Udhay quotes Reuters' usual failure to report: > "We fully accept there is going to be cynicism surrounding this but > what we're saying to the world of science is come and prove us > wrong," said Steorn Chief Executive Sean McCarthy.
What nonsense. Why would anyone bother? > The concept of "free energy" -- which contradicts the first law of > thermodynamics that in layman's terms states you cannot get more > energy out than you put in -- has divided the scientific community > for centuries. No, it hasn't. First of all, if I recall correctly, in its thermodynamic form, it's less than two centuries old; but more importantly, for 150 years or so, there has been no division within the scientific community about conservation of energy. Supposing counterfactually that I had a perpetual-motion machine, I'd use the power output to make more of them, then sell them. I wouldn't need any scientific validation to do that. It's at least imaginable that there might be problems with the first model that would prevent this: - it might require too much maintenance (worn-out parts, for instance) to be economic to run; this problem should be easy to fix. - it might produce too little energy to pay back the cost of the machine (plus whatever energy input is required to get it started); this problem most likely indicates that the energy produced is a measurement error.
