[Disclaimer: This particular essay was insufficiently researched by me, and should not be taken at face value. Although I still maintain the position that such a device is highly unlikely to work (with what research I did do on the paper), I admit that I made too early and too harsh a judgement.]

According to James Randi's website, a patent has recently been issued for Tom Bearden's so-called free energy device, the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG). It promises to provide 2.5 kilowatts of electricity for free, forever. Normally, such devices are accompanied by pseudoscientific babble designed to sound just complicated enough to fool people. Tom's contemporary and fellow free-energy hawker, Dennis Lee, is almost purely out for the money and is very unlikely to believe his machines actually work. Tom, on the other hand, seems to actually believe in the science that powers his ideas, having published a paper (not being a physicist, I have no idea how credible the journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" is) that explains his underlying theories.

At first glance, the paper seems legit, with symbols familiar to any physics student and equations that are hardly distinguishable from those in real papers. But upon closer inspection, it turns out he's using an "alternative" theory of physics, set forth by someone named Lehnert. Conveniently enough, this "O3 electrodynamics" permits the use of magnetic waves in vacuum at no cost, something impermissible by conventional Maxwell-derived physics. Tom seems intelligent enough, and may even be a real physicist. What would lead him to try out alternative physics? Is it really greed, or does he believe in his own genius so much that he feels venturing to the fringes of theoretical physics might prove productive? Perhaps it is a little of both. Either way, he seems to fit Martin Gardner's classification of the "hermit scientist," who truly is intelligent, but is misled by self-delusion and by his mistrust of other scientists. It all supports the notion that science is interdependent, relying on the critique and revisions of others to correct errors in judgement and practice. When a scientist becomes detatched from that, it can be disasterous.  ¶ 12:52 AM