3

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/26599/is-bat-gen-a-viable-technology?noredirect=1#comment97719_26599

Just because the question used "thermodynamic law" when I wrote it, does not make it a duplicate of something that IS a perpetuum mobile. The reason I asked it in the first place is that I cannot judge if it is consuming anything to generate energy. It seems it is, hence no violation

| |
  • I agree that it's not a dupe, the technology appears to be based on a photo-chemical process and is in no way a perpetual motion machine. – Johnny Jan 31 '15 at 1:06
-1

Originally, you asked if it was a perpetual motion machine. That has been answered in general in the question this was marked as a duplicate of.

Secondly, you changed it to ask if it was viable: not a dupe anymore, but certainly an overly vague question. Does "viable" mean that it can be built? That it works? That it is economical? Which claim are you skeptical of? Is it a factual, notable claim? If not, we won't be able to answer.

Finally, you are asking "What makes Bat Gen work?", which is off topic on this site. because it's not about a claim.

Here are a couple of resources to help you write better questions, this site is different from other sites in the network. so I suggest you read them if you haven't done so already:

Thanks for bringing this up in meta, and happy continuation.


So a fourth version just came in. I think it's not answerable and off topic (sorry!).

  1. The title question seems to be simply written in error: it is asking about what claims "Bat Gen" is making, not whether they are correct. The question is about the claims themselves and assumes there's no doubt about them. Which is which?

  2. The question asks about theoretical chemistry and as such it's off topic here and on topic on http://chemistry.stackexchange.com. We know absolutely nothing about how something would work. This site is to verify, for example, if it has been observed to work, in practice.

  3. There's the last question that may be viable, but not without eliminating all the rest: "Is the article describing the process in a misleading way?" This we can answer, but probably you'd still get a better answer at http://chemistry.stackexchange.com, since you probably have all the evidence available and you need expertise in interpreting it, not finding it.

| |
  • 1
    Thanks for the answer. IMNHO the FAQ is vaguer than any of my versions of the question. I will delete it very soon regardless of the 4 upvotes if it cannot pass your seemingly single scrutiny. Perhaps others could be allowed to consider if it should be put on hold or are you the only moderator here? – mplungjan Jan 31 '15 at 17:36
  • It's not a single scrutiny: every user with at least 3000 rep can vote to reopen. So far, there are no reopen votes. – Sklivvz Jan 31 '15 at 17:41
  • 1
    I voted to reopen once already. Then you closed it a second time, but I'm not allowed vote again/twice. Now that nico has edited it I've flagged it FYA in case you can reopen it. – ChrisW Jan 31 '15 at 18:08
  • I also looked over this question. The title is confusing. I went to edit it into something meaningful, but I wasn't sure what that should be. The key idea in the quoted text that is probably the only important claim (and would be better answered on Chemistry.SE) is that they can liberate energy when splitting water molecules. That sounds like a fraudulent claim to me. Chemistry.SE would be the best place to investigate it. – Oddthinking Feb 1 '15 at 2:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .