|
There are currently, 105 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
What We Can Learn From The Lunatic Fringe?
Posted on Friday, September 21, 2007 @ 22:50:35 UTC by vlad
|
|
From WorldChanging/by Jeremy Faludi
We've all heard claims of green inventions that are too good to be
true: the zero-point energy generator, the water-powered car, the
device for talking with dolphins to achieve world peace. Sometimes they
amuse us; sometimes they confuse us, as we try to determine whether
they're legitimate or not; and sometimes they just annoy us. But can
they ever help us?
Yes: by keeping our imaginations open, and by honing our evaluation
skills -- skills which are useful both when deciding between existing
technologies, and when thinking about technologies on the horizon.
Some high-quality nutball vaporware that has crossed my desk in the last year or two includes:
- The guy selling kits and manuals for "how to run your car on zero-point energy". (Zero point energy is always a favorite with the perpetual motion crowd.)
- The water-powered car (or at least water-powered welding) was a huge media hit, even getting onto mainstream papers and TV stations.
- The Beck Mickle Hydro
waterwheel supposedly generates 1-2 KW of power from just a 20cm drop
in a stream; many smart people I know were excited about it, but
someone on PES Wiki ran the numbers and calculated that there isn't 1 or 2 kW in streams that small to begin with.
- Steorn's Orbo has a classy, professional website, but with zero content, and a planned demonstration was called off at the eleventh hour.
- The "gear turbine" engine is such a mess I don't even know what to say about it.
- And of course, there's everybody's favorite, cold fusion.
(By the way, if anyone wants to share particularly fun lunatic fringe inventions in the comments, go for it!)
Most of these inventors have notoriously poor spelling and grammar,
and have extended conspiracy theories as to why their inventions are
not being embraced by the public. Those are the sincere ones. The ones
with the slick presentations who promise a lot and then call off their
demonstrations at the last minute are the con artists, playing off
people's desperation to find energy alternatives. And there's the
occasional prankster like David Jones, a real scientist who claimed to make perpetual motion machines just to mess with people.
Then there's the grey-area inventions: the ones that are legitimate,
and often brilliant rethinkings of how to do things, but are too
difficult to feasibly produce or run. The Massive-Yet-Tiny Engine,
which claims to have a power-to-weight ratio 40 times better than
conventional internal combustion engines, is probably one of these. The
folks at AutoBlog
had a long list of reasons why the engine is probably impossible to
make, yet they encouraged the inventor and his company to keep pursuing
it. As one commenter pointed out, the internal combustion engine has
100 years and over a trillion dollars in R&D behind it. Fusion is
still in this category, even though there's no fundamental principle of
physics keeping it out of reach. Many people think that fuel cells are
in this category, and decades of debate have ensued.
Should we just sit back and snicker at these fringe inventions? No.
Being skeptical is good, but being cynical is bad, because cynicism is
obedience. The cynic assumes nothing can be done, and so does not try
to do anything. It's too late for that; the state of the world is too
dire for cynicism. We need idealism and we need action. But we need to
act with clear heads, and pursue the most promising leads.
So how do we decide which paths lead to massive change, and which are too good to be true?
We need a basic understanding of physics, of course, but moreover we
need to ask the right questions. The best list of questions I've seen
is at From The Wilderness:
- How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?
- Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?
- Can I see the alternative energy being used?
- Can you trace it back to the original energy source?
- Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?
- Does the inventor make extravagant claims?
- Does the inventor claim zero pollution?
- Can I see blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?
- Infrastructure
Requirements: Does the energy source require a corporation to produce
it? How will it be transported and used? Will it require new engines,
pipelines, and filling stations? What will these cost? Who will pay for
them and with what? How long will it take to build them?
Ansering question number one often requires sophisticated expert
analysis. For instance, it comes up often when talking about biofuels,
because some studies show that corn ethanol has an EROEI of only 0.8, so you have to put in more energy than you get out, while other studies
put it at 1.3, making it a (barely) green alternative to gasoline.
(Incidentally, the EROEI of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is usually
quoted at over 10, and biodiesel ranges from around 3 for US crop-based production to a theoretical 10 for algae-based production.)
Questions two, three, four, six and eight above should raise your
scam-alert flags: any inventor who refuses to tell you how their device
works or let skeptics test it is obviously a fraud. Quesion five is the
downfall of the classic crackpot perpetual motion-ist, and is usually
easy to spot as long as you have enough information to run the numbers;
it's not nearly so difficult as calculating EROEI. Finally, question
nine is the killer for many of the grey-area technologies (including,
so far, fuel cells).
