WWTBAM Bored

Stuff like this

new source of energy

Likely too good to be true, but if .....

James Randi's been on this one for at least 6 years:

http://www.randi.org/jr/061303.html

His first article about it was in 2002, when Blacklight's patent application was turned down by the US Patent Office, because for some reason, it presupposed that pretty much all of twentieth century physics is wrong, with absolutely no evidence whatever.

They claim that the device will generate power at ten times less cost than the cheapest coal, wind and nuclear power now.

This kind of wording always raises red flags for me on "scientific" claims. Let's see, if something costs 50% less, it's half price. If it costs 100% less, then it's free. If it costs "ten times less," that means, um, what exactly? Do I get a 900% rebate on what I would have spent on the alternative?

TheConfessor wrote:

They claim that the device will generate power at ten times less cost than the cheapest coal, wind and nuclear power now.

This kind of wording always raises red flags for me on "scientific" claims. Let's see, if something costs 50% less, it's half price. If it costs 100% less, then it's free. If it costs "ten times less," that means, um, what exactly? Do I get a 900% rebate on what I would have spent on the alternative?

"Ten Times Less" means 1/10th the cost.

Say it the opposite way. Coal/wind/solar costs ten times more. ($100 vs $10, for example.)