Yet Another Perpetual Motion Device

The Star reports on this inventor breaking all the laws of physics as far as free energy goes. It even provoked interest from "esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Markus Zahn". I would like to know how this seemingly backyard enthusiast's experimental set up has not been tried a million times over the years. It seems so simple and too good to be true. The article has links to a multi-part video demo of the device accelerating an electric motor under load for free!

So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minutes.

[erick99]

I tried to find an instance (via googling) where his device was left at a lab where scientists spent some time on it but I cannot find such a thing. I would think they would be curious enough to at least try. I think that because his device does the "impossible" than there is no sense looking at it? It probably isn't a perpetual energy thingie but how does it do what it does? Remember when it was impossible for the human body to sit in anything that accelerated as fast as 60mph?

Casimer Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the magnetic field degrades.

Just based on the article

[tkrotchko]

The people involved are going out of their way to say it's not perpetual motion; rather, the experiment is not working as predicted. There are many explanations for that. The guy involved has basically wrecked his life over tinkering with it.

And the articles don't give enough details to judge much.

But so far, slashdot is the only article that talks about perpetual motion.

As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

White paper or GTFO

2nd law.

[headkase]

Thermodynamics just says you can't win when you're talking about the whole Universe. Once you start to get into smaller sections of it you can increase organization locally but it is always at the expense of more global energies. Life here on Earth is an example of this - we're more organized but the Sun pumps out a lot of wasted energy to feed that organization. It's entirely possible that some kind of machine could be built to extract energy locally which ultimately has a global source but that does not mean its perpetual, the Universe will still wind down total energy wise in the global space.

Re:the quote

[The MAZZTer]

Hey, don't knock accidental discoveries. Both the slinky and silly putty were created by accident IIRC.

Re:Am I Missing Something?

[Wonko the Sane]

You need the input amps and volts of the motor, as well as the amps and volts of each coil to really see what is happening in terms of energy.

Re:the quote

[hyades1]

If the prof is a real scientist, his reaction is completely appropriate. Did he say anything about buying the idea that it's perpetual motion?

Sorry, but a jackass is someone who would dismiss an observed phenomenon out-of-hand without attempting to discover what's really going on. Remind you of anybody you saw in the mirror this morning?

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[rucs_hack]

Perpetual motion I don't know about, but if this device can be kept going for a longer time without too much energy input, then it might have application in transportation.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[jedsen]

>The interesting concept here is that he's using a property known as Lenz's Law that creates something called back EMF through those coils of wire that used to have energy running through them. Lenz's law simply states that, like Newton's law of an "equal and opposite reaction," there's an opposing force counter-acting the force in play. It's like the opposite reaction of an astronaut falling towards a planet: inertia. Neither force is created, nor destroyed. All energy is conserved. Idiot troll.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[dpninerSLASH]

Yes, but he's one upping the system. Rather than placing a label on his claim, he's (effectively) challenging the brightest minds to explain its behavior. A wise way to defeat the free energy stigma.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[jawtheshark]

Remember when it was impossible for the human body to sit in anything that accelerated as fast as 60mph?

No, I don't remember that, especially because "mph" is a velocity and not an acceleration.

Mod parent down, he's not getting it...

[Anonymous Coward]

The grandparent poster said, due to the brake being "on" first, the motor is limited, then the brake is turned off, so the motor accelerates. Duh.

If you want to understand why perpetual motion (or free energy) devices can never work just do this thought experiment... THINK. Energy can only be derived from a difference between two states, or radioactive decay. That's it. Period. People don't understand this, so they imagine energy as being some kind of special "thing" that comes from "somewhere else". So if they could only "tap" that "somewhere else" energy then it would flow like manna from heaven. Well that would be the world of Alice in Wonderland where things can come and go willy nilly.

