This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Has this 'mob' changed the laws of physics?

If it isn't a "money-making scheme" as the two scientists aka. culprits put it, why are they attempting to patent it all and hide away their methods? Nobody's going to be able to prove it if it's all kept in the dark.

Reply 41

LostRiot

14

Dez

If it isn't a "money-making scheme" as the two scientists aka. culprits put it, why are they attempting to patent it all and hide away their methods? Nobody's going to be able to prove it if it's all kept in the dark.

how do you make money from a hoax?

Reply 42

Jaffaholic

LostRiot

what so if they've created a machine which is 400% efficent, they're idiots?

yeah that makes perfect sense.

If someone tells me 1 + 1 = 3, i will call them idiots until they have shown me exactly why. Im sorry but that is just how i feel.

Reply 43

Jonatan

13

LostRiot

what so if they've created a machine which is 400% efficent, they're idiots?

yeah that makes perfect sense.

I think they're probably over looking something, or have their computer set up wrong or something, or that whole marketing company thing is a clever idea but too silly, anyone can get alot of publicity when they annouce a product that will change the world, if they can put a full page ad in the observer then they're certain not to fair.

I've spent most of today reading up on this (I have a boring job) the guardian's article is very good.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1858134,00.html

Maybe a more correct description would be "If someone claims to have achieved 400% efficiency they are most likely trying to fraud investors that don't know better". I dunno if "idiots" is apropriate, maybe "*******s" is a better term.

Reply 44

Chumbaniya

17

The scary thing is that there are probably some people who believe those claims...

Anyway, it doesn't even make logical sense, nevermind physical sense. The concept of an efficiency greater than 100% is meaningless.

What the site says is that their technology "appears" to violate the law of conservation of energy. In other words, it is designed to fool you into thinking it does.

Reply 45

LostRiot

14

ghost101

If someone tells me 1 + 1 = 3, i will call them idiots until they have shown me exactly why. Im sorry but that is just how i feel.

yeah me too, it was the (if they're serious) comment which confused me, if someone gave me a proof that 1+1 = 3 they would have turned the world on it's head, but wouldn't be an idiot.

Obviously the invention is a hoax of some kind, (appart from the obvious fundermental laws that have to be broken for it to work - people have been trying to create perpectual motion for certuries (just check these out!) I imagine the victorians pretty much exhausted spinning things, and magnetic fields), but what I really want to know is what the company hopes to gain from it, they're not accepting donations, they don't have any shares, they've spent over £150,000 on advertising, so they must be planning to make pretty huge profits from whatever it is they're planning.

I talked about this in the pub last night for 4 hours, and no one could figure out how they are going to make any money, but if I was rich enough, and had a bit of free time, a massive hoax would be a bit of a laugh...

Reply 46

BenThackray

http://*******.com/m4qcj

Thats the patent for the thing if anybody's interested

Reply 47

BenThackray

huh??

if the forum doesnt like that shortened URL, then heress the long one:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Gunderson.IN.&s2=%22Magnetic+Power%22.AS.&OS=IN/Gunderson+AND+AN/%22Magnetic+Power%22&RS=IN/Gunderson+AND+AN/%22Magnetic+Power%22

Reply 48

yawn

OP

17

BenThackray

huh??

if the forum doesnt like that shortened URL, then heress the long one:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Gunderson.IN.&s2=%22Magnetic+Power%22.AS.&OS=IN/Gunderson+AND+AN/%22Magnetic+Power%22&RS=IN/Gunderson+AND+AN/%22Magnetic+Power%22

Whatcha saying, willis? :confused:

Reply 49

BenThackray

The forum seems to censor the word t-i-n-y-u-r-l

if you look at the drawings in the patent the thing seems remarkably simple

Reply 50

yawn

OP

17

BenThackray

The forum seems to censor the word t-i-n-y-u-r-l

if you look at the drawings in the patent the thing seems remarkably simple

I'm still confused as to what you are saying.

Is it that these men's claims are valid and that their product is feasible?

Reply 51

BenThackray

I'm not really saying anything about it in the above 2 posts- just posting a link to the patent for anyone who wants to try to understand what this invention actually is.

My opinion on the thing is pretty much the same as most people here; I'm very skeptical about it all. It seems pretty far fetched to me that such a simple device could destroy what is possibly the single most fundamental principle on which all physics is founded...

But who knows... i guess I'll try to keep my mind as open as possible and see if they get round to issuing some more concrete evidence

Reply 52

yawn

OP

17

BenThackray

I'm not really saying anything about it in the above 2 posts- just posting a link to the patent for anyone who wants to try to understand what this invention actually is.

My opinion on the thing is pretty much the same as most people here; I'm very skeptical about it all. It seems pretty far fetched to me that such a simple device could destroy what is possibly the single most fundamental principle on which all physics is founded...

But who knows... i guess I'll try to keep my mind as open as possible and see if they get round to issuing some more concrete evidence

Thanks Ben, for the clarification.

Has this 'mob' changed the laws of physics?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you