I have been watching a company, Steorn ( http://www.steorn.net ) who claims to have invented a magnetic device that harnesses free energy. The interesting part is that it seems completely legit. They are forming a panel of independent researchers to verify the device. If this isn't a hoax, then this could drastically change the way we live our lives. This could be used from miniaturized generators for cell phones to helping third-world countries. Usually I am a skeptic when it comes to breaking several well documented theories, but does this seem plausible to anyone else? The whole way they are going about this doesn't feel like they are trying to fool anybody.
Steorn's free energy claim
I wish they'd give more details about just what their new technology is and how it works... (haven't they patented it yet?)
It seems disturbingly similar to something I'm working on, so I hope it's not the same thing.
It seems disturbingly similar to something I'm working on, so I hope it's not the same thing.
The US patent office (and most others) will not currently patent any perpetual motion devices. They are having to patent each component part individually, which will take time for all of them to be granted.
That sounds pretty cool. Awhile back I had an idea to try to use magnets in a way to make "free energy". Never went anywhere with it though, I should give my idea a try and see if I can actually create it.
This outfit made the national news on BBC a few weeks back with this claim. Needless to say the whole thing smacks of a publicity stunt and, even more needless to say, no reputable scientists could stop laughing long enough to give a coherent quote to the BBC about any scientific merit or otherwise that the claims may possess.
My own opinion? Easy and consistent - perpetual energy is a HUGE claim, since it violates at least 2 fundamental laws of physics I can think of (first and second laws of thermodynamics). As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I see neither evidence nor any indication that any exists and therefore I will regard this as junk until anyone can show otherwise....
My own opinion? Easy and consistent - perpetual energy is a HUGE claim, since it violates at least 2 fundamental laws of physics I can think of (first and second laws of thermodynamics). As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I see neither evidence nor any indication that any exists and therefore I will regard this as junk until anyone can show otherwise....
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I will regard this as junk until anyone can show otherwise.... |
Wouldn't the proper scientific way to look at it be to see it as of unknown veracity until proven one way or the other?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Wouldn't the proper scientific way to look at it be to see it as of unknown veracity until proven one way or the other? |
Not really. A claim is either taken as true or false. You can't say something is "maybe" true. That's just useless politicking. Either you're going to assume it's right, or you're going to assume it's wrong, and then you're going to work from there in some way or another, depending on your goals.
Given that the claim is rather extraordinary, the correct thing to do is to assume it's false until proven otherwise. If it really is true, then this company should have no problems demonstrating it to be so, and we can modify our assumptions at that point. If it's not true, then we won't have wasted our time on a hoax.
Scientific standards are not designed to be nice or politically correct. They are designed to very strictly and precisely weed out untruths. The safest way to do that is to assume just about any claim is untrue until proven true, because the reverse - attempting to prove a true claim untrue - is a lot harder (and in some cases functionally impossible).
I saw a video on youtube about that. They showed some videos of part of the machine.. It doesn't look too special itself, but I'm curious to see what those scientists say about it.
hmm, take a look at the final paragraph of the wiki article on steorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn 'industry context', that pretty much sums it up, it's not that anyone can say whether these guys are fake or real, because of course they aren't going to release the details of the device, its just that in more ways than not their company is behaving 'just like' all the other tiresome companies that have filled the media with worthless pseudoscience since science began. What IS interesting however, is just how successful they have been in their unstated objective, namely conning suckers out of 3 million euro's of investment (see wiki article). Apparently tho, still the best way for a conman to get rich is to start a religion 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard| spam wrote: |
| hmm, take a look at the final paragraph of the wiki article on steorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn 'industry context', that pretty much sums it up, it's not that anyone can say whether these guys are fake or real, because of course they aren't going to release the details of the device, its just that in more ways than not their company is behaving 'just like' all the other tiresome companies that have filled the media with worthless pseudoscience since science began. What IS interesting however, is just how successful they have been in their unstated objective, namely conning suckers out of 3 million euro's of investment (see wiki article). Apparently tho, still the best way for a conman to get rich is to start a religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard |
Hey, people are still financing Infinium Labs. There's apparently a lot of people out there with a lot of money to waste. i mean, for god's sake, it's called the "Phantom" console! It's almost like a cry for help.
