|
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2008 : 14:43:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JustMe
'Big deal' seems to presume that the collective you and others of similar approach are just passive observers. That there is no material influence on the way things play out, or by extension on their success or failure. Is that your belief?
The question is genuine. I'm truly just asking if that's the presumption, and trying to figure out what if anything it means either way. |
With a strict interpretation of "passive observers," no, we are not that. By publicly criticizing Heins' methods, it is possible that he will become aware of the criticism and perhaps change the direction he has taken. That's hardly a passive role.
"Big deal" meant "that's the way science works." Criticism of an idea is encouraged up to that point where it would look like lunacy to doubt any longer. Wegener's theory of Continental Drift was roundly and correctly criticized for four decades simply because proponents of the idea didn't have the technology necessary to provide the supporting evidence that Wegener suspected was out there. Once that evidence was in, some the more vocal opponents of the idea (who were still alive, that is) probably published letters saying, at least, "my criticisms have been answered: Wegener was correct."
Being wrong (no matter which side you're on) isn't a sin in science - and so "big deal." Being wrong holds no consequences for a scientist or her critics if the person who is wrong is willing to admit it. The only scientists who lose credibility (for whom it's definitely a big deal) are those who are demonstrably wrong but who, for whatever reason, cannot say, "I was wrong." I, for one, have nothing invested in Heins being wrong, so if he's right I've got nothing to lose by saying, "wow, Heins was right after all!" Big deal.
(And today, the only people who doubt Continental Drift are creationists, and it looks like lunacy on their part.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 23:20:55 [Permalink]
|
Just Me.....
These comments and questions were directed to me, and although Dude and Dave have covered some of this ground, I have my honour to consider.....| The behaviour of his device remains unexplained at this time |
Yes, and the Toronto Star articles that you cited didn't seem to say anything we didn't already know. I had two years of Electrical Engineering before I decided Philososphy would be a better career path. I don't call myself an engineer, but I can't make much sense at all out of what Santa's Helpers @ OverUnity are hammering out under Thane's supervision. Because of your faith, do you know of any progress at the University of Ottawa either toward understanding or debunking this device? We all would sure appreciate links, if so!| ..for me there is very broad definition of success. Anything from a mundane "Oh THAT'S what was happening".. |
"That's what's probably happening" has already been pronounced by several including the good Professor Zahn. Hysteresis! A careful reading of this article combined with a complete reading of this will do a great deal to explain both the hysteresis explanation and the doubts that Dave, Dude and I hold as to whether or not this gadgeteering will prevail as a new technology!
Does the hysteresis explanation qualify for, "Oh, maybe THAT'S what was happening" and help you along a bit towards closure?| Do I think Mr. Heins' device throws over centuries of careful observations in physics and mathematics? Unlikely. |
Well, that's encouraging!| Do I think that as of today we've discovered and mastered every method and every source of energy we ever will? Equally unlikely. |
Good God (metaphorical), I would hope so! I certainly wouldn't insult your obvious intelligence by attributing a caveat like that to you. I think I can safely speak for every single member of SFN in saying that all of us are open to and genuinely thrilled by developments in dicovering new methods of energy transformation and storage. I am sure that we all know that science has barely begun to open the (sometimes Pandora's) box of new energy manipulations!| ...his observations do justify his hypothesis as it relates to Lenz's law. Note I said 'justify' which is nothing close to 'prove' |
Duly noted. But what do you mean by "justify" as it pertains to Lenz's law? Do you feel Thane has produced an anomaly which appears to contravene Lenz's law? Or that he is actually conducting the normal CEMF produced in the coils facing the magnets on his little ferris wheel generator back into the armature of the driving electric motor? And if so, that then - that CEMF is no longer opposing the magnetic fields of the rotating permanent magnets, because it is somehow adding to the rotating magnetic field of the rotor of the motor? Which, as I understand it, is Thane's hypothesis!| they all require vigourous proofs or disproofs equally, no matter their source. |
Generally, the null hypothesis (or disproof of a negative) is the proof that the phenomenon is due to some other factor than the one stated to be impossible, so if further experimentation demonstrates that this is a hysteresis phenomenon, it will not be necessary to prove that it is a redirection of CEMF.
Your statement is OK, if a bit of a redundancy.| You think he is scripted, and I think YOU are scripted. |
I think he may be "scripted", or that he may be confused or mistaken. I do not think that he has in any way demonstrated a refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which includes Lenz's law as originally formulated. If that is what you mean by "scripted' I plead guilty!
| I am just not perceiving the objectivity and analytic processes I expected here, but maybe I just don't understand the percieved role of a capital "S" skeptic. |
Just Me, this is a Skeptic site! It is not the function of a skeptic to accept, even conditionally, without proof, any hypothesis! We see you as willing to accept conditionally Thane's hypothesis until it is proven one way or another. That is not the proper application of the scientific method! One may wonder, hypothesize, theorize or speculate legitimately prior to testing an idea; but one does not accept a speculation or theory until it is tested and proven!
And this is doubly true, if the speculation is some sort of refutation or denial of a principle long held and very frequently tested - such as LoT2!| Attack the methods when appropriate, but what has given you license to attack the man? I find it thoughtless, as in both without adequate thought and without adequate consideration. |
and | I am also not perceiving what he has done to warrant the very personal derision. Attack the methods when appropriate, but what has given you license to attack the man? I find it thoughtless, as in both without adequate thought and without adequate consideration. |
Well, here is where we may truly find some common ground. I must agree that you, unlike another female fount of factiousness here on these boards, that you have a strong point in pointing out the essence of argumentum ad hominum in my and others derogation of the intrepid Mr. Thane.
He may well be a scoundrel, in which case he deserves approbation. He may simply be confused and too poorly educated, in which case he certainly should be providing circuit diagrams, schematics, and detailed information to someone who can duplicate his results. There is nothing patentable here, he has already found out; so he does not have a defensible vestment of interest in his "discovery". Why not allow a full duplication of his marvelous results?
If you, or anyone, would provide links or references concerning what is being done at the University of Ottawa that Dude and others here could review, perhaps we would ameliorate our comments about his possibly questionable motives! Your final comment,| Maybe this is just not of sufficient interest to people who have been there done that too many times, and therefore it doesn't warrant a serious look. |
....There is enough interest, witness the length and involvement of many in this thread. Most here are indeed a little overanxious to personally criticize the fakirs who misrepresent what are felonious activities, before there is sufficient proof of felony! There is also the matter of testosterone, which you certainly can comprehend but cannot feel! It's really quite important to us of the weaker sex! The fun of ridiculing another, dominance, the nya, nya of the schoolyard playground, protection of our all too fragile egos - all are pretty firmly fixed in the Y chromosome, more specifically the SRY gene!
But I agree, in a perfect world, the stupid should be pitied, not reviled! Point taken, personally!| ...it wouldn't be hard for them to run some tests. Which might explain why they have, and continue to do so. They have been unable to establish a cause for the behaviour of the device, and thus asked MIT to get involved. |
Direct links, other than Thane's statements, to this, please?
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 02/26/2008 01:17:18 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2008 : 23:47:14 [Permalink]
|
I still find nothing which details any tests on this device, no schematics, no detailed instructions.
Nothing but brief mentions in a newspaper article that anyone from the University of Ottawa is involved(which seems to be nothing but the paper repeating what Heins has told them), and nothing at all from anyone at the university themselves.
And then there is Heins' reaction to the MIT prof's suggested tests. That alone should have been enough to convince any rational person that the guy is just trying to steal money from credulous people.
At this point even if he has blundered into something novel, his credibility is shot.
So get back to me with those detailed schematics and build instructions, if you ever find them, JustMe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2008 : 03:43:03 [Permalink]
|
I too, am wondering. If there was anything of substance to this thing, why is it still just sitting on a bench? By now very test imaginable should have been enthusiastically performed, learned papers written, and bitter arguments over the Laws of Thermodynamics should be flickering throughout academia like St. Elmo's Fire on the mainm'st.
As an old lady on TV asked, loudly and ad nauseum: "Where's the beef?"
