What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
279 Comments
- Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -24/+272Who taught you anything about science? You have it completely backwards.
Science cannot prove something TRUE. Falsifiability is the mainstay of science. When you submit a theory for peer review, you are asking for others to prove it false. If nobody can prove it false, then it may be a valid theory. However, it cannot be proven true.
Please, PLEASE do yourself a favor and learn about scientific progress. - Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+48DID YOU KNOW???
Purposely misspelling titles actually *aids* you in getting your story submitted due to eye aversion. People are more likely to notice a story where a simple word is mispelled, and thus spend more time focusing on it and are even more likely to click. - Radimus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Does testing this device require me to send $10,000 to a man in Africa?
- 10001110101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Karl Popper is the man!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability - quietbob, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39heck the page is not found, i bet it was a hoax
- jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32If he wants us to prove him wrong, let's see the specs and methods he used.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31I think you mean science cannot prove a theory (only provide support).
It most certainly can disprove a theory. - wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Will it power my Phantom console?
- 0mnio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28@Viper
'Wong' is gailic for 'right' - gosix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Because if it's not Scottish, it's crap! So this must be crap!
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22yeah, it comes with a free copy of Duke Nukem aswell
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21so why don't they just show it working? Why not show some examples, illuminating a light bulb would be suffiecient
- Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24I should note that the idea that a theory can only be proven true is the basis for much of the pseudoscience available on the internet, and also the basis for many illogical skeptical views. Fundamental religious individuals will often point to the lack of proof that something is true and claim that it demonstrates that it cannot possibly be true. For example, evolution. We have no direct evidence of the evolution of man, however, evolution has presented several ideas that could prove it wrong. The discovery of DNA by Walter and Crick was a breakthrough for testing evolutionary theory, as we found repeatedly that the claims made by theories of evolution were correct. However, there is no evidence to prove evolution true aside from lengthy logical argument based on the laws of physics, which themselves cannot be proven true. This has not kept the vast majority of scientists from accepting evolution as the cause of diversity of life on Earth.
I plead with you, Diggers, digg down ignorance. - HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Vernon, you missed the entire point of my post. If an oil company bought this tech, THEY WOULD SELL ENERGY FROM IT THEMSELVES. It's cheaper to obtain for them than oil, and with none of the (very high) associated risks. Why would ANY company looking to make a profit EVER choose something higher risk and higher cost when they have an alternative that's zero cost? The oil companies are greedy, they want to make money. A zero cost energy source that only they had access to would make them mess their pants in excitement.
@Koopa: I realized that I made an error, and edited the comment. Thanks though. - Sauwan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Well, you cannot get something from nothing. Check out newtons law of conservation. I would love to actually see how this thing works, but I will remain highly skeptical until I have any indication of what the power is being derived from instead of the highly vague "interaction of magnetic fields".
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Anpheus - "Science cannot prove something TRUE."
Depends on what you mean by "true". There is certainly truth in science, but it's a tentative truth.
"Truth", as far as science is concerned, is simply a conclusion which is supported by all currently known data. If the data changes, so may the truth.
That's what great about science; it's a self correcting process for discovering reality. - CovardeAnonimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"During the years of its development, our technology has been validated by various independent scientists and engineers."
but he doesn't name the scientist. this sentence alone should triger all balloney detectors all over the world. - oGMo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Conspiracy theories like "sit on SOMETECH" are naive and stupid. They assume that the only implementation of the technology are "give away product to everyone and lose everything we've got," which, while not a viable business strategy, is hardly the only one.
Imagine you're running a successful business which deals in a resource---let's say, espresso. You come upon a magical machine which makes espresso from the ether; no input required, the best espresso in the world output. What do you do? Go out and mass-produce the machine and sell it to everyone? Hell no. You just install them in your shops, and you get 100% profit.
Even if, in some fairyland, free energy were possible, it'd be the same thing. Run massive powerplants that get everything for nothing, and run at 100% profit. - PaulusVictor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Wacky Scientist: "The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%."
Homer Simpson: "Lisa, in this house we follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"
Homer wins. - jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20"Irish Man 'Invents' Free Energy Device for Free Publicity"
Fixed. - Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15You CAN indeed prove a theory in science- in mathematics, for instance (i.e. the "exact" sciences- where all the governing laws are known). Just not usually in the natural world.
Just wanted to clear that up. - goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Veamon: "A few hundred years ago, the Earth was flat, and before that, fire was magic. Who know what we'll find out later on."
The Earth was flat and fire was magic because religion and superstition said so, not science. - scarz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Their website:
http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx - y0himba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Steorn is making three claims for its technology:
1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature)." - dougmc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10`We have ***** zero-point energy'
We do? No, we do not.
We have a concept called `zero-point energy', and it even has a wikipedia page on it (and note that roughly half the page is devoted to fictional references to it -- that should tell you something by itself) but we don't have any device that can extract this energy and convert it into something like electricity. Unforunately, such a device would probably violate several of the laws of physics and thermodynamics as we know them.
In general, scientists are willing to consider perpetual motion machines and other such things that violate `the laws of physics' as we know them (because we could very well be wrong about those `laws'.) However, such a claim would be very extraordinary, and so extraordinary proof would be required. And so far. every claim of perpetual energy has turned out to be false when put under careful scrutiny, so a certain amount of skepticism should be expected. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This thread proves: There's nothing quite so irritating as *a little* knowledge.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20Thanks Anpheus, I'm glad somebody is paying attention.
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16EXACTLY!