No the energy laws derived from physics are NOT just some physical law just waiting to be overturned. If the universe is to make sense at all (not Alice in Wonderland) then it works according to symmetries of logic and reason, hence mathematical in structure. A given mathematical equation won't spit out one stream of numbers today, and a different stream of numbers tomorrow. That would go against reason, yet this is exactly what people who believe they can "tap" free energy believe. They believe that the numbers change if they just insert the right value. Bullocks. That would be so wrong as to make me insane, because if I can't think through logic and reason, then I might as well be using hallucinogenic drugs every day.

Take a spent paper towel tube, and a few marbles. Count your marbles. Now put each marble throught the tube. Now count the marbles that came out the other side. The number should be the originally counted number. If it isn't, call me and we will watch some tele with some hard drugs.

"but... but, if I just add this magnet to the paper towel tube I'll get seven marbles out instead of six"... morons.

Induction Motor are Already Inefficient!

[wdhowellsr]

I build residential, commercial and industrial power factor correction devices. I've seen some large water treatment plant motors operating at below 50% efficiency. Before we start blowing money on free energy we should look at how much is wasted right now. As a test I went to a local applicance store and tested five identical EnergyStar refrigerators for the efficiency of the compressor motor. Every one of them was less than 95% efficient because motors must be sized larger than the actual load to account for loss over time. I had one Subway restaurant save about forty percent on their monthly electric bill due to increase in inductive energy efficiency. For whatever reason we can't seem to see the forest through the trees.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[fbjon]

Judging by how the rig bounces about when spinning at high speed, I don't blame him for not pushing his luck. I agree though, as a layman, it looks like he has a more efficient motor.

Re:Just based on the article

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that new. Tesla was on the edge of working it out, if not solving some of it. Maxwell and Einstein bumped into it too. And the dimensions are no closer or further than before. This kind of stuff has been called "scalar" technology. (Supposedly there are a few rare examples, but the field associated with it has been tainted by a lot of hucksterism with elevated claims and hype.) It's just that now days there are more and better ways of modeling "scalar" systems, perhaps leading to more valid theories and application. (Instead of just saying such and such does something, we can now do modeling and know _why_ it does something.)

I think the trick understanding stuff like this will be to use complex math as applied to physics instead of sticking strictly to the set of real numbers. So instead of one domain of dimensions in real space, now you have two domains - one real and one "imaginary". (The whole thing where i^2 in math or j^2 in physics is equal to -1.) The thing most likely to be throwing people for so long is what happens in the "imaginary" domain. You can't directly observe it. However, if you model stuff correctly by using it - you should be able on a fairly regular basis be able to predict where "mystery particle x" will spontaneously appear, etc. Apply whatever knowledge there is about field propagation, etc. to the "imaginary" domain - there might be some chance at cracking what makes "dark energy" and gravity tick.

From my way of looking at it, I'm almost tempted to say that you could draw a four quad chart with real and imaginary domains going positive and negative. Draw 3 lines on it, one vertical, one diagonal, and one horizontal. From there it would be possible to simplify the relationship between charge, magnetism, and gravity (mass?). Not sure how much sense that would make though.

I think there's something else going on

[NixieBunny]

I think you're missing an important part of the puzzle.

When I watched the video, I was struck by how the coil on the right doesn't have a pole piece on its far end to take the magnetic flux back to the permanent magnet wheel. Then I saw him demonstrate the difference between having a brass motor shaft and a steel shaft, and I had an inkling of what was going on.

An induction motor is a very complex device whose complexity is masked by its physical simplicity. The induction motor builds a rotating magnetic field in the rotor by inducing current flow into the aluminum rotor windings from the AC stator coil (as any power transformer does). The interaction between the induced field and the stator field causes the motor to turn. The rotor has specific requirements with regard to the shape of the windings to achieve maximum efficiency. Understanding the current flow and the magnetic flux is a job for theoretical experts (which I'm not).