In all truth, I really can't see where this is going. If Thane's trying to shill a scam, negative publicity and not a little ridicule would seem to have permanently screwed that pooch, although, granted, there are lots of suckers out there. If he actually believes he has something, he's certainly going about verifying and establishing it in the wrong manner.
I'm beginning to think that the guy's merely another eccentric dingbat who's managed to get everybody all excited over nothing. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy might define him as "Mostly Harmless."
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 09:06:42 [Permalink]
|
I think he was phishing for quotes from respected university professors to help sell his con.
Head of MIT lab says, "I can't explain it!"
That sort of thing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 14:13:00 [Permalink]
|
I can see, that despite great effort to be clear, I need to be clearer.
I hope Thane Heins succeeds. I hope he has indeed made a discovery that will open up new and more efficient ways to use energy. If, over and above that, such a discovery were to be connected with something as interesting as a footnote on Lenz's Law in our time, I think that would be very exciting. So I do allow hope, but hope is not faith. And while I freely acknowledge the hope some of you find naive, my interest in this subject is not motivated by it. My interest is motivated by curiosity, because the fact remains that it is simply not known yet what, if anything, he's accomplished. There is not sufficient data on any given explanation right now. That may change at any moment, but as of this writing absolute faith in any particular outcome is in my view premature.
My argument has never been about the validity of his claim or his conclusions. Let me say it again: My argument has never been about the validity of his claim or his conclusions. The claim Heins makes is unusual, and comes with a huge burden of proof. Skepticism, as I defined it before I got here, is absolutely essential in a case like this. Skepticism, as I defined it before I got here, is why I came here in the first place.
Hopefully this will be helpful in deciphering my future posts.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 15:53:49 [Permalink]
|
JustMe, as of this writing, there are millions of scientists working on many thousands of different projects, and I hope all of them succeed in adding to our knowledge of the universe, whether anything practical comes of their work or not.
The difference between them and Heins is that I probably won't hear about the vast majority of the scientists - ever. I'll likely hear some of their names in announcements of the Nobel winners years from now, but I'll just as likely forget them right afterwards. These are people who'll rarely make it into the newspapers, because even though they're often working on entirely new science, it's mostly not science that even hints at overturning already-existing science.
These people aren't looking for investors, they're writing tedious grant proposals, hoping they'll get enough to keep their projects going. They're not posting videos on YouTube and asking anonymous people on the Internet to validate their findings, because they simply don't have the time to do so.
They generally toil in silence, unrecognized for their efforts, until they complete a project and manage to get through the peer-review process to publication, where they will disclose their methods, data and analysis to the world at large, and hope that nobody finds a mistake.
These are the people actually discover new things on a regular basis. Heins isn't one of them, and shows no indication that he has the nature to be one of them. I believe that even your hope is misplaced, because even if Heins has seen a new thing, it will take actual scientists to explain it. In other words, I don't think he can "succeed," if scientific success is defined as adding to our knowledge base.
The photoelectric effect was known for a while before Einstein explained it, facts I knew off the top of my head. I just had to look it up to learn that Heinrich Rudolf Hertz discovered it. Discovery - which perhaps Heins has done - isn't the most-important part of science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2008 : 22:17:10 [Permalink]
|
Just Me.....
Your somewhat plaintive comment....| My interest is motivated by curiosity, because the fact remains that it is simply not known yet what, if anything, he's accomplished. There is not sufficient data on any given explanation right now. That may change at any moment, but as of this writing absolute faith in any particular outcome is in my view premature |
....rings a little chime in me, because the sentiment you express parallels exactly the expectations that I have concerning a number of unexplained or, better, yet to be explained phenomena that have been experienced by man. I came to SFN with the question:| What is your view (better opinion) of the UFO phenomenon? I do NOT mean anything regarding little grey men, alien abductions, or "encounters" of any kind.I refer only to the small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial phenomena reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts; and those cases thoroughly examined by Condon et al, Project Blue Book, and other serious investigations, and NOT rejected as hoax or hallucinatory. |
A story too long to relate here ensued, names were called, misunderstandings were rampant, but I did receive a great amount of useful information, some of it even relevant to the question I asked.
I tell you this because I think you perhaps were misunderstood in your early posts regarding Thane's machine. It appeared that you were espousing Thane's theory, and this would be tantamount to tearing the badge of honor off the skeptic's shirt and stomping it into the ground. Things like LoT2 are pretty sacrosanct, and for good reason! Personally, I just got pissed off at you coming on strong at my having fun at Thane's expense, so I angrily returned your gibes! I was wrong to make fun of Thane too soon!
But you make some good points, JM! Without strong evidence of chicanery, it is at least unfair to attack Thane personally, even if he were badly confused or just plain in error. But there are a lot of hair triggers around here.
It is correct to clearly point out the strong reasons why Thane is probably wrong in his evaluation of having shown results contrary to established laws of physics, but I must sheepishly admit, that ridicule is too strong until the whole thing collapses. And even then, properly, there should be pity, instead of ridicule!
And I actually strongly admire your spirit of open-mindedness. The critical-thinking-scientific-method graven in stone mindset does not allow for nearly enough open reception of apparently near possible ideas, in my opinion. I am probably as guilty as many here of jumping the skeptical gun before thinking long and hard---"could there possibly be merit in this.....?" James Randi does too much reflexive condemnation of apparently highly unlikely events. He tends to totally subscribe to the "walks like a duck...." philosophy. However, it must be said, I don't think he has ever been shown to be wrong in a denunciation of a fake or fraud (or even an honest mistake) of a "super" "natural" event!
I will probably hear a great deal about this apostasy!
On a totally different subject. Would you mind giving me your response to the UFO question self-quoted above? I would appreciate it! |
|
|
|
JustMe
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2008 : 12:56:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
JustMe, as of this writing, there are millions of scientists working on many thousands of different projects, and I hope all of them succeed in adding to our knowledge of the universe, whether anything practical comes of their work or not.
The difference between them and Heins is that I probably won't hear about the vast majority of the scientists - ever. I'll likely hear some of their names in announcements of the Nobel winners years from now, but I'll just as likely forget them right afterwards. These are people who'll rarely make it into the newspapers, because even though they're often working on entirely new science, it's mostly not science that even hints at overturning already-existing science.
These people aren't looking for investors, they're writing tedious grant proposals, hoping they'll get enough to keep their projects going. They're not posting videos on YouTube and asking anonymous people on the Internet to validate their findings, because they simply don't have the time to do so.
They generally toil in silence, unrecognized for their efforts, until they complete a project and manage to get through the peer-review process to publication, where they will disclose their methods, data and analysis to the world at large, and hope that nobody finds a mistake.
These are the people actually discover new things on a regular basis. Heins isn't one of them, and shows no indication that he has the nature to be one of them. I believe that even your hope is misplaced, because even if Heins has seen a new thing, it will take actual scientists to explain it. In other words, I don't think he can "succeed," if scientific success is defined as adding to our knowledge base.
|
I don't think anyone, least of all Thane Heins, would call Thane Heins a scientist. If we want to give him any traditional hat I think it would be that of engineer. Engineers apply science to create functional solutions, and the logical vetting on that would seem to me to be "Does is work?". That Thane's engineering may have created a new question for science remains a possibility, however slight that may be viewed, and as you aptly point out that work would be best done by someone else should it prove necessary. His interest in securing academic opinions like those of Dr. Zahn would seem to indicate a recognition of his own limitations in this regard. All Thane Heins the engineer really owes anyone is incontrovertible evidence that his machine does what he says it does: output more power from the same or less direct input than was previously thought possible. Tall order, and he's not there yet by a long shot.
