A couple of years ago now, the company Steorn (here), made a big media hoo-ha about their theory that they had discovered a method, using magnets, via which free energy could be generated, while developing camera technology.

The claim was greeted with, shall we say, considerable scepticism not only within the scientific community, but also beyond, because it violated one of the most basic claims of Physics - the conservation of energy.

Time passed and Steorn advertised for an independent scientific jury to verify their claims, which was duly appointed. A subsequent planned demonstration of the technology was cancelled at the last minute and things have gone a bit quiet since, with not quite so many incautious claims about how the progenitors of the miracle free-energy technology could benefit humanity.

It's a fun scientific story, and the claims seem overwhelmingly likely to be false, but it's interesting to see how reputation works in the scientific world and poses some serious questions about how much effort should be spent on verifying or falsifying extraordinary or outlandish scientific claims. When a claim contradicts the fundamental tenets of a discipline, but promises massive fringe benefits, is that a good reason to deploy lots of resources on the small chance the claim is true or is a reason to sit back and ignore it?