Steorn's not the first, sure, and they won't be the last, and the next time someone comes up with a nice machine that violates conventional science (but just ignore the man behind the curtain), the cycle will begin anew.
Still, rather than just getting huffy and dismissing these kinds of shenanigans out of hand, i say we should enjoy them! It's like free entertainment! Just observe this delicious irony, from right off Wikipedia (apparently someone else out there finds this amusing, too):
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn wrote: |
| Steorn claimed to seek the support of the scientific community with its announcement of a "Challenge" seeking experts to evaluate its perpetual motion claims. Steorn announced that only a group of twelve jury members - made up of engineers, scientists and others - chosen by Steorn itself, be given access to the technology. Steorn characterizes this self-selected panel as an "independent jury". |
LOL..yep...that's pretty much what he said when I heard him a couple of weeks ago on Today on radio 4. Unfortunately Humphries et al may be good reporters and presenters but they are not very science literate and the guy was given a very easy ride...I was itching to ring in 
C.
C.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
Not really. A claim is either taken as true or false. You can't say something is "maybe" true. That's just useless politicking. Either you're going to assume it's right, or you're going to assume it's wrong, |
My brain works in analogue as well as digital...
Besides, there is precedent for such a conclusion as 'maybe correct': Recall Schrödinger's cat and it's being assumed both alive and dead, until one collapses the probability waveform to one of the two conclusions.
This is the same way: Because I have no evidence to prove or disprove their claims, their claims are both true and false (though the probability of true may be small) until it is proven one way or the other.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||||||
My brain works in analogue as well as digital... |
Well that's good for your brain, but you asked about science.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Besides, there is precedent for such a conclusion as 'maybe correct': Recall Schrödinger's cat and it's being assumed both alive and dead, until one collapses the probability waveform to one of the two conclusions.
This is the same way: Because I have no evidence to prove or disprove their claims, their claims are both true and false (though the probability of true may be small) until it is proven one way or the other. |
Nice try, but no. You're misinterpreting what a wavefunction is, but that's not really important to the issue here.
The problem is that you're jumping back and forth between "common sense" and science. You know what, you're right. If you don't know for sure what something is going to turn out to be, it's perfectly alright to say "it could be either"... in the real world. But you didn't ask about the real world. You asked about the scientific position.
In science, you don't say things are maybe true or possible false. In science, a fact or a claim is true or false. A theory is right or wrong. It just can't be "either". Normally you assume a theory is true until it is proven wrong (by being shown to be inconsistent with observation or existing science, which is really just collected knowlege). (It's a little more complicated than that of course - selecting which theory is true is a huge topic.) Steorn's claim violates existing science. Therefore, the default position is to assume it is a false claim. It's as simple as that.
Now, suppose you were one of the "independent" scientists assigned to validate the machine. What do you do? There is only one scientifically correct thing to do, regardless of what you personally believe:
- Assume it's a sham.
- Come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to explain how it can appear to work.
- Attempt to show that that's not what's happening (try to prove your hypothesis wrong).
- If you have failed to prove your hypothesis wrong, then the machine is not a PMM.
- If you did prove your hypothesis wrong, go back to 2 until you run out of hypotheses.
Or, in practice:
- Assume it's a sham.
- Hypothesize the meter showing the efficiency is rigged.
- Replace it with your own meter that you know to be fair.
- If your meter does not show efficiency greater than unity, the machine is not a PMM.
- If your meter does show an efficiency greater than unity, then you move on to the next hypothesis, or if you have no more, you are forced to conclude that it might be a PMM.
For a lark, assume you actually personally believe that the machine is legit, and want to prove it so. Here is a sample procedure you would take:
- Assume it's a sham.
