To date, the success of these people has been ZERO.
The cases I have had the opportunity to review - the individuals misinterpret, misidentify, mis-characterize or don't understand their 'lab work' or their 'device'.
Whether it was misinterpreting the 'peak' versus average or RMS (Root Mean Square) value of a waveform as read on a voltmeter as opposed to integrating that waveform on a digital oscilloscope and taking into account such factors as 'phase angle' (or power factor) - or incorrectly performing mathematical calculations to calculate efficiency of their 'device' -
- they turn out to be either wrong or hiding details in order to convince investors in the 'possibility' of their device
Don Lancaster'sHere's a sample of some of the basic failings of these 'free energy' folks:Pseudoscience is what the Houynnyhymms politely termed "That which is not so". Ludicrosities such as free energy, alien abductions, cold fusion, UFO's, or perpetual motion.
There are three levels of pseudoscience:
- Tain't likley, McGee.
- Boy, a whole flock of 'em flew over that time.
- What are they on, and where do we get some of it?
Because so much of it is so mesmerizingly awful, much of pseudoscience makes for wondrously fascinating reading.
My goal here is to place a big pile of pseudoscience onto a large stage. Shine a bright light on it. And then get you to personally conclude: "Yup - that sure is a big pile all right."
The only tiny problem is that an awful lot of it keeps leaking out of the bottom of the pile.
The scientific method works. In which you propose a falsifiable theory, test that theory, then invite others to independently attack it. o Those laws of thermodynamics reverify themselves on countless occasions each and every day. These laws are (1) you can?t win; (2) you can?t break even, and (3) if you play the game, you are sure to lose. o Each field has its secret insider gotchas. These are certain to cause major grief to the casual inquirer. Accurately measuring rms power or doing low Dt calorimetry are two obvious examples. o Most labwork ends up dead wrong. Either by not measuring what you think it does. Or easily getting misinterpreted, leading to wrong conclusions. o An hour in the library is worth a month in the lab. Science and engineering progress by building upon the collective results of what has gone before. o Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does seem extremely likely. But the odds that they are here or have recently visited is vanishingly small. o A single source for any theory or claim will always be highly suspect. Always seek major backup. o "Too good to be true" results always are. Should they occur, you must spend monumental time and effort in conclusively proving yourself wrong. o Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Such evidence is always an obligation upon those making the claims, not on those challenging. And most especially that? o Finding a source of " Unlimited free energy " would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity. For it would inevitably turn the planet into a cinder. Hastening an isoentropic heat death. If you find a free energy source, you damn well better find a new free energy sink as well. Even then, the relative flux rates will still nail you. themselves to Alderon, traveling or communicating faster than light, performing miracles with magnets, expressing psychic powers, or extracting "zero point energy". I quite strongly believe that these pseudoscience subjects certainly do serve as useful adjuncts to porcine whole body cleanliness. But otherwise are total hogwash. The usual causes of pseudoscience fantasies include? o labwork so mesmerizingly awful that it is not even wrong. This one gets them nearly every time. o not having even the faintest clue as to what a true scientific experiment, correct measurement, decent documentation, and realistic interpretation is. o A failure to think cyclically or to look at whole systems. The "power stroke" from repelling magnets is obvious, but the extra energy it took to get the magnets there in the first place might not be. o A lack of appreciation for engineering economics. Economics that must take into account efficiencies, alternatives, infrastructure, and total costs. o Dragging along unreleated excess baggage. In the way of paranoia, odd religions, conspiracies, obtuse verbosity, suppression fears, or nonstandard terms. o Giving vastly more credibility to a Keelynet file or an anonymous newsgroup post than a mainstream textbook or a properly peer reviewed article in a respected scientific journal. o The failure to thoroughly research what has gone before and then to carefully build upon it. o Extreme hubris that fails to recognize the lifetime commitments that untold thousands of scientists and engineers have made. Like it or not, at least some of these people are rocket scientists. They are a lot smarter than you are. And, of course? o Sleeping through all those Physics 101 lectures. Or skipping the course entirely.