PREVIOUSLY: « Captain Jack and Real Science  Free Chemistry Magazines »


Free cure-alls

Posted in Health, Science at 4:00 pm by David Bradley -- 5 Comments; add your comment

Free cure-allsAs I think I’ve mentioned before, I get a lot of emails from people claiming to have solved all the worlds environmental problems through some perpetual motion device or similar. These are not the usual run of the mill spam messages, they are usually targeted at me as a science journalist and talk of big solutions and the potential for a Time cover, a Pulitzer or some other grand prize. If they were sent by snailmail I suspect the majority would be written in lurid green ink.

Some of these claims seem to reach global proportions as we’ve seen with the Steorn research, which is yet to bear fruit, although on July 4, Steorn announced it was planning to demo its results publicly; they are yet to materialise, in fact they were delayed to July 5, and at the time of writing had still not been shown.

For some of the more intriguing of these emails, I created a new section on SciScoop to cover and discuss just such controversial conjectures. I have also highlighted several odd scientific claims some time ago on Sciencebase too, purely for your amusement.

Anyway, those emails continue to arrive, within the last week or two I have had one claiming the amazing powers of an electrical device that seems to create energy from nothing. It strikes me and several energy scientists I spoke to as being nothing more than the electrical equivalent of Bhaskara’s wheel, although the inventor
has
every faith
in his product
the inventor has every faith in his product. Good luck to him, I hope it works out.

I know several academics who are always more than willing to assist inventors with bizarre claims…for a fee. They delight in showing up the obvious flaws in an argument. I should send a pharmacology professor the most recent message I received, which claims to cure almost every form of cancer, despite cancer being simply an umbrella term for a massively diverse range of diseases. The email told of a very simple, small molecule, there is no targeting, and no clue as to a mode of action. I suspect the research runs along the lines of another unrelated compound that was popular on bad medicine sites about five years ago. I won’t name either compound for fear of giving them some kind of credence here or inspiring anyone to go looking.

Many of these emails claim that the invention precludes understanding, somehow lies beyond current scientific understanding, and often defies well-proven laws of nature.

Science and medicine do occasionally enter the realms
of paradigm shifts
Science and medicine do occasionally enter the realms of paradigm shifts, big changes to theory arise, but despite the popular perception these do not often, if ever, come in a single Eureka moment; even the eponymous event concerning Archimedes in his bath is almost certainly apocryphal and a brilliant piece of science popularisation. Moreover, no apple fell on Newton’s head, instead years of observations and the development of a new theory gave rise to his theory of gravitation. Likewise, although Einstein is credited with the theory of relativity, there were other theories around and he built his work on the solid experimental results from the latter half of the nineteenth and early twentieth century to gradually evolve Newton’s ideas at the cosmic scale.

It would perhaps be nice to imagine that there is a quickfix to our energy needs, a universal panacea for our ills, a maverick theory that explains life, the universe and everything, free cure-alls for everything, in fact. But, there isn’t. While, I occasionally draft a quick write-up for Sciencebase on the basis of some of the more plausible of those tantalizing emails with extravagant claims, more often, input from well-respected contacts in academia directs me, once again, to the overflowing Controversial Conjectures folder. Such emails are ultimately filed here for posterity. Whether or not the Steorn case turns out to be fit for this slot, we will have to wait patiently to see. As I said, their advertised demo is not yet available for display and their “offices” are closed for technical reasons. The latest word on the Steorn site is that overhead lighting caused device heating problems and Steorn has now decided to postpone the demonstration until further notice.

Anyone care to draw the obvious conclusion from that?

Newsfeed

5 Comments »

  1. Mitch said,

    July 6, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    The kind of loony-toony people I get at my site are of the conspiracy theorists variety.

    Mitch


  2. DV82XL said,

    July 6, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    What always amuses me is that it would seem that no matter how often these scams turn to dust, there is an endless supply of people that are willing to buy into the next one. Dave mentions that he gets a number of breathless claims via e-mail due to his position as a science journalist, and in this naturally he is not alone. I remember with fondness that the venerable Scientific American (in a crueler time) used to devote the letters department of its April edition to a selection of some of the best that they had received during the year.

    Of course the Web has given these folks a much larger, and less critical audience. Charlatans too abound, taking advantage of a large flock to fleece. Herein lies the biggest problem; they have created an environment where a legitimate breakthrough has a much higher bar to jump before it is recognised as legitimate. LENR is the obvious example of this at work. I’m not going to debate the existence of these reactions, however SOMETHING interesting is happening that should be examined in detail if only for a greater understanding of hydrogen sorption, an important issue in structural engineering for aerospace and nuclear power as well as hydrogen fuel research. However between the mountebanks and the deluded it takes a brave researcher indeed to devote a career to this field.

    Perhaps it is time for a sharper response to these claims of ‘free energy.’ One hopes that any investor in the Steorn nonsense reacts by charging the principals with fraud, or at least a failure of due diligence when results fail to materialize. Let’s hope too that whatever agency in Éire that has oversight in these matters comes down hard on them as well.


  3. Mitch said,

    July 10, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    seen this yet? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6283374.stm


  4. David Bradley said,

    July 10, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    Yep, I saw that got referenced on Digg…but the BBC only published July 9, well after my July 6 blog entry. I guess they didn’t dare say out loud what everyone else was thinking and I said Friday ;-)


  5. David Bradley said,

    September 10, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Latest controversial conjecture to arrive in my inbox came from Portugal via Hotmail with the subject - New Relativity Theory. Always a sucker for a good laugh I had a quick read rather than consigning it immediately to the folder marked “Fagales” (true nuts)…

    Apparently, light speed in a vacuum, contrary to well-established principles, varies with frequency at the atomic, sub-atomic, and macroscopic scales for low frequencies. A spurious proportionality constant is given to help us understand this new principle. And, of course, there is the ubiquitous claim that physicists just don’t understand:

    To quote from the associated proof: “As the physicists are using the Einstein’s value to calibrate the spectrometers, no one can detect the wrong value.”

    Anyone who’d like to see the full paper and associated links can email or leave a comment and I’ll kindly do the needful…


Comments: What are your thoughts on this? Leave a comment

You can use <b>, <i> and add a link or two using <a href="">. All comments are checked for spam before they appear.

Related Science Articles: