William Beaty wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> The battery is puzzling, but they do not hide it, so I do not see how
> it could be part of a scam.
Buy lots of Magniwork kits. After all, they promise a refund, and that
proves it cannot be a scam! :)
But seriously, if scammers can find a way to make their scam appear less
scammy, they will do so. I imagine them thinking "Aha, I know. I'll just
feature the battery prominently. Then the marks will leap to the
conclusion that it can't be part of the scam."
> Mark Iverson wrote:
>
> >so it should be easy to demonstrate that this thing could be kept
> >running for weeks, months when it should draw down the battery in a
> >matter of days...
Minutes, not days ...if supercaps were used instead of a battery.
If it can be shown conclusively that the battery is connected only to
the control electronics, and it does not power the motor, then it
might as well be a D cell battery. For that matter, it might as well
be a DC power supply. Strictly from an engineering point of view, it
would not make the thing more convincing to have the motor generate
electricity which recharges the D cell battery. That would only
complicate the design.
I suppose it would feel more authentic to have the thing running
entirely without a battery, and it would be somewhat more convincing.
But the claim will not be really convincing until the devices are
independently replicated and examined by 5 or 10 groups other than
Steorn, or at least until several groups get a chance to examine
copies of the machine and measure input and output energy more
rigorously than Steorn has done. I am not holding my breath expecting
that to happen.
For now, I think a D cell is not a big issue. There are so many ways
to fake it, and they have done such a poor job of presenting the
device, the battery hardly affects their credibility.
- Jed
