Talk:Stefan Marinov

Looking for ads

Did someone find the published advertisement in Nature? In my search I cannot find it as published, and I have the impression that Marinov's intended publication in Nature has been rejected. Is it so? Can someone provide a copy from Nature with the exact advertisement? Danko Georgiev MD 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I also looked for the ad., but could not find it. However, I was looking at bound library volumes. Librarians usually discard the advertizing pages at the beginning and end of each magazine issue. It is possible that Nature craftily published such an ad., knowing that universities would discard it and that it would not remain as an 'embarrassment to posterity'. On the other hand New Scientist, with its well-known shamefully low editorial standards, published a paid ad. from Marinov which was several pages long and could easily have been mistaken for a genuine article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.83.107 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Heartily second that remark on the standards of New Scientist.137.205.183.109 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This guy was hysterical! Bonus points for anyone who can find which issue of Nature his advertisements were in! brain 07:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maddox, John. (July 12, 1990). Nature. Stefan Marinov's seasonal puzzle. (Bulgarian physicist) Volume 346; Issue 6280; Pg. 103
• Kooistra, Jeffery D. (Feb. 1, 1999). Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Volume 119; Issue 2; Pg. 83. (writing, "An unusual electric motor designed by Stefan Marinov seems to show some deficiencies in current electromagnetic theory. The motor, which is made up of a magnetic rectangular torus inside a metal ring, was found to rotate even if traditional electromagnetic theory predicts that it would not.")
• Kooistra, Jeffrey D. (Feb. 1, 1999) Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Volume 120; Issue 2; Pg. 83. (writing, "A man named Stefan Marinov tried to design and construct a motor that reportedly self-accelerated and violated the law of energy conservation. The motor, which integrated a reversed motor and a torus, supported a number of inadequacies regarding electromagnetic theory.")
  • isn't it interesting that these two references have very similar articles, on the same page, on the same issue, of two separate volumes? Maybe they are actually the same issue with a typo or something? Can you remember where these came from so I can check? brain 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• There is a Mexican Olympic diving coach named Stefan Marinov.

-- Jreferee 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • not him! This Marinov was Bulgarian. brain 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Some additional research you may want to review [1], [2], [3]-- Jreferee 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to help

Hello I am trying to help to clear up the mess in the article. The biography can be recovered by Bulgarian sources, which are reliable, and so I have just filled the correct birth date, etc. Also I have seen some bias as if Marinov is without whatsoever contributions to physics, yet I have full access to reasonable papers publsihed by the "early Marinov" that appeared in reputable journals. Possibly my guess is there is "late Marinov" where all these works on free energy appeared, but they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. So I would like to suggest to divide the article into two halfes - early vs. late Marinov. As it happens in science many other scientists have such periods of good contributions to science, and late in life due to some disease to claim exactly the opposite of their early science, or push to the extreme their theories etx. One such example is Rudolf Virchow who has brilliant contributions to medicine, yet never believed in Darwinian evolution of humans from monkeys, and did a lot of things to stop/oppose/rebut the evolutionists. Danko Georgiev MD 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

It might seem close-minded, but I feel that it would greatly simplify the editorial task of Wikipedia if all biographies of anyone who has espoused perpetual motion or anti-gravity as being possible (or already available but 'suppressed') were to be systematically deleted. The presence of such biographies can only serve to confuse and misinform members of the general public. There is nothing wrong with mentioning such people, in the entry on perpetual motion itself, as being sad victims of that delusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.83.107 (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The "research" section portrays Marinov as successfull etc and his critics as the Spanish Inquisition. This in no way matches (a) the actual reception of his ideas and (n) how physics works. --Pjacobi 18:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should be conformed to some nurtral point of view, so far noone has reported disproof results, nor there has been report of the so called SLET vs. relativity testing, i.e. search for weak relativity violations [see proposals in "Experiments to Detect Possible Weak Violations of Special Relativity", by A.K.A. Maciel and J. Tiomno, Physical Review Letters 1985; 55(2): 143-146.] One of the worst journal politics is the one that forbids publishing of "negative results", so if one has tested SLET vs. relativity and has indeed found that relativity is correct, no journal will be interested to publish such a "obvious thing". Marinov himself tried to test Ampere's formula in EM, vs, so called Marinov "toy model" within which perpetuum mobile machines can be built. After very sophisticated research and numerous experiments Marinov himself published in Deutsche Physik [the last issue] that Ampere's formula is correct so the perpetuum mobile machines DID NOT work, as they should work according to the toy model. So, most of Marinov's friends believe this was the cause for suicide. Nevertheless, Marinov was extremely honest person and with good education in physics and detailed knowledge in both theoretical and experimental side. In previous versions of the Wiki-article he was described as "crazy idiot", and indeed he is exactly the opposite - Marinov is the person who has investigated all possible perpetuum mobile devices, and is the person who revealed greatest number of FRAUDS in the perpetuum mobile machine inventors. So, one should have idea of what Marinov was as a person, and what were his interests, and I don't think that the critiques are like the Spanish Inquisition. Indeed Marinov himself was too critical for a lot of other works. Danko Georgiev MD 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if one finds published works on SLET vs. relativity experimental tests, this will be good for the whole article, and the mentioned papers should be inserted as references, etc. If however one cannot find such experimental tests [indeed Maciel and Tiomno proposed many good experiments to be done] I am quite skeptic that one can be certain that weak violations of relativity are not "there". Remember the famous Hawking radiation from black holes is connected with light velovity uncertainty in QM. Without published works, how one can be sure that Marinov did not report really measurable effects in his peer-reviewed papers [see the refs in the main article]? Danko Georgiev MD 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the text on Marinov's work on perpetuum mobile machines. The case with the SLET vs. relativity is little bit difficult. In various not top rated physical journals are frequently published violations of relativity. However I cannot find a top rated journal that has published SLET vs. relativity tests showing that relativity is correct. If one can provide sources, or links to such published works, please post them here. Danko Georgiev MD 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am QUESTIONING the "neutrality tag"? Is the information incorrect? No. Did Marinov published in peer-reviewed journal, inclusing Phys. Letts. series? Yes. Are there SLET vs. relativity tests published? I cannot find. Please find the necessary published relativity vs. SLET tests, then add them as references, and then delete the tag. Everything written does NOT represent my own beliefs whether relativity is correct or wrong. Indeed I think tests, if made, should disprove SLET. But who knows? Danko Georgiev MD 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This attitude bring you and the article nowhere. You surely know, that the more bizarre the claim, the less likely it is anybody bothers to publish a refutation.