Notice that the apparatus is mounted on a steel table. This provides a flux path from the motor housing to the black coil at the right end of the machine. The addition of his steel shaft has "completed the magnetic circuit" between this coil (an AC generator) and the induction motor rotor, which will do very interesting things to the magnetic field on the rotor! Especially since the field he generates is an AC field with what, 16 poles? I think he has a four pole 1750 RPM induction motor.

Re:typical slashdot

[imsabbel]

The way i understand those kind of claims, they showed him the thing for 10 minutes, and pressured him "Explain Exactly How This Works!".

If he gives an evading answer, like "i cannot say anything from this, i need to examin it closer", the wonders of press will make a "Professor cannot explain what happens!!!1" out of it.

Scientists cannot explain != mysterious

[mangu]

Clearly the professors (Markus Zahn and at least one other) have studied the invention and cannot explain the result. You, on the other hand, based on cursory information, understand every little detail

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the professors off the record they would give you an explanation in the line of what the GP did, but they have to be more restrained in their public declarations. They are careful not to make public guesses about how it works, because, inevitably, they would be wrong about some small detail and the "inventor" would be able to say the scientists know nothing.

Or do you think scientists are so stupid that, after more than a hundred years of research, they would have overlooked a basic principle that a dyslexic cook can discover by himself? The scientists have not studied the invention at all, the only reason why they cannot explain the result is because they have insufficient information. It's not as if this guy had published the plans for his machine, all the professors could see was a demo presented by the inventor.

This guy seems to be crook who tries to do his job by letting the victims read between the lines. He has *wink, wink* NOT invented a perpetual motion engine, and he is *wink, wink* NOT after investments for "further development".

Symmetry

[Sun]

First, allow me to correct you. Radioactive decay is also a state transition.

But, here's the thing. The law of conservation of energy is derived from the inherent symmetry of the universe. Any system that live in a universe where the laws of physics are the same for left/right/up/down/front/back is doomed to be governed by fixed amount of over all energy.

But these are not absolute laws. If you manage to devise a pair of rings where what goes into one pops out the other with no change in temperature, you CAN create energy out of nothing. In fact, merely placing the rings at different altitudes will cause air pressure to generate a wind from the lower ring to the higher ring. You can easily use this wind to power a turbine, and you WILL get free energy.

Is the law of conservation of energy being broken here? No, it's just being subverted. The rings create asymmetry.

Of course, the opposite is also true. So long as symmetry was not broken, it is not required to delve into the details of the machine in order to conclude that it does not produce energy.

Shachar

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[driftingwalrus]

Most scientists refuse to even consider that their sacred theories are not infallible and refuse to even look into the possibility. This is not the way of real science.

I keep reading mention of these mythical 'most scientists' who are close-minded, stubborn, and obtuse. I wonder where in the world you find these people. When I was at university, most of the people in the physics department who were doing research seemed genuinely excited at the prospect of a 'sacred theory' being proven wrong. Similarly, video of physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider has them looking forward to proving theories wrong. So where are these 'most scientists'? No matter where I look, I can't seem to find them!

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[noidentity]

What he demonstrates is that for the same or less power (Volts*Amps) of input to the motor driving the generator, he can cause the whole assembly to accelerate while using less power.

I can do the same, by applying a brake for the first case, and not applying it for the second case. Now, if he shows that the first case's efficiency is close to 100% (with the brake), then we've got something noteworthy.

Re:Scientists cannot explain != mysterious

[driftingwalrus]

Or do you think scientists are so stupid that, after more than a hundred years of research, they would have overlooked a basic principle that a dyslexic cook can discover by himself?

Umm... We need to be careful about that. We owe some pretty important physics to a dyslexic patent clerk. But, it's important to remember that a scientist is still a normal person. In the situation of a demonstration, they are just as easily deceived as a normal person - sometimes even more easily. Perpetual motion is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary proof. In all cases it must be approached with great care and deliberation to avoid error.

Incorrect. In part.