In science being vauge is usually a good indicator of a lack of science. Researchers have big egos and want to get noticed after all ;-) Women and power and whatnot. - affanjam, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23Dont want to be a reply whore but i am no electrical person but i made a sketch of what might work a continus cycle of energy
here's the sketch
http://www.flickr.com/photos/affandesign/218693182/ - CovardeAnonimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12i hate replying to mylself, but i forgot to mention one easy way to prove this guy wrong.
get one of his miracle devices, atach an electric motor or a powerfull light bulb to it and see how long it lasts with a charge atached to it. if it stops after a few hours, the scam is busted - neonic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Because then Family Guy will be proved right! http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/128718/family_guy.swf
- GameGod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ok, I'll skip straight to the physics:
All I needed to read was "magnetic blah blah", and I'll tell you what's wrong with it. There's a law in physics called "Lenz's law" (it comes from Maxwell's equations) that basically says if you extract energy from a magnetic field, it's going to diminish the source of that magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_Law
Any other physics majors like to comment? - thelelander, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10take that thermodynamics!
- hiopilot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Direct link that works to the article.
http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/4124 - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14This invention doesn't need to break Netwon's law to work. Water wheels are "Free" energy, but they don't break Newton's laws. Gravity provides the energy, and we capture it. Using the Earth's magnetic field (instead of water) would be no different.
This may or may not be a hoax, but nothing I read says this couldn't be possible. - davidlow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If this guy really doesn't want to publish in a peer reviewed journal, for whatever reason (seems shady to me), then he should (a) first reduce his own energy bill to zero, then (b) start a business in which electricity is a large expense (he'll have a significant advantage over his competitors), (c) license the technology to his jealous competitors, (d) use his new-found cash flow to fund more studies, and (e) enjoy his wealth by relaxing and enjoying his great view of the developing controversy.
That's what I would do, anyway. - jothaxe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Sorry, I call BS on this.
Static magnetic fields cannot be used to generate power. If a magnetic field is changing, then you can generate power from it. But it requires power to constantly change a magnetic field so there is no gain from this.
The truth is that the earth's magnetic field is extremely weak and relatively constant.
What you describe here is just plain BS. - swoosh_bnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There's no way they would ship it with Duke Nukem, but Duke Nukem Forever, that's a different story.
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@exsst
take your tinfoil hat off, it looks ridiculous
ZeroPoint energy may or may not exist. It is at this time a crackfiller to fill up the holes in our understanding of the universe, similar to dark matter and dark energy. Above that, we do not, have never, and probably will not for a long time have anything that can act on it in any functional fashion. Read your own damn wiki quote:
[quote]
The Casimir effect has established zero point energy as an uncontroversial and scientifically accepted phenomenon. However, due to a lack of public education in quantum mechanics, the term zero point energy has also become associated with a highly controversial area of human endeavour - the design and invention of so-called free energy devices, similar to perpetual motion machines in the past. These devices purport to "tap" the zero-point field and somehow "extract energy" from it, thus providing an "inexhaustible", cheap, and non-polluting energy source.
Controversy arises when such devices are promoted without scientifically acceptable proof that they tap the energy sources claimed. Promoters of a device demonstrate no understanding of how the device might do so; they demonstrate misunderstanding of widely accepted scientific facts and methods, in development or communication of a theory concerning a device; they make no attempt to include simpler explanations for the claimed performance of a device.[/quote]
It's essentially the new "snake oil". So no, ZP energy devices are not unavailable because "we are too young as a civilisation", but rather because we have no farking clue if and how to use it as a viable energy source. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Anpheus:
I'm not going to get into this discussion, but I can tell you there you do, in fact, prove things TRUE in mathematics, and, in fact, you generally HAVE to prove something true for it to be accepted in mathematics. - billmccartney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This story is bogus... and the guy can prove everyone wrong by simple selling the results (power) back into the power grid...
if his idea works, he will become filthy rich... if his idea doesn't work... at least he can make ridiculous claims :)
- Bill - gibreal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Well looky here...their office is only 5 mins walk from mine.
Very tempted to stomped over there on Monday, bang on their door and shout "Stopped flaunting the laws of phyics!"
course..if they are proved correct....i'll be asking for a job. - Ingwenya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Now then, would'a suppose that these magnet thingies would perhaps be found at the end of a rainbow, near a pot of gold being guarded by a wee leprechaun?
- Bullsnot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I wouldn't call that sufficient. Think fester with a lit bulb in his mouth, but it would be a step in the right direction. There are tons of devices on the net the claim to capture energy, but they are not willing to list the details to reproduce independently.
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8>ONE DAY WE WILL LEARN HOW TO HARNESS THE ENERGY IN EVERYTHING. ONE DAY ENERGY WILL BE FREE.
True, but first you must learn to master the caps lock key young grasshopper. - cryptocom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"free energy" ??...i think he just proved himself wrong...lol.
- BitSlash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11why go through the scientific method? I have a perfect perpetual motion machine right here...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71536515@N00/218701090/ - r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You obviously know nothing of Tesla.
I suggest actually reading about the guy... good stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla - yalskey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The burden of proof is on those who advance the claim.
- Stormblade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"If people still thought that way, we'd still be wandering around thinking the earth was flat."
*sigh* I wish people would stop using this analogy... It's a myth that people in the middle ages believed the earth to be flat, and that Christopher Columbus would sail off the edge of the World etc. When I hear somebody say this, I lose interest in the rest of that they have to say.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 279 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is