linked is basically sucking energy out of the vacuum. The vacuum of space is not empty. It has energy warping in and out of existence. (Afaik this is proven by science). So, they place a negative charge in vacuum and the positive charges stick to it. Viola, energy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you. I mentioned that exact thing just a few posts before, at least now I know I'm not just making it up.
Can you elaborate on that? Where does the claim originate, or something?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I recommend watching the whole thing, but soon after 19 minutes he starts talking about nothing not being nothing.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo#t=33m"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ImvlS8PLIo#t=33m" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
I can't do much if you see being corrected as patronizing. You accused them of not publishing papers when admitting to knowing full well that none will get published in a later post. Circular logic is the least of argument to be leveraged against this.
I won't press on if you're simply unwilling to admit being wrong in any regard. I can only point things out.
<!--quoteo(post=1759917:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am not actually accusing free-energy "proponents" of not publishing papers. What I am saying is that the evidence that they do provide is insufficient for them to be taken seriously by proper scientists. That <i>is</i> scientifically justified and it is <i>not</i> based on circular reasoning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's certainly valid, and I would agree. However, it's also none of what you said previously.
<!--quoteo(post=1759917:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a second point, respectable journals won't touch papers on free energy with a barge pole, because those papers are uniformly silly. If a well-crafted paper chock full of actual scientific evidence was produced, it would be slow on the uptake, but it <i>would</i> be considered sooner or later. Again, this is not circular, because the silliness of the papers is in no way contingent on the fact that they do not get published.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you are simply too idealistic in your assumptions.
Right now anything relating to taboo subjects in science is rejected prior to review, just because it's a taboo, and so it won't appear in any journal even if the paper is valid in any way. This is nothing new, and it has been going on for hundreds of years. It's contrary to scientific method, which is why it can be assumed to be otherwise, but that's how it is.
Right now you accuse people of not doing something they specifically can't. I don't know how I could be more clear on this.
Some things you just need to demonstrate. It would be like saying gravity doesn't exist despite the fact that gravity (and thermodynamics) is visible to us in everything we do. It's just one of those instances when you need to blow something up or make something fly or turn lead into gold in order to prove it.
1. It's perpetual motion and energy is being created which as far as we know is impossible.
2. You buggered the calculations and it isn't producing energy, this is very likely as people do it all the time.
3. It's drawing it from something you haven't looked for, in which case what you have is a very nice conventional generator which turns an outside force into electrical energy, and which simply happens to run off some currently unidentified power source, but which isn't perpetual motion. This is improbable but quite possible within the laws of physics, and equally lucrative if the source turns out to be plentiful and the generator inexpensive to produce.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Third possibility being what keeps this the ordeal most amusing. A cheap energy source would do nicely right about now, eh...
<!--quoteo(post=1759923:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You disagree? Show us how it's done. Teach us the lesson of a lifetime. You claim to have a device that can produce energy from thin air - hell, from less than that. No coal, gas, oil or fissile materials required. That's great!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Admittedly that's exactly what they're doing. Hey, it's a good thing either way: either we get the thingy, or we get to laugh, without further deliberations.
<!--quoteo(post=1759923:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 12:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Mass-produce it, undercut every single energy provider and laugh all the way to the bank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, any conspiracy seems completely unlikely in light of the fact that there are tons of people interested in covering it.
I wouldn't imagine something like that going on myself, but, really, that's a pretty ironic thing to mention...
Personally, I will accept untimely death of the inventors or corporate merger with an oil company as evidence for the technology. Legal action would be a lot more subtle, because that's actually expected in that case, on the chance that any oil barons are reading this right now. Would you like a look at my CV?..
<!--quoteo(post=1759924:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:48 AM:name=Retales)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Retales @ Mar 19 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759924"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I recommend watching the whole thing, but soon after 19 minutes he starts talking about nothing not being nothing.
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is great, thank you!
<!--quoteo(post=1759926:date=Mar 19 2010, 12:55 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 19 2010, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759926"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be fair I don't think publishing a paper on how I broke the laws of thermodynamics would be a very good idea anyway, people would simply assume I made a mistake even if it was published.
Some things you just need to demonstrate. It would be like saying gravity doesn't exist despite the fact that gravity (and thermodynamics) is visible to us in everything we do. It's just one of those instances when you need to blow something up or make something fly or turn lead into gold in order to prove it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a pretty clever angle, well-done.
Granted you could do that in a context of scientific paper as well. But, then again, you'd still need to make the gadget to work first.
Granted you could do that in a context of scientific paper as well. But, then again, you'd still need to make the gadget to work first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, maybe, you can write down measurements but you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your instruments, and you can't photograph it in operation because photographs can be faked.
Papers require a certain amount of faith in the author's ability to ensure they are using the correct methods, when it comes to bending the universe over and shoving observable reality up its bum people are understandbaly reluctant to extend that faith.