[Jane Q. Public]

First, the universe is not symmetrical. If it were, there would be just as much antimatter around as there is matter... and there simply is not. This very asymmetry is still one of the major mysteries of the universe. So any argument based on "universal symmetry" is flawed from the beginning.

Second, your ring example is also incorrect. You did not even state whether the rings are charged (or supposed to be generating current). Actually, a simple wire taken aloft by a balloon will produce a substantial charge, and if you had a ball of streamers at the top (like those metallic Christmas tree "icicles"), you will generate that much more charge, which is proportional to the number of points on the wire.

You might gain energy, but it is very high-voltage and carries little current. Benjamin Franklin experimented with motors that were powered by this very phenomenon.

However, this does not "generate" electricity, nor does it get its electricity "for free". It is simply tapping the natural voltage potential between the high-altitude air and the ground. You are tapping an existing "pool" of electrical potential, and depleting it by the small amount that you use. Rather like oil... though I daresay it replenishes itself faster.

The same is true of conventional wind power: You can turn wind energy into mechanical or electrical energy, but it isn't "free". In doing so, you rob the wind of the natural energy that it was already carrying. You slow it down. It may only be a small percentage, but it is real.

None of this has much to do with universal symmetry or asymmetry.

Having stated all that, I would like to add two things:

As far as I know, it is still at least theoretically possible to generate "free" energy by finding a way to tap the "zero-point energy" that exists everywhere. It may well turn out that this also taps a finite "pool" of some sort, but if so, that pool is as large as the universe, so I wouldn't worry about depleting it anytime soon.

The second point is that I agree with your conclusion: One need not prove that something works (or HOW it works) in order to observe it working. It took something like 50 years before scientists discovered the real reason why the vanes of a glass-bulb radiometer turn when exposed to light. But turn they did, for all of those 50years.

ALL major scientific breakthroughs were made possible by breaking (or at least bending) scientific "rules" that were "known" before. So ignoring a possible invention because it "breaks the rules" means that scientists are probably missing out on some major discoveries.

Re:the quote

[tomhath]

Real scientists insist on reproducible, peer reviewed results. Not a hand waving demo where they can't even make their own measurements. Maybe this guy found a way to make a generator more efficient, but from the video it looks to me that he isn't measuring all of the inputs and outputs of the system.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[Romancer]

"Lenz's law simply states that, like Newton's law of an "equal and opposite reaction," there's an opposing force counter-acting the force in play. It's like the opposite reaction of an astronaut falling towards a planet: inertia. Neither force is created, nor destroyed. All energy is conserved. Idiot troll"

So how hard were these laws faught before it was the common standard taught to us?
These laws do not address where forces like magnets and gravity come into play and if they could ever be tapped or not. Just because they haven't been made into laws before doesn't preclude them from ever being added to the established laws as footnotes. If we discover that the magnet like the sun degrades over time because it uses stored energy this would be all common place in a few generations and magnetic generators would be standard. If we learn to tap the constant pull from magnets and use them to create work but at the cost of the magnetic pull over time, this would stay within the "laws" and everybody would be fine with it. You use a resource until it's depleated and no one argues over it and claims that they are the greatest scientific voyer ever and can prove the underpinnings of the universe obey their assumptions and not the theories of others. Until ot was proven imagine someone claiming that they could take a gallon of liquid and move an object 30 miles. The energy stored in gasoline just had an easier method of extraction and left a more altered residual. Now take a rechargable battery in the tesla raodster that can move a vehicle a couple hundred miles and doesn't leave an empty tank, but a depleted battery that can be recharged with invisible electrons and go again without adding an observable amount of mass. This is no fantasy of the loose minded but a natural extension of the valid science applied in the persuit of extracting energy from material properties and interactions, fusion, nuculear reactions, charged states, magnetism. Just because we understand some part of our environment doesn't mean that we know the rules of the whole game. Black holes that have been discovered still don't follow the rules of thermodynamics since they absorb energy and do not release it in the same amount unless you count gravity as energy, which it that case you can't say that gravity will never let us convert it back to energy that we can use. The "Laws" don't address the one way principle that people like to use against these kinds of ideas to dismiss them. And just because poeple haven't done something before should be no excuse why some shouldn't try. Remember that every major scientific advancement was not done in the past, but the present for the experimenter. Before it was known and accepted. Not after everybody thought it was allowed.

