After his recent story on Ottawa-area inventor Thane Heins, reporter Tyler Hamilton's inbox was flooded with email.

The criticisms:

Many readers didn't like – actually, "angrily condemned" – the fact that the term "perpetual motion" was used in the story as a possible description of this phenomenon. The story also alluded to the fact that Heins, 46, a trained chef who dropped out of college and is mildly dyslexic, suspects he has broken a law of physics.

Here's a sample of comments:

"I'm sick and tired of the lack of critical evaluation of scientific reporting. You made a boring story interesting to the ignorant populous by saying perpetual motion. You are unethical and are at the front of the problem. This is why nut jobs don't believe in global warming, evolution and medicine."

"If you had any understanding of the rigour of the scientific method, you would recognize the folly of such half-baked claims as made by the inventor of this latest machine. Such articles add fuel to the religious fundamentalists who grossly misinterpret science to justify such monstrous ideas as `intelligent design' and creationism."

"You have a degree in journalism, don't you?"

"A story like this is more appropriate for an April 1st publication."

Hamilton responds: "The story was never presented as a science feature. It appeared in the business section as a profile of a man who is struggling to build a business out of an invention that nobody is able to clearly explain, including an electromagnetic expert at MIT, or is willing to believe. His marriage is broken. He's strapped for cash. He's driven, with help from the University of Ottawa, to earn credibility for his invention and prove his skeptics wrong.

"Most of all, he's presented as a sympathetic figure up against a rigid world of scientific consensus. Whether Heins is right or wrong, the question is whether his story – and his claims, no matter what you think of them – deserves to be told."

The skeptics:

These folks weren't as dismissive. They were more constructive, or simply unimpressed. Some questioned the accuracy of the tools Heins is using to measure the effects he's observing. Others understood it as a hysteresis effect. Some poked fun at hints of perpetual motion, but still saw value in the creation.

"I think that it is a brilliant experiment. Although it does not provide `free' energy, and it may not even provide a way to spend energy more economically, it could still be very useful."

"Why not focus on the real benefits in terms of energy efficiency rather than making it look like some crackpot's claim that he violates thermodynamics?"

"I am willing to meet him and see his innovation, and will try my best to explain for him what is happening. I am trying to keep an open mind, but he is damaging his life, his reputation, and he needs some help."

The supportive:

Most of the email was positive. Students, amateur scientists, technology professionals and average readers alike were genuinely impressed with Heins' determination in the face of doubt. Are they the "ignorant populous" as some critics believe? Perhaps. But maybe they're just willing to believe that the world as we know it is not fully discovered or explained. They're willing to hold out hope. And dozens wanted to contact Heins directly to see a demonstration, collaborate, or help him raise money for further research and validation.

"I would like to express sincerely my respect for people who are not afraid to experiment like this. A lot of interesting and very useful technologies have been invented in basements by people like (Heins)."

"Mr. Heins is to be applauded for his intestinal fortitude both for sticking at it and for taking the chance to be proven wrong."

"I believe we sometimes miss things because we are constrained by the notion that we already know everything there is to know. The truly great minds of the world always challenge the status quo."

Source: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/306530

First story: Turning physics on its ear