|
|
|
Controversial Science: Inventors & Charlatans
|
Science Mysteries
|
|
Articles:
By
Ludwik Kowalski
An interesting paperback book was published in 2003 by Keith Tutt in England.
The title is "The Scientist, the Madman, the Thief and the Lightbulb." The book
begins with the biography of Nikola Tesla, goes over the alleged discovery of
Henry Morey from Salt Lake City (1930's) and then focuses on recent episodes,
including that of cold fusion. In chapter 11, entitled "Of Charlatans,
Conspiracies and Skeptics" the author gives a description of schemes by which
con artists take advantage of naive expectations of many investors and convince
them to finance unreasonable, often non-existing projects. One recent episode of
that kind involved an Australian manipulator, Brian Collins.
He was claiming to invent a miraculous energy-making machine "measuring just 12
inches by 3 inches and weighing only 10 pounds. During the tests the machine was
said to produce enough electrical energy to completely power an average size
home. . . . With the availability of unlimited amounts of affordable electric
energy, individuals can at last pursue their creative aspirations in a new age
of society. In a longer description of the device, published at the same time,
the claims are even more generous: "The prototype . . . produced electrical
energy in excess of 1000 kW, enough power to satisfy the energy needs of 100
domestic dwellings at average load demand."
Exploiting naive desire to get rich from free energy Collins wrote: "The special
few who sent funds . . . for every dollar that they sent, they'll see more money
than they ever believed possible, . . . [I]n the next few weeks there could be
some amazing things happening that could see many, many times the funds returned
to everybody." But several months later, when money was collected, he apologized
that he had been misled by his scientists about the status of the generator. The
only persons who benefited from the fraud were Collins and his associates.
In reading numerous books critical of cold fusion I never encountered an
accusation of fraud directed to Fleischmann and Ponds or to those who carried
out additional investigations in thirteen years after the initial announcement.
I saw accusations of misinterpretation, lack of expertise, self-delusion and
inappropriate methodology but no accusations of deliberate deception or fraud.
The only exceptions were words attributed to an MIT professor Ronald Parker.
According to a journalist, Nick Tate (Boston Globe, May 1, 1989), cold fusion
was denounced by Parker as "scientific schlock." But in a news conference next
day the professor denied using these words.
On the other hand, I encountered one accusation of fraudulent manipulation of
data on the part of critics of Fleischmann and Pons. According to E. Mallove,
the chief science writer in the MIT's press office (who had access to nearly all
the information that was put out by the Plasma Fusion Center) there was a
deliberate campaign to discredit cold fusion. Those who orchestrated the
campaign (Parker among them) were motivated by the desire to protect their own
projects supported by the government ($ 200,000,000 per year). Mallove wrote
that "MIT as a whole did, indeed, acquire the deserved reputation as a 'bastion
of skepticism' on cold fusion. . . . They suspected that .. . . if the public
were to have a too open-minded attitude toward . . . the cold fusion, funding
for their [hot fusion] program would be endangered. Assuming this to be true one
is tempted to criticize the motivation based on financial self-interest.
Scientists are expected to be objective in the analysis of experimental facts
and theories. But how can one be impartial when asked to evaluate a competitor?
On page 139 Tuff shows two sets of plots summarizing a calorimeter experiment
conducted at MIT. The draft plot, dated July 10, 1989, shows evidence of excess
heat, as reported by Fleischmann and Pons. That evidence, however, was removed
from the final plot, dated July 13, 1989. l (who discovered the contradiction)
asked for the original data but his request was ignored. Mallove believes that
this was a conspiracy designed to influence the US Department of Energy.
By the way, a colleague sent me a copy of an interesting article of R. Park. It
was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education (vol. 49, issue 21, page b20,
2003). The title is “The Seven Warning Signals of Bogus Science.”
Ludwik Kowalski (March 7, 2003)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043
Source:
http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/46charlatans.html
Related Article:
In the 1760s, James Cox (with the help of John Joseph Merlin)
developed a working perpetual motion machine of sorts: a clock
(known as Cox's timepiece) powered by changes in atmospheric
pressure. Cox was quite open about the workings of his machine,
unlike many perpetual motion inventors. The clock still exists today
(but was deactivated by the clock's relocation). [3] Another early
prospector in this field included Cromwell Varley. Varley did
discover in 1867 that an electric generator did not need to be
started with a conventional prime mover. He used the Earth's
magnetic field to induce enough field strength in the stator
windings to get a generator running. [4]
Some 19th century inventors, such as Thomas Henry Moray (an
admirer of Nikola Tesla), claimed to be able to tap into radiant
energy sources utilizing high frequency high voltage currents
interacting with the aether. The energy would be derived from the
"running river" of the aether. Several demonstrations by Moray were
done where 50 kW of power were generated for several days from an
antenna connected to a series of transformers, capacitors, and other
components. However, all plans and knowledge were kept secret by
Moray, demonstration was not verified, and patents were never
granted. Hermann Plauson, an Estonian engineer and inventor, also
investigated the production of energy and power via atmospheric
electricity.
Some free energy devices are devices that absorb ambient
electromagnetic fields (known as radiant energy) and converts the
incoming energy into a useful form of power or function. Here the
term is categorised more as renewable energy. Other "free energy
devices" are solar cells and thermocouples which do the same for
light and heat. Of course "free energy" here is something of a
misnomer, it is simply that the energy used is generated elsewhere.
These devices are not perpetual motion machines in the strict sense
of breaking thermodynamic laws and being unworkable.
An early "free energy" device that was widely used was the
crystal radio, which consisted of a solenoid coil made of insulated
wire and a galena crystal. It used no batteries. Over the course of
history, powerful versions of these "wireless" machines were built
by Mahlon Loomis, David Edward Hughes and Nikola Tesla.
The Testatika is an electromagnetic generator based on the 1898
Pidgeon electrostatic machine which includes an inductance circuit,
a capacitance circuit, and a thermionic rectification valve.
Allegedly a perpetual motion machine, the Testatika resembles in
some respects a Wimshurst machine. It was built by German engineer,
Paul Suisse Baumann, and promoted by a Swiss community, the
Methernithans.
Links
Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves
forever without being driven by an external source of energy.
The term is commonly used to refer to machines which display this
phenomenon. In the macroscopic world, perpetual motion is not
generally considered to be possible. Perpetual motion machines (the
Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of
hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way
which would violate the established laws of physics. No genuine
perpetual motion machine currently exists, and according to certain
fundamental laws in physics they cannot exist. Specifically,
perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second
laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines are divided into
two subcategories, defined by which law of thermodynamics would have
to be broken in order for the device to be a true perpetual motion
machine.
The impossibility of energy for nothing is not merely a matter of habit of
thought with science. It is enshrined in one of the most fundamental and
important laws of physics: the first law of thermodynamics or the law of
conservation of energy, which says that energy can neither be created nor
destroyed, but can only change its form.
A typical application of gravity in a perpetual
motion machine is Bhaskara's wheel, whose key idea is itself a
recurring theme, often called the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights
are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a position
further from the wheel's center for one half of the wheel's
rotation, and closer to the center for the other half. Since weights
further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is (or
would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever.
The moving weights may be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls,
or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same.
Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current
understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual
motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required
to justify rewriting the laws of physics. Any proposed perpetual motion design
offers a potentially instructive challenge to physicists: we know it can't work
(because of the laws of thermodynamics), so explain how it fails to work.
Related Links:
|
|