Re:No such thing as Perpetual Motion!

[chuckymonkey]

RTFA, he doesn't claim that it is PPM. The journalist and submitter seems to think so, but if you watch the videos he makes about it you'll see that he's trying to explain why it accelerates. He is also desperately trying to get some scientists involved who would understand a little better what is going on. There is always some applied voltage to the machine, what he's done is increase the efficiency of it immensely. Give the guy a break, he's found a very interesting phenomenon and is doing the right thing by seeking outside expert verification of it. Let us know when you've done something nearly as interesting as this guy with even half the potential usefulness. Now, since all he has done so far is increase the efficiency immensely wouldn't you want something like that on say an electric car? Maybe a car that can go thousands of miles on single charge? Maybe a house blower for your furnace that uses less power than a LED lightbulb? There are many applications of this, think of it as it currently stands as Alpha software. He has a working model that he has shown to the world and is seeking help to perfect it and make if Beta then a final product. He could use a little help since he's actually showing something that works vs. the other clowns out there that claim they have something but won't actually show it to anyone.

Groundbreaking changes don't come from the outside

[mangu]

It may not be this dyslexic cook but a scientist is only trained in what is currently known, their thinking processes are trapped in the box of current theory and they are unlikely to come across any fundamental groundbreaking change.

Many people seem to believe that, but it's not how science works. (Or even art, for that matter, Picasso took extensive training in classical art before he started his revolution in painting, for example...)

Look at any big breakthrough in science, it has never, ever, been done by an outsider. Big fundamental changes in the current thinking process always come from a scientist, usually young, who has thoroughly studied the subject before concluding a change is needed.

It's not that there is a "box" limiting scientific thought, but theories are created for specific sets of circumstances. When science and technology expands beyond those circumstances, new theories are needed. However, when you are creating new theories, it's never helpful to be ignorant of the current theories. You cannot circumvent the limitations of current theories if you don't even know those theories.

Re:Induction Motors are Already Inefficient!

[wdhowellsr]

I was smart enough not to include the products we are testing in our research and development laboratories. To be honest there are products we are testing right now that will knock the socks off the scientific community. However smart researchers wait until they have all of their ducks in a row before releasing their products and associated data. When the top physics professors of the Wright Brother's day heard of their successful flight, it was considered a scam, a fraud and a complete attack on known physical laws. The bottom line is that more damage has been done in the progress of science by arrogance then ignorance. Fortunately the smart researchers wait until they can send the supposed brilliant minds of Academia back to there mommies crying that we made them look bad before we release our products. Long Live Tesla and Death to Edison!

REALLY???

[Jane Q. Public]

Wow, yourself. That is pretty interesting.

Quote: "The law of conservation of energy is derived from the inherent symmetry of the universe. Any system that live in a universe where the laws of physics are the same for left/right/up/down/front/back is doomed..."

You say that is NOT a claim that the universe is symmetrical? (Of course I did not mean physically symmetrical everywhere... that would be ridiculous.) But... "the inherent symmetry in the universe"?? And you claim that all the laws are the same "left/right/up/down/front/back"... but they are not. There are left-handed molecules (and I mean pretty simple chemicals, not proteins) that, despite being chemically identical, do not chemically react the same as their right-handed cousins do. (Examples are dexro- and levo-cocaine.) Entropy is not "symmetrical", it is one-way. The "arrow of time", when it comes to certan physical and chemical processes, is one-way. There are an ENORMOUS number of documented processes and phemonena that are anything but symmetrical. AND -- though you misunderstood me -- the fact that there is NOT as much antimatter in the universe as there is normal matter, DOES prove that the laws are not and have not been "symmetrical"!!

