February 09, 2008
MIT approved* perpetual motion
*well, maybe not approved, but unexplained
« Older Conan vs. Colbert vs. Stewart | Drug of the nation: Back in stock? Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
MIT approved* perpetual motion
*well, maybe not approved, but unexplained
« Older Conan vs. Colbert vs. Stewart | Drug of the nation: Back in stock? Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
Let's run down John Baez' Crackpot Index, "A simple method for rating potentially evolutionary contributions to physics":
1. A -5 point starting credit. (-5)
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (3 pts)
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. (4 pts)
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. (0 pts)
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.) (10 pts)
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. (3 out of 10 pts * 5 = 15 pts)
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". (20 pts)
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". (0 pts)
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". (10 pts)
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". (10 of 20pts)
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory. (0 of 30pts)
He's certainly /much/ more reasonable than most, but still comes in at a quite suggestive 67 points. His patent application is one page long and offhandedly mentions its superconducting wire coils.
Here's a video of his invention over here, and here's Feynman's description of an encounter with an earlier version.
posted by mrflip at 03:07PM CST on February 09