2
$\begingroup$

Today I had a question closed, about some researches of Dr. Bruce de Palma, in Depalma Free Energy fields. The reason of closing the question was "This work bears all the hallmarks of being completely bogus, and accordingly I think this needs to be closed as off topic. If people disagree, this can be discussed on Physics Meta.".

However, I think the question should not be closed, due to what I really desired to discover is if these researches are or not false. There are uncountable unformal references to N-Machine by De Palma, but it's difficult to find formal references online in scientific databases (and sure they could be offline hidden in universities papers). Maybe I did not write the question clearly, so I could re-write it. So, is this site the right place for asking this kind of thing? Thank you for you time.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

I've never heard of of this person nor this machine.

That in and of itself means almost nothing, but combined with the web sites which appear to be self citations and the rather strong claim of "free energy" I am skeptical.

Toward finding reputable references

Try arXiv.com for recent papers.

That said, the arXiv is not peer reviewed and has only the weakest of gate-keeping, so if you find some papers there look to see if they have attached publication data pointing to a reputable, peer reviewed journal.

You could also look at the cited-by list to find links from peer reviewed papers

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. I agree. Thanks (also) for the arXiv.com suggestion. $\endgroup$
    – Rego
    Oct 25, 2011 at 11:25
1
$\begingroup$

I've been thinking about this and I haven't really been able to justify the closing to myself particularly well, so I went back and reopened it, but with some edits to clarify the question.

There's a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to questions about bogus research, even just to ask whether the claims make sense. On one hand any mention of such research that isn't shut down immediately can be exploited by the crackpots to try to increase their legitimacy, but on the other hand it is nice to be able to inform people about the true nature of these claims. Ordinarily I've been on the side of letting the questions stay, but the way yours was written, it seemed especially iffy... I'm not sure exactly why though.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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