And then you try to cover up by saying that is not what you meant at all. Sheesh. Could have fooled me. But I don't think you did.

Quote: "The rings do not transfer current, they transfer matter. It's a portable worm hole, if you like. As such, their charge is irrelevant."

REALLY? You mention two rings and I was somehow supposed to ASSUME you were talking about "portable wormholes"?? Where would I get that idea? And by the way: wormholes are nothing more than hypothesis so far. There are no observations that provide direct -- or even indirect -- support for their existence, since the observations can be explained just as easily by other means.

Your third point is correct; I misread the sentence. However I disagree with it. If you observe something that appears to break known laws, and it is not a street magic trick, then you might do well to investigate its operation. Because, as I stated earlier: ALL major scientific breakthroughs violated previously "known" laws. While it is not likely to happen, it DOES happen. And when it has, we have all turned out to be better off as a result.

By your logic, the phenomenon of "cold fusion" should never have been investigated, because it was "obviously untrue" on its face. Even though subsequent investigations (by reputable, University scientists) HAVE repeatedly encountered anomalies that COULD BE fusion, though of course nobody has produced it in a strongly verfifiable, sustainable manner. So nobody has proven that it exists, but saying that it "could not", because it breaks "known laws", is putting the cart before the horse.

Newton's laws violated "known laws" of the time. Einstein's discoveries violated "known laws" (Newton's, in fact) of the time. Curie's discoveries violated "known laws". And so on. If you think you know everything about the Universe, and therefore you don't have to investigate it further, then... well, I just feel sorry for you, because you do not understand what you think you know.

I am aware that the last part is not what you wrote. However, it is what you strongly implied.

I want James Randi for this

[Antique Geekmeister]

I don't want an MIT physics professor, except as a consultant. I want James Randi, the stage magicion who's now debunking psychic frauds, to look at the apparatus and make sure there's nothing strange going on.

For example, most voltage and current meters do no measurement of phase delay between the curent and the voltage. A bit of odd impedance in a motor can often affect its performance considerably by drawing more of the current when it's at the highest voltage and the maximum power is delivered to it, rather than wasting energy in conductive losses at low voltages. And oddball impedances can cause surprising loads to the sources of electrical power, which are not noticed unless you look carefully at the fuel consumption for the upstream generator or examine the electrical load with better instruments. The relevant phrase to look this up is "power factor correction".

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[Werthless5]

Sadly, scientific funding is not determined by scientists - it is determined by politicians. Scientists are on the boards that assign the grants, but the actual funding is handed down by politicians. If the politicians don't like the kinds of projects that you're supporting, you'll either face a budget cut or you'll lose your seat on the board.

However, your last line certainly has some truth - I encounter students who refuse to believe in the Coriolis effect, inertia, Gauss' Law, and countless other well-proven laws. It's not that they can come up with counterexamples, it's that they just don't want to believe in the billions of experiments that have confirmed previously known results. Would you agree that this is quite a different circumstance? The students who display disbelief often do so without reason (gut instinct). These students fail. I will happily give bonus points to students who can think of counterexamples to famous theories and laws - they can have the A, I'll take the Nobel Prize.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[jlkelley]

It's a Well Known Fact that there are far more research grants for proving already-known scientific laws than there are for efforts to find out things we don't know. [...] The key to fame and fortune in research science clearly lies in defending the status quo.

As an astrophysicist I see exactly the opposite: funding is going to answering unknown questions like "What is dark matter?" and "What is dark energy?", not to mention the multibillion-dollar colliders like LHC, one the main goals of which is to figure out how and at what energy the Standard Model of particle physics breaks down. This is exactly the opposite of "defending the status quo."

