FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4300269626> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4300269626 endingPage "1150" @default.
• W4300269626 startingPage "1135" @default.
• W4300269626 abstract "Robert L. Park Fraud in Science IT WAS A POPULAR MYTH IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE TWENTIETH century that scientists like Einstein, perhaps befuddled by the compli­ cated mathematics they rely on, had abandoned common sense. It was, after all, the steam engine that created the Industrial Revolution, and a skilled mechanic could understand and construct a steam engine using common sense, without ever having heard ofthe laws ofthermodynam­ ics. What the world needed was more of this sort of “practical” science. Einstein’s E = me2 seemed to have of no practical application—until the bomb was dropped a half-century later. Many people with “practi­ cal” skills in mechanics sought to be the first to defy modern science by constructing a perpetual motion device that would not only run continuously, but even do useful work. So many patents were sought for perpetual-motion devices that it began to interfere with the work of the US Patent Office (Ord-Hume, 1977). At that time inventers seeking a patent were required to submit a working model of their invention. In 1911 the commissioner of patents ruled that, if the patent was for a perpetual motion device, the working model would have to be filed with the Patent Office for one year; if at the end of the year the device was still running, a patent application would be accepted. That effectively ended efforts to patent perpetual motion devices, but the Patent Office stopped requiring working models of new inven­ tions years ago. The quest for perpetual motion, however—now usually This article was largely drawn from two books by Robert L. Park: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (2000) and Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science (2008). social research Vol 75 : No 4 : Winter 2008 1135 referred to as “free energy”—had never quite gone away. It began again in earnest in 1984 when the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather carried the story of Joseph Newman, a mechanic with a grade-school educa­ tion in the backwoods hamlet of Lucedale, Mississippi (Park, 2000:1-7). Newman claimed to have invented an “energy machine” that produced more energy than it took to run it. “Put one in your house,” he prom­ ised, “and you’ll never have to pay another electric bill.” Dan Rather, the CBS News anchor described Joe Newman as “a self-taught genius.” JOE NEWMAN AND THE ENERGY MACHINE The US Patent Office saw it differently, refusing Newman a patent “with­ out even looking at it,” as Newman put it. As was his right, Newman sued Commissioner of Patents Thomas Quigg to force him to issue a patent. District Court Judge Robert Penfield Jackson, acknowledging that he was not a scientist (something Dan Rather should have done), adjourned the trial for a year, during which he sought information from various universities, including the University of Mississippi. He returned quoting the laws of thermodynamics, and ordered Newman to turn his “energy machine” over to the National Bureau of Standards for testing. Newman vigorously protested the order, even though several years earlier, before going public with his invention, Newman had tried unsuccessfully to get the Bureau of Standards to test the energy machine. The Bureau of Standards found the device to be a motor genera­ tor of a design far inferior to motor generators available commercially. This is sometimes referred to as failing the “K-Mart test.” Now armed with the first law ofthermodynamics, Judge Jackson decided the case in favor of the Patent Office. Judge Jackson’s decision in Newman v. Quigg accomplished two things: first, it gave case law authority to the Patent Office to reject perpetual motion claims out of hand. More important, it provided a precedent for federal courts to serve as “gatekeepers,” screening out speculative or ill-founded science, a role that would subsequently be required of federal judges by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Daubert v. Dow Pharmaceuticals. 1136 social research Joe Newman, by now a popular figure in Mississippi, wasn’t quite through. He persuaded the two powerful senators from Mississippi, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, to introduce a private-reliefbill that would force the Patent..." @default.
• W4300269626 created "2022-10-03" @default.
• W4300269626 creator A5051469952 @default.
• W4300269626 date "2008-12-01" @default.
• W4300269626 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4300269626 title "Fraud in Science" @default.
• W4300269626 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2008.0010" @default.
• W4300269626 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W4300269626 type Work @default.
• W4300269626 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W4300269626 countsByYear W43002696262013 @default.
• W4300269626 countsByYear W43002696262017 @default.
• W4300269626 countsByYear W43002696262020 @default.
• W4300269626 countsByYear W43002696262023 @default.
• W4300269626 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4300269626 hasAuthorship W4300269626A5051469952 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C146846114 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C2776377115 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C2780801425 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C37914503 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C517468935 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C127413603 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C144024400 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C146846114 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C17744445 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C199360897 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C199539241 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C2776377115 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C2780801425 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C33923547 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C37914503 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C41008148 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C517468935 @default.
• W4300269626 hasConceptScore W4300269626C78519656 @default.
• W4300269626 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4300269626 hasLocation W43002696261 @default.
• W4300269626 hasOpenAccess W4300269626 @default.
• W4300269626 hasPrimaryLocation W43002696261 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W2006884396 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W2253207904 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W2374154611 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W2475428362 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W2487572420 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W2809102872 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W4294190918 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W566072665 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W93867703 @default.
• W4300269626 hasRelatedWork W187391444 @default.
• W4300269626 hasVolume "75" @default.
• W4300269626 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4300269626 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4300269626 workType "article" @default.