So keep your mind open to new inventions and wild claims, but know
how to evaluate them. And likewise, don't forget to be skeptical of
established and well-funded technologies that still don't have a chance
in the long run. Bet your time and money on the most promising leads. Source: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007224.html
|
| |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: What We Can Learn From The Lunatic Fringe? (Score: 1) by vlad on Friday, September 21, 2007 @ 23:03:35 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Many interesting comments worth reading. An extract below: ------------ Nice article. Despite having a physics and engineering background, I
quickly moved from sceptic through puzzled and over the fence into the
believers side regarding Steorn's impossible claims. Things have moved
on. I am a member of the SPDC and now stand back on the safe side of
the fence half-expecting to climb over sometime soon. I no longer trust
my own judgement and counter my optimism with the odd kick to remind
myself of my own subjectivity.
So, is wishful thinking clouding my ability to see the scam? Despite
everything, I find it difficult to pull the plug completely and do not
believe that everyone working at Steorn is lying.
Perhaps you could have added another factor to the mix:
What do you stand to lose from keeping an open mind on a particular claim?
In Steorn's case, no one should be betting money right now but at
least the answer is in the post (by extremely creepy-crawly snail
mail). There is a qualified and independent jury and they will report
on their findings. This will kill or make Steorn. For this reason and
others, I will pay the price of keeping an open mind.
Posted by: Paul Story [www.paulstory.com] on September 12, 2007 12:23 AM ---------------
Dear Jeremy,
(was it Jeromos- a few generations ago?)
Good paper, however I advise you to make some serious non-prejudicial documentation re cold fusion.
You can start with New Energy Times of Steve Krivit.
Best wishes,
Peter
Posted by: Peter Gluck [info.kappa.ro] on September 12, 2007 3:03 AM ------------
I SIMPLY BELIEVE THAT THE "ORBO DEVICE" WILL BECAME ,AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, A REALITY.
I ALSO BELIEVE IN COLD FUSION VERY STRONGLY.
AM I TOO OPTIMISTIC AND "NAIVE"? MAYBE.
BEST,
DR. KATHRINE MARTIGNONI (SWITZERLAND)
Posted by: DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI on September 12, 2007 2:03 PM ------------------
I don't think you can define a set of overly simplistic guidelines
like that and evaluate a "free energy" technology on that basis. As
Steorn has said, only an independent, fair and thorough scientific
investigation process can conclusively reveal whether a claim is real
or fabricated. Everything else is speculation.
And that is precisely the route Steorn has taken. So I think
everyone should just shut the fu** up until the scientists give their
verdict about Steorn.
Posted by: Manu Sharma [orangehues.com] on September 12, 2007 10:00 PM ----------------
Life on the fringe gives one a perspective that allows free
thinking. If our thoughts stayed "in the box" we would not get
anywhere, to Justin's point. It seems at time that most things have
already been invented, except for the fantastical, far-fetched and
"impossible" ones. In our every changing world of Peak-Oil and Global
Warming I feel that the ideas generated by the Fringies will help us
transition from a carbon-based-non-sustainable society to hopefully
something very different. How we get there will take all of us being
OPEN to Fringe thinking, and be skeptical in a helpful way.
Posted by: Jim Robb [www.pedaleconomics.com] on September 13, 2007 4:39 AM ---------
“Would it not make sense if the U.S Government spend
a significant fraction (1/10?) of its trillion dollar per year (!!!)
defense budget on coming up with a true energy alternative? A few years
of this kind of funding would attract the best minds in industry, and
would yield world-changing results.”
What lovely magical thinking.
Throwing money at a problem, any problem, even ones as fundamental
and intractable as thermodynamics, will result in their soon being
overcome.
By the same model if we spend a trillion dollars on, say, yoga
flying, a few years later we can expect to all be floating about the
skies?
I doubt it.
Obviously creative problem solving is required; we call that science
& engineering. We do a lot of it, and I think you’ll find little
argument we can do more & do it better in many cases.
But haring after extraordinary claims that violate how we understand
the universe operates, that’s proven to be unproductive. It makes for a
great sunday morning supplement story, but hasn’t been how progress has
been made.
As Carl Sagan famously noted “Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence”, a paraphrase of Laplace’s “The weight of
evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its
strangeness.”
So far the wight of evidence for these remarkable, indeed
inexplicable claims, has been flimsy indeed. Rolling out a contraption
and claiming it worked yesterday, and that it’ll work again at some
undetermined future date, yesiree, is the equivalent of claiming the
dog at the homework.
You can’t blame those who are well informed about physics,
mathematics, and the scientific process (not the business of science,
but the intellectual underpinnings) for rolling their eyes at these
sort of shenanigans.
Posted by: Michael Maggard on September 13, 2007 8:55 AM
|
|
|
Re: What We Can Learn From The Lunatic Fringe? (Score: 1) by Veryskeptical on Saturday, September 22, 2007 @ 02:24:08 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Knowledge of what will work and what will not work is often hard to come by. Evaluating a proposition is highly dependent on your own understanding of the world and not on the understanding of the people and propositions you are reviewing.
Your personal nut case may turn out to be the greatest genius who ever lived in the eyes of future generations and both you and they may be wrong. Due diligence is always necessary if you intend to become involved with a particular project but the quality of that diligence depends upon the person doing it. In the end you pays your money and takes your chance.
As for people who do not intend to do anything but kibbitz the quality of your criticism depends on the quality of your knowledge which in many cases is small to nonexistent. On the whole if your only experience with the proposal is that this cannot be right because it contradicts what your high school physics teacher told you about thermodynamics or read in Popular Mechanics it might be better if you refrained from commenting. Your subjective sense of the impossible is as likely to betray you as not.
I have read over the years so much of this kind of thing. I discount it so heavily that I wouldn't trust your judgement if you pointed out a fraud I had certain knowledge of. I would believe you are doing little more than offering a self rightous guess.
It is late and I am tired but I just had to say something. I see your comments as equivalent to betting the sun will come up tomorrow. You will almost certainly win your bet but you really don't know anything about what will happen tomorrow and some day you might just get a big surprise.
|
|
|
Re: What We Can Learn From The Lunatic Fringe? (Score: 1) by malc on Monday, September 24, 2007 @ 03:03:16 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mripley | Be very very careful about invoking the current laws of physics. Those thermodynamic "laws" are based on an observation of closed systems. There is no absolute proof of the behaviour i.e. why.
All current laws are simply the currently accepted view of the world. These may change and have done so many times in the last 2 hundred years.
New discoveries can often lead to a change in those laws but this also means that the new discovery breaks the current laws! So beware.
|
|
|
Re: What We Can Learn From The Lunatic Fringe? (Score: 1) by fullofnrg on Saturday, September 22, 2007 @ 20:03:58 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | I don't know. Those crazy guys like Doctor Robert W. Brussard and Philo T. Farnsworth seemed to have the right idea with a ton of drawings and specifications and patents but for some unknown reason are ignored and were or are underfunded. Dr. Brussard only worked on the Tokamak at Princeton and has researched the hell out of fusion and Mr. Farnsworth was the genious behind the magnetron as well as numerous other breakthroughs including real fusion.
Why does our world even ignore the ones with great credentials? Money, money, money. That's why. Even if you have a great idea it is an uphill battle to get any recognition even if you can spell or use proper grammar. Sutch a teribble shhame that are.
The answers are there but if no one can make a buck off it forever and ever then there is no impetus behind it. The same thing happened to Tesla with J.P. Morgan as well as many others. (Tesla was a fringe scientist too but you probably wouldn't be reading this on your computer right now if it wasn't for him, that crazy Croat).
We are our own worse enemy in some respects but also when the oil rich run the world why would they want to change? They survive on the toil of us, the ignorant, spoon fed slaves who believe whatever they tell us. Free press my ass....
Knowledge is being suppressed whether you believe it or not and thankfully the Internet is turning the tide. Even though "the fringe" is being publicized (and there are good ideas there too), so are classical scientific breakthroughs that never makes the regular papers. Those in charge can't stop it and they are afraid, very afraid, because they know the end is near for their house of cards. Can't wait for the end of them......selfish bastards all...
BTW Ethanol is another commodity now you have to buy so guess why they are pushing it? It's an awful idea that not only will make life on this planet worse environmentally but also will cause all food based products to become absurdly expensive. It's already begun. Bought eggs or milk lately? There really is a connection there. Meat will be next as well as bread and anything grain based. Who's making the money? Not us. What a great idea. Huh?
My opinion.....Excuse my poor gramma...she does the best she can (drum roll, cymbal crash...o.k. that sucked) |
Re: What We Can Learn From The Lunatic Fringe? (Score: 1) by pulsed_ignition on Saturday, September 22, 2007 @ 21:35:41 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://diamondlube.com | Just like the farmers son (Philo), another man (a jeweler) that simply was not qualified is using what many called the impossible plasma, because it could not possibly work. The products are being shipped world wide, including a shipment to Dubai that produced shockingly phenomenal, positive results. (ebay is the greatest) The material is synthetic diamond, virtually indestructible and the best lubricant available. Real products, real breakthroughs all without you needing to invest in developing the new technology - what more could you ask for?
www.hyprlubes.com [www.hyprlubes.com]
Chris |
]
|
|
Re: What We Can Learn From The Lunatic Fringe? (Score: 1) by fullofnrg on Saturday, September 22, 2007 @ 21:33:05 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | I apologize to Doctor Bussard for mispelling his name in my last post. If you want to read more about his work this pretty well sums it up. My gramma is better today...See last post to get it...
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/05/07/ward.htm [www.thepriceofliberty.org] |
|
|
|
|