OK, but sarcasm aside, there is a tendency among those who teach science to put the Known Laws on an unassailable pedestal... largely in reaction to the rebellious students who refuse to believe anything they say.

This is problem with how science is taught -- this is not how science is practiced. I do agree, however, that science educators (at least in the U.S.) do a horrible job of actually teaching how and why science actually works. If teachers would spend more time on explaining critical thinking and the scientific method, we'd have a much better educated populace, and one that was better equipped to examine the pseudoscientific claims that show up all the time (like this story).

Re:Induction Motor are Already Inefficient!

[tdent1138]

Wow. You'd think getting a competitive edge with a 30% reduction in power would have companies lining up at the door. If I could cut 30% of any expense from my company, I'd be all over it.

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[orclevegam]

According to the article he's specifically not claiming anything. What he is claiming, is that he has a device, that seems to accelerate a motor using magnets in a way that hasn't been explained yet. He's actually more interested in if it can make current electric motors more efficient, not if it's some magical "free energy" device. It will be interesting to find out what's behind the apparent effect of this thing. At this point there's really one of three possible outcomes. One, it could be some error in his test setup, it follows all the rules, he's just measuring wrong. Second, it follows all the rules, but exploits some new principle we were unaware of till now. And lastly it breaks current rules and we need to make some adjustments to them. I'm betting one is most likely, although the second is a strong possibility as well. As for the third outcome, I'd give it a 0.0001% chance.

Slashdot editors on crack again...

[Kent Recal]

Verbatim quote from the article:

There's no talk of perpetual motion. No whisper of broken scientific laws or free energy. Zahn would never go there - at least not yet. But he does see the potential for making electric motors more efficient, and this itself is no small feat.

So how do we get from that statement to the slashdot headline?
Too much crack? Had a bad month in ad revenue?

Re:So look at it, take it apart, spend a few minut

[gr8scot]

I don't blame the teachers for that, I blame the class clowns among the students.

This is problem with how science is taught -- this is not how science is practiced. I do agree, however, that science educators (at least in the U.S.) do a horrible job of actually teaching how and why science actually works.

Excuse me? When my homework was memorization of the Periodic Table of the Elements, I was told that the key to being a good scientist is asking the right questions. Until I had a sufficient body of knowledge, I was unqualified to contribute to the forefront of the field -- that is, to doing original scientific research -- and I was honest enough to recognize that as a genuine fact. As Werthless5 noted, there are plenty of students who waste the time good students and professors have together [W5 said it more tactfully] with stupid "objections" based on nothing, or based on some wing-nut theological claptrap that has never been proven, or even tested, such as the "Electric Universe" or "Intelligent Design." Presenting the basics of the scientific method plus its fundamental results in physics, biology and chemistry, would be a good base of knowledge for high school students to decide whether any of those or closely-related fields are of interest to them as careers. To change the curriculum in favor of boobs, losers and crooks whose objections are invalid, would reward the liars and punish the honest people.

If teachers would spend more time on explaining critical thinking and the scientific method, we'd have a much better educated populace, and one that was better equipped to examine the pseudoscientific claims that show up all the time (like this story).

I see evidence of the opposite. What I see above are not people who don't know how to logically analyze what little they've been taught, but people who have such a pathetically minute body of knowledge of the electromagnetic force, that they don't even know what to speculate and how to test its plausibility analytically, as gedankenexperiment, and shoot them down themselves. Wikipedia: thought experiment [wikipedia.org]. Instead, a couple people are shooting down one cockamamie idea after another, because the rest of them just don't know enough about electricity and how, microscopically, it causes magnetism, to invalidate their own first hopeful speculations about a perpetual motion device. If they were taught the rudimentary facts, most of them seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand that energy can only be converted from one form to another [including, in extreme circumstances, matter], but never created or destroyed, and this thread could go away. If you want to help the students, don't help them cop-out.