Repeatability is what deals with forgery in science. The problem I'm trying to point out is rejecting things before applying, well, science to them. A problem regardless of whether you believe the claims or not, because then it can't be proven either way...
Like you said, the only counter to that situation is having to run before you can walk.
<!--quoteo(post=1759933:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:16 AM:name=[WHO]Them)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ([WHO]Them @ Mar 19 2010, 01:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759933"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmos_clock" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmos_clock</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wicked cool. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->But irrelevant.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I don't mind being corrected, even when I'm not actually wrong. What I find patronising is your attempts to explain basic logic to me. What I actually accused Steorn of is pretending that press releases are an adequate replacement for proper science. It is the sort of thing that pseudoscientists do all the time. If they want to be taken seriously I expect them to do it properly and produce valid scientific evidence, even though it will be initially difficult for them, a fact which I am happy to admit.
<!--quoteo(post=1759925:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I won't press on if you're simply unwilling to admit being wrong in any regard. I can only point things out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, go back and have another look at my last post. I've already admitted that I made a mistake in not being clear enough originally. It's obviously lead to a misunderstanding, and I have merely tried to clear that up.
<!--quoteo(post=1759925:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's certainly valid, and I would agree. However, it's also none of what you said previously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's an expansion upon what I said previously. It seemed necessary in order to defend my point beyond a one-liner (well, two-liner).
<!--quoteo(post=1759925:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 18 2010, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you are simply too idealistic in your assumptions.
Right now anything relating to taboo subjects in science is rejected prior to review, just because it's a taboo, and so it won't appear in any journal even if the paper is valid in any way. This is nothing new, and it has been going on for hundreds of years. It's contrary to scientific method, which is why it can be assumed to be otherwise, but that's how it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think it's a matter of taboo. Psychic powers and the healing power of crystals aren't rejected because they're taboo, they're rejected because they are unscientific. I think it's more to do with a high level of inertia in science when it comes to accepting new ideas. Rather than being contrary to scientific method, it's a function of it. That extreme level criticism is useful in other areas as well as keeping out the nonsense.
Of course, human nature plays a big role in that too, so maybe I am being idealistic about it. I'm much happier admitting to idealism than circular reasoning.
I have no idea what you're asking for. To correct you, but in a way that won't correct anything?..
<!--quoteo(post=1759939:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I actually accused Steorn of is pretending that press releases are an adequate replacement for proper science. It is the sort of thing that pseudoscientists do all the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But how can you accuse them of that when you know that they do not have a chance of being reviewed?
<!--quoteo(post=1759939:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please, go back and have another look at my last post. I've already admitted that I made a mistake in not being clear enough originally. It's obviously lead to a misunderstanding, and I have merely tried to clear that up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I'm blind, I don't see it. Like I said, I won't press on for the sake of ######-fight.
If you have any further problems, feel free to review any previous posts, I've already said what I meant.
<!--quoteo(post=1759939:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think it's a matter of taboo. Psychic powers and the healing power of crystals aren't rejected because they're taboo, they're rejected because they are unscientific. I think it's more to do with a high level of inertia in science when it comes to accepting new ideas. Rather than being contrary to scientific method, it's a function of it. That extreme level criticism is useful in other areas as well as keeping out the nonsense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you already admitted, you're a bit too idealistic. Taboos are absolutely nothing new to neither science nor human society in general.
Reactionary behaviour by popular opinion is to scientific method what anarchy is to law. Scientific process is made difficult by the methodology one has to observe, not by lack of salesmanship. Science is not mob rule.
This is a fraud.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. They are presenting this to the public and bypassing the scientific community because they know the public will believe anything that is publicized enough.
The law itself, no. Public approach to it, however, very much so.
I know it's mind-bending to realize that everything can be falsified, but it's also about as an important bit of knowledge as you can get, and indeed one of the fundamentals of science itself. We can always be wrong. Mind, this is also to never be confused with actually being wrong.
More on-topic: if the thing is working, I think it more likely it draws energy from some other source (metal wear?..); I also don't mean to defend perpetum mobile specifically, but scientific method itself from popular misconceptions. I also refuse to invest any certainty in either condemning or praising the weird thing until any further info surfaces - anything else, I think, would be rather unfitting for a skeptic.
<!--quoteo(post=1759959:date=Mar 19 2010, 03:04 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Mar 19 2010, 03:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly. They are presenting this to the <b>public</b> and...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To the <b>engineers</b>. Give the guys at least some credit, they could be starting a church right now or something...
Fitting for a skeptic would be to take a skeptic approach. This thing isn't fundamentally different from any other perpetuum mobile. It is basically the classic water wheel/pump approach, but with electricity instead of water.
The scientific method does not concern itself with irrefutable certainty, because that slips into religious dogma. Science concerns itself with certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and it IS certain beyond reasonable doubt that this device is nothing but stage magic. The creators have done nothing that David Copperfield couldn't do, and if HE were the one who had made this we'd all wink and say "yeah right." You're not keeping an open mind, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Frankly, you remind me of people who keep insisting that evolution by natural selection is "only a theory." Well, so is the first law of thermodynamics.
The falsifiable experiment for something like this would be a way to measure the increased energy generated, sans energy input to the system. Not quite sure how you'd measure that. Just letting stuff run under camera isn't enough. It just shows that it's being powered continuously, the question is by what?
I mean, I could stick a solar panel on my roof and call that perpetuum energy, but in reality it's obliviously (at leas it hope it is) coming from the sun.
I'm also extremely skeptic about it since electric motors are notoriously inefficient. Large water turbine, though, are close to 90% efficient at capturing energy, but that's a serious undertaking and the scale of that little doohickey is not large enough.
Also, running on the assumption that "it isn't published, it's fake" isn't completely valid. Corporations do this all the time. It's called preventing others from copying what you're doing, aka keeping the technology proprietary. Intel actually publishes quite a few from their labs, but mostly because the Comp Architecture world is awesome like that. However, they typically keep any software and specific design specs used to get those result under wraps so that they can make their new processor.
That's not actually true. There are a lot of things that it is impossible to falsify. I could tell you that there was an invisible chocolate teapot orbiting on the far side of the Sun and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, even though you would be justified in telling me I was a fool.
The fundamental that I think you are referring to is that anything that is unfalsifiable is also completely unscientific.
No one likes to be corrected: we tend to treat attacks on our ideas as attacks on our ego. I can't do much more than ask you not to do that.
And yes, you're right, thank you.
<!--quoteo(post=1760008:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fitting for a skeptic would be to take a skeptic approach.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sceptical approach is demanding supporting evidence for a claim before accepting it, this includes both proof and disproof. Dismissing something out of hand - or worse yet, in spite of evidence - is the opposite of scepticism.
Thus, I refuse to judge the doohicky until it's properly examined. I think it's bogus, of course, but I won't confuse personal hunch with evidence.
<!--quoteo(post=1760008:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 08:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This thing isn't fundamentally different from any other perpetuum mobile. It is basically the classic water wheel/pump approach, but with electricity instead of water.
The scientific method does not concern itself with irrefutable certainty, because that slips into religious dogma. Science concerns itself with certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and it IS certain beyond reasonable doubt that this device is nothing but stage magic. The creators have done nothing that David Copperfield couldn't do, and if HE were the one who had made this we'd all wink and say "yeah right." You're not keeping an open mind, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Frankly, you remind me of people who keep insisting that evolution by natural selection is "only a theory." Well, so is the first law of thermodynamics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no. Yes, it's yet another water wheel; no, it has no been proven either way yet, less of all "beyond shadow of a doubt", there was no scientific examination of the device.
You're engaging in the old fallacy of "open-mindedness". "Open mind" does not mean "accept only this and nothing else" - "Law X is always true no matter what" - it's not rocket science, "open-mindedness" is being open to accepting every possibility (before it's disproven).
I'd also rather not be directly insulted, if you don't mind.
<!--quoteo(post=1760018:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's the kicker: can we construct a falsifiable experiment?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's pretty much a requirement in this sort of situation. Someone needs to build a device on their own, then we'll know if it really works...
This is not out of question as apparently they're licensing the tech for mass production - ten bloody million in investments, seriously?.. - that's a pretty easy way to see if it works, I think.
<!--quoteo(post=1760018:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 19 2010, 11:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, running on the assumption that "it isn't published, it's fake" isn't completely valid. Corporations do this all the time. It's called preventing others from copying what you're doing, aka keeping the technology proprietary.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait... What? Corporations keep working technology secret all the time so that means it's not working?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760022:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:08 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 01:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760022"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's not actually true. There are a lot of things that it is impossible to falsify. I could tell you that there was an invisible chocolate teapot orbiting on the far side of the Sun and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, even though you would be justified in telling me I was a fool.
The fundamental that I think you are referring to is that anything that is unfalsifiable is also completely unscientific.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely agree with that, quite right.
However, I was more drawing attention to the fact that no scientific understanding is exempt from re-examination, and that indeed correcting mistakes is the cornerstone of science itself. So it doesn't matter how much weight and public trust any theory has collected, one experiment to the contrary is still all it takes to disprove it. Hell, that's what got Einstein famous (sort of): he disproved (or improved, rather) Gravity itself by correctly accounting for anomaly present in the orbit of Mercury.
