Talk:Motionless electromagnetic generator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

/Archive00

[edit] To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards

This entire entry should be deleted. Its presence can serve only to damage further Wikipedia's claim to be a reliable source of information. At best, it should be listed under 'perpetual motion machines'. Most of the proponents of this device (some have already recanted) are followers of a chemist (M.W.Evans) who has done good work in the past, but has now become obsessed with his own theory of physics. Unfortunately, Evans cannot get physicists to agree with him. The usual technique of Evans' group is to 'baffle with science and perceived reputation'. The MEG makes cold fusion look sensible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.202.69 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of the section may need to be rewritten? Please list in bullet format. J. D. Redding 18:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you. In a perfect world (where everyone took freshman physics), this article would not be necessary, but once things like this gain notoriety, it makes sense to give them their own article (and if you doubt it has notoriety, try googling it). Other examples are Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell and The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. I think all of these articles have done a pretty good job of laying out the facts, and the only people who would believe the claims after reading the articles are, let's face it, going to believe this stuff no matter what you do. For the record, this is listed under category "perpetual motion". In any event, this article is unlikely to be deleted, so I suggest you concentrate on improving it.Prebys (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, using the tried and tested military strategy of attacking the target's defenders, I would suggest that believers should take a close look at the intellectual honesty of Thomas Bearden. He has taken to calling himself 'doctor'. Since his perceived scientific reputation counts a lot towards giving this worthless object any sort of validity in the eyes of the layman, he should be required to state exactly who awarded him that degree. This may be difficult, as it is common knowledge among the physics community that he bought it from a 'degree-mill'. If he contests this claim, it is up to him to offer concrete proof. I know that this point is made elsewhere, but it is a point which cannot be made too often! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.202.69 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, you're preaching to the choir here. Bearden's bogus "PhD" is noted on his page, and discussed at nauseating length on the associated TALK page. True believers dismiss the whole thing as an ad hominem attack, arguing that there that (a) there have been great scientists without PhD's and/or (b) Bearden might not have known that "Trinity College and University" was a degree mill and submitted a sincere PhD thesis (which for some reason he has kept secret). It makes no sense, but there you have it. I sympathize with your frustration. Bearden has made totally outlandish claims without a shred of evidence or integrity, and yet the burden somehow falls on the rest of us to "disprove" them. Nevertheless, in the spirit of Wikipedia, it's best to just lay out the facts. If the page were deleted, it would certainly not reduce the number of believers. A lot of us have concentrated on the Bearden page, which by now pretty "accurate" picture of him. Perhaps you should devote some time to nailing the lid on the coffin of the MEG.Prebys (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)