I understand and share your respect for traditional paths to new discovery, however I think you draw too great a distinction. Working in your basement workshop for years and years in obscurity is no less toil that working in a lab for years and years in obscurity with the benefit of regular paycheque and a sense of normalcy for your troubles. I might argue it's more. During most phases of research and development money is always about keeping projects going, whether it's from a granting body or from the equally tedious process of seeking private investors . People working on this particular fringe simply don't have access to the paths you hold up as the gold standard, and drawing any conclusion from the fact that they're not on them becomes rather uselessly circular. We are conditioned as a society to look to markers like formal education, employment experience, credentials, established and accepted processes etc. for good reason, and those that take a different road can and should expect a much more difficult walk. But what is reasonable? I would put forth that the both the level and the character of the skepticism directed at Mr. Heins and others like him is entirely unreasonable, and often inexcusably callous.
Heins was given advice by Dr. Stanley to Townsend in a letter than can be found on this thread to keep his nose to the grindstone, his head low, and not to try to explain the physics. For whatever reason he is no longer taking that advice, if indeed he ever had. We don't know the reason for his decision, or if that decision and the attendant publicity will prove to be brilliant or stone cold stupid. For now, he continues to work the paths he has open to him. For me, it's not much of a stretch to see all that glorious chatter going on over at overunity.com as peer review, probably not so terribly different than the peer review you reference, a presumably tumultuous process that precedes the tidy ending offered up for public consumption. |
| Edited by - JustMe on 03/02/2008 13:00:17 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2008 : 13:27:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JustMe
For me, it's not much of a stretch to see all that glorious chatter going on over at overunity.com as peer review, probably not so terribly different than the peer review you reference, a presumably tumultuous process that precedes the tidy ending offered up for public consumption.
|
I think this is where we part ways: At least I do not consider laymen at overunity.com capable of peer review on the level for scientific research. Which means that when whatever goes on at overunity.com is done, we're only getting started: what we saw was a preview of something.
Just because Dr. Zahn has said "I can't explain it" doesn't mean that there isn't a perfectly rational explanation that does not violate the laws of physics as we know them. It just means that Dr. Zahn needs more time to examine the device before say for sure what it is that makes it tick.
You call Heins 'engineer'. But considering his background, and his lack of formal education, yes even his answers to questions in that forum (as Dave_W have already pointed out) points to a disturbing lack of electrical engineering skill. That sets off my warning light. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2008 : 14:12:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JustMe
I don't think anyone, least of all Thane Heins, would call Thane Heins a scientist. If we want to give him any traditional hat I think it would be that of engineer. Engineers apply science to create functional solutions, and the logical vetting on that would seem to me to be "Does is work?". |
And yet, Heins isn't applying science. He's been told what the scientist would do, and he won't do it.| His interest in securing academic opinions like those of Dr. Zahn would seem to indicate a recognition of his own limitations in this regard. |
Except that he wants them to do the work, not just provide opinions.| All Thane Heins the engineer really owes anyone is incontrovertible evidence that his machine does what he says it does: output more power from the same or less direct input than was previously thought possible. Tall order, and he's not there yet by a long shot. |
And he won't get there by ignoring expert opinions. He cannot get there by not doing the basic tests, which should have been done years ago already.| I understand and share your respect for traditional paths to new discovery, however I think you draw too great a distinction. Working in your basement workshop for years and years in obscurity is no less toil that working in a lab for years and years in obscurity with the benefit of regular paycheque and a sense of normalcy for your troubles. I might argue it's more. |
Actual scientists doing science in their basement do toil in obscurity. Heins is toiling in a warm glow of publicity in a university lab (or so he says).| During most phases of research and development money is always about keeping projects going, whether it's from a granting body or from the equally tedious process of seeking private investors . |
Engineers and technicians need investors, but they've already got something to invest in (the results of a scientific process handled by scientists). Heins doesn't.| People working on this particular fringe simply don't have access to the paths you hold up as the gold standard, and drawing any conclusion from the fact that they're not on them becomes rather uselessly circular. |
I'd agree with you, except that if they produced results, they wouldn't be on a fringe - they'd have all the money they needed.| We are conditioned as a society to look to markers like formal education, employment experience, credentials, established and accepted processes etc. for good reason, and those that take a different road can and should expect a much more difficult walk. But what is reasonable? I would put forth that the both the level and the character of the skepticism directed at Mr. Heins and others like him is entirely unreasonable, and often inexcusably callous. |
You know, when a six-year-old puts on a play lab coat and mixes colored water and pretends to be a scientist, it's cute. When a 40-year-old does the same thing, it had better be as a part in a play or movie, or else it's creepy. Heins is doing it and expecting to be taken seriously by actual scientists, and that rightly makes him an object of ridicule. He wants to be considered seriously, but won't do the serious work, even when told how to. That is ridiculous and unreasonable of Heins.
But, as I said, there may be some crow-eating later on. I'll send Heins an apology email for my part in the ridicule if he's shown to be right.| Heins was given advice by Dr. Stanley to Townsend in a letter than can be found on this thread to keep his nose to the grindstone, his head low, and not to try to explain the physics. For whatever reason he is no longer taking that advice, if indeed he ever had. |
Thus proving my point, thank you.| We don't know the reason for his decision, or if that decision and the attendant publicity will prove to be brilliant or stone cold stupid. |
No, we can already see that that decision was idiotic, because the people (like Zahn) he's asking for help are saying, "no way!"| For now, he continues to work the paths he has open to him. |
No, he appears to be rejecting the path of science - the path Zahn pointed him towards.| For me, it's not much of a stretch to see all that glorious chatter going on over at overunity.com as peer review, probably not so terribly different than the peer review you reference, a presumably tumultuous process that precedes the tidy ending offered up for public consumption. |
Peer review is rightly done by experts in the field. The people at overunity have some collective experience, but cannot possibly be experts in Heins' field because they're forced (by Heins) to guess at the construction of the device. Peer reviewers are expected to say, "you did this wrong," when something is wrong. Zahn is the closest thing Heins has had to peer review, and Heins' rejection of Zahn's advice shows that Heins doesn't actually want to know the truth, he just wants to be right. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2008 : 16:24:12 [Permalink]
|
justme said:
| There is not sufficient data on any given explanation right now. |
Sure there is. He fits into the crackpot profile quite well.
For me, it's not much of a stretch to see all that glorious chatter going on over at overunity.com as peer review, probably not so terribly different than the peer review you reference, a presumably tumultuous process that precedes the tidy ending offered up for public consumption.
|
Well, now the problem becomes more clear. You really have no idea what peer review, in a professional scientific context, is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2008 : 16:51:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
justme said:
| There is not sufficient data on any given explanation right now. |
Sure there is. He fits into the crackpot profile quite well.
For me, it's not much of a stretch to see all that glorious chatter going on over at overunity.com as peer review, probably not so terribly different than the peer review you reference, a presumably tumultuous process that precedes the tidy ending offered up for public consumption.
|
Well, now the problem becomes more clear. You really have no idea what peer review, in a professional scientific context, is.
|
Peer review.... At this point, I'm afraid that I must agree with Dude. Thane has yet to do anything to inspire confidence in his claim.
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process has a normative function by encouraging authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors.
In the case of manuscripts, the editor will pass manuscripts that are accepted for publication to a publisher who will be responsible for organizing redactory services, printing and distribution of the publication. In specialist academic (scholarly) journals, the editor (or increasingly group of editors) is normally a well-respected academic in the field, and edits the journal on behalf of a learned society or a commercial publisher. Some journals have professional editors employed by the owner of the journal. An editor is ultimately responsible for the quality and selection of manuscripts chosen to be published, usually basing their decision on peer review, although the authors are always responsible for the content of each manuscript. The editor does not revise and correct spelling, grammar and formatting — that process is carried out by a copy editor, although the editor controls the quality of the process.
<snip>
How it works
In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article.
These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, including noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.
Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from a menu provided by the journal or funding agency. Most recommendations are along the lines of the following:
to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal,
to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,
to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,
to reject it outright.
And so forth. As much as I too, would like to see free energy and the Laws of Physics adjusted if not repealed, I do not see Thane nor anyone else actually doing it.
But here's a thought: this thing has now had time to seep deeply into the internet; how far away are similar claims with "Investors, get in on the ground floor with this amazing device! Profits, profits profits!" attached to them?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/02/2008 16:57:13 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Super generator? Perpetual motion? Another grift?
