How to rate a scientific breakthrough:
(shout-out to the Crackpot Index
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html and Defense Tech)
1) Promises a “revolution in energy production” or seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics "We don't yet understand how".Add 50 points. Add 25 points for claims of a “infinitely renewable.” Add 5 points for each time any derivative of the word “transformation” is used in promotional materials describing the device.
2) Is supposedly based on a “new” innovation, yet on closer examination, there are myriad examples of attempts using similar ideas in the past.Add 10 points for each case of a similar idea in the past. Add another 15 points, for each case inventor/company was unaware of this earlier attempt, and thus failed to learn from past mistakes.
3) Lacks a realistic operational scenario of where or how such a device could be used.Add 25 points. Add 15 points if inventor/company describes an operational scenario, but it has no relation to power transmission technology (i.e. microwave transmitter to your car).
4) The usability of the device assumes as yet unproven leaps in technology to reduce size, power generation or other critical elements.Add 15 points for each needed technological advance.
5) The idea comes from someone who is unfamiliar with power generation or power electronics.Add 15 points (this is slightly subjective, so add only five points if having toured a power plant, but never involved in any power generation matters). Add 20 points if experience is derived from working in your garage.
6) Incorporates references to and/or inspiration from Star Trek, Star Wars, Buck Rogers, or video games.Add 10 points for Star Trek, 5 points for Star Wars, 3 points for Buck Rogers, and 2 points for video games (regardless whether XBox or Playstation II).
7) Inventor/company argues that people also once doubted the feasibility of a nuclear energy, as if that automatically means that this device will work and/or is deserving of nearly unlimited funding.Add 25 points. Also add 20 points if similar references are made to the Einstein, Thomas Edison or lightbulbs.
8 ) Claims foreign countries are working hard on this technology, and could overtake the United States if we don’t invest in it (without proof of such work).Add 10 points for claiming Russia is working on the same type of device, 20 points for China, 30 points for North Korea, and 5 points for the French. Score extra 100 points if claim is that extraterrestrial life forms are working on it or use it (in fact, stop now if that’s the case – trust me, that’s a stupid concept).
9) Claims foreign governments have contacted inventor/company about buying the device and/or idea (but with no actual sales).Add 10 points.
10 ) Relies on PowerPoint in lieu of engineering details to demonstrate workability.Add 5 points for each cartoon depiction of technology not yet in existence.
11) References to previous funding as proof the idea is valid, because we all know that everything funded will work.Add 5 points.
12) When presented with possible scientific laws that the device – as proposed – might violate, inventor/company simply insists the device works, and it’s up to the scientists to explain how.
Add 35 points.
13) Cost of the device (please include nonrecurring costs if the device doesn’t yet exist), exceeds that of similar one currently in inventory by a factor of 10.Add 20 points for each factor of 10. Add another 5 points if you assert that costs will come down with mass production without being able to cite evidence for demand and/or how much those costs would be reduced.
14) Any proof the device works is openly paraded to the media, but questions about problems with the device are rebuffed by claims that the information is “classified” or “proprietary.”Add 25 points.
15) Claims that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlikeAdd 40 points. Bonus 35 points if a world-wide challenge is offered. Triple bonus if the technical details will only be released to "a few selected experts".
Topic: Energy Breakthrough, Hoax, or Pure BS? (Read 6622 times)