So... I suppose I'm as open to the idea that a couple of PR consultants from Dublin will disprove Thermodynamics as I'm open to the idea that a patent clerk from Germany will disprove Gravity. One had already shown something for himself, let's see what'll it be for the other.
I don't think anyone here is holding their breath, but that doesn't make the matter any less interesting, not to me anyway.
<div align='center'>Homer, take it away:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWxZm8WjlI8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWxZm8WjlI8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxZm8WjlI8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxZm8WjlI8</a> </div>
It appears they have several videos up, some of which show how the device works. Gonna watch some of them now.
I'm not asking you to do that at all. It's easy to think in dichotomy of either accepting or rejecting something - because that's how our brains tend to work - but we can do better than that.
I'm merely explaining how scepticism and scientific method work - namely, that neither accepting nor rejecting claims out of hand is permissible by either - this isn't a particularly huge deal, most of us have misconceptions about both, these few I've shared myself. I also think it's one of the more important understandings one can have about anything.
If you understand that already, then we just have classic miscommunication. Nothing new to the Internet, I think we both know that by now. ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1760040:date=Mar 19 2010, 04:50 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But right now, all we have is youtube.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it's been in open exposition for the last few months, which is where those videos were taken. I think it's closing today though, so there go the chances of some kind Irishman finding hidden wires or something.
Do we have anyone from Dublin here?..
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... Simpsons ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also win.
<!--quoteo(post=1760042:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:16 PM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Panigg @ Mar 19 2010, 05:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760042"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.steorn.com/" target="_blank">http://www.steorn.com/</a>
It appears they have several videos up, some of which show how the device works. Gonna watch some of them now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish I could make out all the techno-babble in there. The videos also seem rather fragmented, which doesn't help much. Any engineers here to tell us if they're full of it or not?..
To the best of my understanding, the setup they have going would actually reduce lifespan of the battery by all physical considerations, even taking getting rid of EMF feedback on the working magnets into the equation. Probably the most useful bit of info at that point would be knowing just how long can an AA battery like that power a motor like what they'd have on stage - I would expect two hours tops myself - and whether can such a battery be modified to have longer life-span (I would expect yes).
So... I suppose I'm as open to the idea that a couple of PR consultants from Dublin will disprove Thermodynamics as I'm open to the idea that a patent clerk from Germany will disprove Gravity. One had already shown something for himself, let's see what'll it be for the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not "open minded" on the issue due to the extraordinarity of the claim, as I've attempted to convey. You may call that dogmatic, but it we're to sum up the important entirety of modern physics (post-1600), it is "conservation laws".
Breaking these IS an extraordinary claim, and it is much more extraordinary than what the "patent clerk" named Einstein (I don't understand why people like to use the patent clerk term, it's not like he was isolated from academia or universities while working on either special or general relativity; he was very much involved.) managed to come up with. Note that his results were widely accepted already at the moment of publishing, due to the strong reasoning involved. He never created an experiment; his work was mostly a mathematical exercise of tremendous creativity. His theory was in a line of improved theories building onto the ever-growing mountain that is Physical Theories.
Claiming to break the conservation laws is not the same. It is not "taking an idea and improving it", it is observing something that contradicts every empirical evidence to this day.
That is extraordinary in the word's fullest meaning. I will dismiss it when proof has not been presented, just as I will dismiss ghosts and celestial teapots that live on nothing but the claim itself. There is an important distinction between being close-minded and being a sceptic, and this is a good example.
<a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/#more-1233" target="_blank">The device has already been scientifically examined.</a>
Well, there's nothing I can say to that.
I can only re-iterate that it's not a justified outlook by either naturalistic methodology, or history, or logic and that attacking human knowledge should not be misconstrued as attacks on reality itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1760044:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:28 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Mar 19 2010, 05:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760044"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is an important <b>distinction between being open-minded and being a sceptic</b>, and this is a good example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's terrible.
It's one of the worst false dichotomies I can imagine going around. Either you accept everything unquestionably, or you reject everything unquestionably... It's a sure-fire way to never get anywhere in anything.
Being open-minded or being a skeptic are worth positively nothing on their own. These traits have to work in concord to allow for reasonable line of thinking, they are two sides of the same coin: to be skeptical, you need to wait until evidence either for or against, and to be open-minded you have to wait until evidence either for or against.
<!--quoteo(post=1760047:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:35 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 19 2010, 05:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/#more-1233" target="_blank">The device has already been scientifically examined.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're quoting an examination from 2006, which is also alluded to in the video in OP. That thing broke on-stage, by the way, due to... "Hot lights". (???)
<!--quoteo(post=1760048:date=Mar 19 2010, 05:38 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760048"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whilst the entire thing is obviously bull######, I'm wondering whether it's actually a scam or whether the company really believes that they've re-invented alchemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Halting funding strongly suggest it's the latter.