- Hypothesize that the extra energy is being generated is actually stored energy in the materials being released as some part of the machine is being disolved/oxidized.
- Run the machine for a long, long time and observe the materials at the end to see if the size or chemistry has changed.
- If they have you were wrong, and the machine is not a PMM.
- If they have not, you have strengthened your case that it is a PMM by removing yet another objection.
See? Same process.
There is some common misconceptions about science that many people labour under. They lead to all kinds of nonsense, such as claiming that science is a religion, or that just because the theory of speciation by evolution is currently accepted in science you "must" believe it.
One such misconception is that science is reasonable. It's not. Science is a very strict, very rigorous methodology that exists to serve only one purpose. Science's only function, and it's only reason for existing, is to weed out untruths. Not to find truths, to weed out untruths. It's not about weighing X against Y. It's about proving both X and Y wrong. Whichever survives, becomes science.
Another common misconception is that science is somehow related to "common sense". i can't imagine where that idea comes from, but it's epidemic. You are guilty of it yourself. Science has nothing to do with "common sense". If science leads to a conclusion that completely defies "common sense", oh well. If you have to abandon "common sense" to even consider a scientific theory, so what? "Common sense" is another world altogether, completely foreign to science. When you're doing science, you do science. Leave "common sense", and just about everything else, at the door.
Yet another misconception is that science has some relationship to "belief". Nonsense. If you want to believe what science says, go nuts. Science neither requires nor benefits in any way from your belief. If you want to believe the opposite, that science is completely wrong, go for it. Just do science when you're doing science, and you can believe the sky is pink for all anyone cares. You want to believe that Steorn's claims are possibly true? Go for it. That has nothing to do with the scientific method you (or someone) are going to have to use to test Steorn's claims. The proper scientific position to take is clearly defined by science... not belief and not "common sense", and your belief and/or "common sense" intiution have absolutely nothing to do with that correct scientific position you must take to do proper science. If that position is wrong, don't worry about it, because the scientific method is designed to suss that out. Just do science properly and science will take care of itself.
Don't fall into that trap. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, but only a jerk acts like a Roman in Gaul. When you're doing science, think like a scientist, but the rest of the time do as you like. The way a real scientist thinks outside of the lab has no bearing on how they think while they are working. It is only reasonable to expect uncertainty and vagueness in a world that vague and uncertain... but that's in the real world, not the world of science.
1: I hypothesize that the universe is infinite and has no edge to it.
2: No way I can test that theory. (there could be an edge that I can't detect)
3: No way to prove it wrong. (A way to prove it wrong would be to discover the edge of the universe)
4: Have not proven it either way, so the conclusion is: Insufficient Information.
Is it truly best to decide something true or false based on only partial evidence, or is it just an addiction to always having an answer?
2: No way I can test that theory. (there could be an edge that I can't detect)
3: No way to prove it wrong. (A way to prove it wrong would be to discover the edge of the universe)
4: Have not proven it either way, so the conclusion is: Insufficient Information.
Is it truly best to decide something true or false based on only partial evidence, or is it just an addiction to always having an answer?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| 1: I hypothesize that the universe is infinite and has no edge to it.
2: No way I can test that theory. (there could be an edge that I can't detect) 3: No way to prove it wrong. (A way to prove it wrong would be to discover the edge of the universe) 4: Have not proven it either way, so the conclusion is: Insufficient Information. |
If you can't test your hypothesis, it was not a scientific hypothesis.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Is it truly best to decide something true or false based on only partial evidence, or is it just an addiction to always having an answer? |
Science is a mindless tool that serves only one purpose - it weeds out false knowledge about the physical universe whenever possible, and whatever is left is as close as we can get to the truth. Science does not make value judgements about whether or not it is worthwhile to do anything. But if you want to know how the physical universe works, and you want to be as confident as conceivably possible that your information is right, science is your best bet.
So is it "best" to decide a priori that some claim is true or false? i dunno. But it's how science works. And the evidence so far suggests that science works damn well.
And once again, just because the scientific method requires you to presume the claim is false in order to test it scientifically does not mean that you actually have to decide that the claim is false. Science is not a religion. You are not obligated to follow the method in your day-to-day life, and you are not required to subscribe to the conclusions.
| Indi wrote: |
|
If you can't test your hypothesis, it was not a scientific hypothesis. |
So, since I can't test the validity of their claim, it is not a scientific hypothesis...
Therefore, I don't have to give it a definite true or false answer, and something like '15% likelihood of being true' would be acceptable.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
So, since I can't test the validity of their claim, it is not a scientific hypothesis... Therefore, I don't have to give it a definite true or false answer, and something like '15% likelihood of being true' would be acceptable. |
You can test Steorn's claim. You can test it by proxy, if you trust the scientists doing the testing, and just wait for their conclusions. Or you can even test it personally if you want to. It's not easy, and it's probably not feasible, but it is possible. It may require you having to hijack a plane to Steorn, break into their offices and steal the machine - but that doesn't matter. Because in point of fact, it is possible to test the claim, directly or indirectly.
Therefore it is a scientific hypothesis, it can be falsified, and it can be tested. In other words, you can consider the claim scientifically.
But you don't "have" to consider the claim scientifically. You don't "have" to do anything. No one's forcing you to consider it scientifically, or to give it a definite yes or no. If you want to say maybe, go nuts.
But! If you do want to consider it scientifically, then yes, you can't equivocate. If you want to do science, you have to do science. But you don't have to do science if you don't want to do science. It's as simple as that.
You seem to be under the impression that scientific method has to drive every aspect of your life and thinking. Why? i just don't get that thinking. Sure, when you're doing science, then yes, you obviously have to stick strictly to the scientific method (or you won't be doing science, QED). For the rest of you life, do what you want. No one cares. There is no god of science waiting to strike down anyone who thinks unscientifically. Richard Dawkins has probably never smote anything in his life, except for a few egos.
If you want to say Steorn's claim is "15% likely to be true" (or whatever percentage), go ahead. Sounds kinda arbitrary to me, but why should you care what i think? i don't care what you think.
Just don't imagine for a moment that you're making a scientific claim, or considering the problem in a scientific manner. You asked how the question should be considered scientifically, and you were told how. That doesn't mean that you have to consider it, or anything, that way.
| Indi wrote: |
|
You seem to be under the impression that scientific method has to drive every aspect of your life and thinking. Just don't imagine for a moment that you're making a scientific claim, or considering the problem in a scientific manner. |
Odd, I would have thought to accuse you of that... But that's beside the point.
So, I say that I'm taking your method of examining their claim by proxy. In that case, I'm still right in the middle of the testing stage, so if asked for a conclusion now, I would have to give an answer of 'conclusion not yet reached'.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Odd, I would have thought to accuse you of that... But that's beside the point. |
Yeah, yeah, you want to accuse me of something, get in line.
i say it again - you explicitly asked how to consider the problem scientifically. You have been told. That is all. If it makes you feel better to call me names because the answer you were given doesn't match the way you thought science should work, you'll find that i really don't care.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| So, I say that I'm taking your method of examining their claim by proxy. In that case, I'm still right in the middle of the testing stage, so if asked for a conclusion now, I would have to give an answer of 'conclusion not yet reached'. |
Or to put it another way - original hypothesis still in effect, no evidence to the contrary observed.
The current hypothesis is that it's a sham. When contrary evidence comes along, it will be considered. If none ever does, despite testing, then it would probably have really been a sham all along... coincidently, which is what the current "conclusion" is.
If you can't stand being wrong, don't use the scientific method. The scientific method doesn't advance unless someone is proven wrong... or until we've exhausted all avenues of investigation towards proving them wrong. No theory, no hypothesis, no anything in science is ever proven right. Either they've been proven wrong, or we've run out of objections to test for the time being.
| Indi wrote: |
|
original hypothesis still in effect, [...] The current hypothesis is that it's a sham. |
So, it all depends what your original hypothesis was...
 |