I have yet to make anything up, on any thread I've ever posted to. Sometimes I'll be mistaken. It happens to the best of us.
Watt's insight is NOT a scientific theory. It is an engineering modification. Watt's was a great and innovative tinkerer. The the SCIENCE of the steam engine was developed by Lord Kelvin.
http://digital.nls.uk/scientists/biographies/lord-kelvin/discoveries.html
As to the "reproducibilty" point, you're right. I had the terms reversed. Doesn't change the point of my argument, which is that the first criterion is the ability of the original discoverer to get the same results from his experiment multiple times, and the second is the ability of other researchers to get similar results from identical experiments.
But failure to attain the second item is NOT automatic evidence that the results of the original discovery "are a scam", or even wrong. Quite often, the "reproducing" group simply don't actually have a TRULY identical experiment.
And "sometimes" the work of the second group is itself a scam. Read up on the early MIT experiments in Cold Fusion, and how the lead researcher DELIBERATELY falsified his results.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
My point is, if you can’t even get someone else to reproduce your experiment then you can’t mass produce the thing because you can’t describe how to reproduce it.
Manufacturing involves reproducing things on a mass scale.
So the fact that it can’t be reproduced doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t happening, just that you don’t understand it well enough to be able leverage it for any application and you absolutely can’t mass produce a product using it.