By: Dan Ceppa Re: Perpetual Hoax Machine For those of you that have been wondering what St

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: Dan Ceppa Re: Perpetual Hoax Machine For those of you that have been wondering what Stewart Harris has been up to: * Originally By: Jeff Sterling * Originally To: Stewart Harris * Originally Re: Perpetual Hoax Machine * Original Area: Science(fido * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12 JS> Ah! So the mass is suspended by magnetic field lines instead of JS> string. So what makes this "system" different from just hanging it JS> from the rafters with a string? SH> If you cannot understand the difference, I certainly am not smart SH> enough to explain it to you. I understand the difference (or lack of difference) quite well. I wanted to see if you do. Stewart. I'm going to be quite frank with you and not pull any punches. I think (my own personal opinion) that you know more science than you let on. I think you know perfectly well your device is nothing more than a clever hoax. I think you are a con artist. SH> Besides, I am frightened of Moderators. I wear two hats on this echo. One is a moderator hat and one is an ordinary user hat. When I'm wearing my ordinary user hat (which is most of the time) I'm just like everybody else on this echo. When I'm wearing my moderator hat, I put "Moderator Message" on the subject line and "Science Echo Moderator" in a signature line. Besides, the moderator reads every message that appears on this echo, whether it is addressed to him or not. If you have -reason- to fear the moderator, you won't avoid a problem by not conversing with him directly. In actuality, it is my ordinary user guise that you should fear more than the moderator. The moderator only enforces the rules. If you don't break the rules, you have nothing to fear from him. As an ordinary user, however, I have no qualms against unloading both barrels at you if I think you are being dishonest! Read on: JS> Oh, I get it! Your method is unique because the magnetic field lines JS> are invisible, right? Why not just suspend your mass underwater JS> using clear monofilament fishing line? Then it would look even more JS> impressive... no magnets to give the trick away! SH> Can't say if it is unique. I do know there is no literature describing SH> movement of a mass parallel to the lines of force. The literature and SH> objections from the scientists at the patent office, DOE, and Bureau of SH> Standards all refer solely to movement of a mass perpendicular to the SH> lines of force. If you have some literature, I would appreciate a SH> reference to same. Ok. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, under the word AURORA: "a luminous phenomenon... caused by the emission of light from atoms excited by electrons accelerated *ALONG* the planet's magnetic field lines" (emphasis added). If I can find a reference to this in an ordinary dictionary, it seems highly unlikely, to me, that you "know there is no literature describing movement of a mass parallel to the lines of force." In fact, I think most grade-school science books include a picture of a bar magnet under a piece of paper covered with iron filings lined up *ALONG* the magnetic field lines of the magnet. If you think about this, any object that is attracted to the magnet is most strongly attracted to the poles where those field lines are most concentrated. Therefore, any object that moves toward the magnet as a consequence of its magnetism is moving *ALONG* ("parallel to") the field lines. Your claim, and incidental argument by authority, does not stand up to even the most cursory of investigations! This, IMO, indicates that you know full well that your statement is not true... you're just hoping no one will check it out since you referenced "scientists at the patent office, DOE, and Bureau of Standards." In fact, if one were to check with those scientists I'll bet every one of them would tell you that objects move along magnetic field lines all the time! I think you are perfectly aware of that and are just trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes with your (false) appeals to authority. Furthermore, as a test of my claim that you are a con artist, I predict that you will now feign indignant resentment at the suggestion that you might be less than pure as the driven snow and honest as the day is long, and will appeal to the masses' sympathy for a poor guy who is just struggling to understand the science behind his device which you will swear works as advertised. If you are legit, you should own-up to your mistake and admit that you never checked any literature, or give us the names, addresses and phone numbers of those "scientists" you claim never heard of masses moving parallel to magnetic field lines! JS> Yep! Just like the fishing line! Stronger than G, no apparent JS> motion, and completely invisible under water! Wow! What a trick! SH> Didn't say it was under water, but it will do it under water, if you SH> insist. Now you are simply trying to confuse the issue by completely misrepresenting my statement which I have absolutely no doubt you actually understood as well as anybody else on this echo. My reference was to MONOFILAMENT FISHING LINE, which is invisible underwater. I did not say your magnetic device was or should be underwater. SH> (I don't understand your reference to fishing line. Are you SH> saying there is some form of attachment between the pillar and SH> the mass? Absolutely: The magnetic field lines that "attach" the mass to the magnets that are holding it up! Furthermore, I think you understood that perfectly well, and your statement that you did not is an intentional falsehood. JS> Me too! I call mine a "water wheel" and use it to grind corn. I JS> can't patent my device, either... the patent office used some silly JS> term like "public domain" (whatever that means) and said it's because JS> the device has been around for too long. Heck, it's not fair! JS> What's a few thousands of years got to do with it? SH> You misunderstood my intent. I stated that by setting it up using SH> water, I will be able to get a patent. So fairness does not enter into SH> it at all any longer. SH> And if it has been around for so long, we are a stupid race for not SH> having put it to use before now. You are being intentionally dense. A typical con. The rest of your three-part post is, in my opinion, just more of the same: intentional stupidity, misdirection, and outright dishonesty. The scientific reasons why your "device" will not and cannot work as advertised have been more than adequately explained to you, both this time and a year or so ago, the first time you attempted to pull this snow job. It didn't work then and it won't work now. I will not dignify you or your device by furthering this reply. WARNING TO ALL WHO ARE READING THIS POST: I FEEL THAT STEWART HARRIS IS A CON MAN TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING HE HAS INVENTED A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE. THIS IS STRICTLY MY OPINION, AND I HAVE NO PROOF OF SUCH, HOWEVER YOU ARE BEING WARNED THAT YOU READ ANY POSTS OF HIS AT YOUR OWN RISK! IF YOU FALL FOR THIS CRAP, IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! * OLX 2.1 * Honesty pays, but not enough for some. -!- ! Origin: The Bear's Cave Titusville FL 407-383-9372 V34/VFC/H16 (1:374/73) * Origin: Ten Forward BBS, The Olympic Peninsula. (1:350/401.0)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank