Mortal Monkey on 6/9/2006 at 02:28

---

wow
just wow %-U~


I'm so going to get that book.


I do wonder where the ether energy in these collectors comes from though. Maybe these prototypes are feeding on the dissipated energy from every electric source around them, thus would ultimately fail when you try to replace our current ineffective electrical systems with them on a large scale? Who knows.

Printer's Devil on 6/9/2006 at 04:50

---

That's how scams work, kiddo. Sure, the investors eventually find out, but by then the money has vanished. Greed clouds judgement--which explains why casinos are so profitable. Google "Bre-X" for a textbook example.

Swiss Mercenary on 6/9/2006 at 06:06

---

Check out 'Bad Science' by Gary Taubes - it talks about the Cold Fusion fiasco.

Everyone was shitting themselves over a THERMOFRIGGINNUCLEAR REACTION taking place in a TESTTUBE, with NO RADIATION, or the products of such a reaction being produced. The two inventors of the thing did a great job at convincing people that 2+2=5.

It won't attract new investors, but if they put up enough smoke and mirrors, it may last them long enough to get some more $$$ out of their current ones.

As for the OP.

This perpetual motion device sounds like a carbon copy of Cold Fusion. 'Secret, but simple' formula, nobody but the inventors can get it to work, no review by the scientific community, bullshit claims that 'scientists examining it were amazed, off the record' (If you were a physicist, and you were convinced by a machine that bloody well defies the laws of physics, you'd be driving yourself like a mule to be the first to explain and document this phenomena).

Oh, and their comparsions of themselves with Galileo, are nice, too. Score one for emotional appeal.

And last I checked, science isn't tasked with disproving every crackpot theory/idea that comes up. If you want recognition, you are supposed to make a convincing argument for why your theory works. Oh, and citing legal and patent-related reasons and nameless scientists who won't speak on the record doesn't make for a convincing argument.

mopgoblin on 6/9/2006 at 08:35

---

Is this about producing an infinite amount of output energy in a finite amount of time, though? If you could build a machine that produces energy faster than it uses it, that doesn't necessarily give you a way to create an infinite amount of energy in an immediately usable form, does it?

Rogue Keeper on 6/9/2006 at 09:09

---

Scientific institutes and corporations make press releases. How else they would announce their news and discoveries?

It just depends on whether you read the same press release in "New Scientist" or "The Sun" as the accompanying interpretations and comments may be quite different.