As in the usual cases of proofing a negative, we have to look to what extent the thesis has been picked up.

Furthermore the different phases of M's works should be more emphasized out: From more mainstream, but without much response, to full fringe. This is a typical pattern of bad science.

Pjacobi 09:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming here from Wikiproject Physics. It's obvious at a glace to any working physicist that this stuff is fringe science. There's nothing wrong with having an article about the guy or his research, but the theories need to be presented as something far from mainstream. It would be very helpful if we could find a citable source evaluating the work (perhaps even from a historian?), but even if that's not available, we can rely on common knowledge to label this fringe science. Keep in mind the policies on notability for whether or not Wikipedia should cover these theories---I think they're probably not notable enough to deserve much space. Three recommendations: 1) change the emphasis of the article from the theories to the biography of the man, describing the progression of his research as Pjacobi suggested; 2) work on improving the English grammar, which right now is really quite bad; 3) remember to stay polite and cooperative on the talk page---we're all working together to try and write a good encyclopedia. Cheers, Gnixon 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello thank you for the comments. I have improved the article in sense that before my edits, all the information was gathered from yellow press. Now I have added information from published sources, and I have provided refs with DOI to the original articles. Indeed I got interest in Marinov just because he is bulgarian scientist, and because of his tragic suicide. Otherwise I do NOT want to promote viewpoint that relativity is wrong. I personally like general relativity. However the mentioned paper in Phys. Rev. Letts. on SLET suggests that relativity might be tested, but I cannot find follow ups. All known top rated articles test relativity vs. Newtonian physics, and in not top rated journals you can find a lot of anti-relativistic papers. So how one can resolve such a situation - majority of published articles support Marinov but are not in top rated journals, the journals with high impact factor just "ignore" the SLET vs. relativity testing idea, because the claimed relativity violation is "small" and in 1980's with was just on the border of sensitivity of the various measuring devices. Well, if you have sources on SLET vs. relativity tests it will be nice. Also before my edits Marinov was described as "crazy idiot" doing pseudoscience, yet he is surely scientist investigating various "toy models" and HIMSELF disproved a lot of perpetuum mobile machines, inclusing his own SYBERIAN COLIU machine [I already have inserted this text]. Usually frauds do not publish self-disprovals, but Marinov did. I think this is evidence that Marinov was interested in fringe science, but as it seems from his published works, he is honest scientist. Danko Georgiev MD 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s. During the period I was editing the article some of the text on relativity is written anonymously by expert in relativity field - I cannot reveal his identity as the person wanted to be anonymous and did not register to Wikipedia. Yet, I know that the person himself has published several advanced textbooks on relativity, and is professor in mathematics, works in USA. All my edits, are assigned to my account. Danko Georgiev MD 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there still a POV dispute?? I don't think so. If not, the POV tag should be removed 83.78.30.213 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no POV issue, so I will remove the POV template. The article concludes that Marinov himself found that his theory is wrong and committed suicide. There is nothing more objective than this. Danko Georgiev (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I explained below why perpetual motion is not reason for deleting this article; only lack of notability is.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

CALL FOR DELETION

This entry should be immediately deleted. Articles like this one make Wiki a laughing-stock among scientists, and generally undermine what little respect remains to Wiki among intelligent people as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.198.46 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The article introduction and conclusion states that Marinov himself found that his theory is wrong and committed suicide. If you go to the article perpetual motion you will see a bunch of other scientists who thought that this is possible. This is part of the history and should not be deleted. If such research has not been done, the law for conservation of energy would have never been discovered! Danko Georgiev (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-scientists really should come to grips with the concept that it is quite possible for someone to acquire impressive academic credentials and find employment at a high-tech company or university without in fact understanding certain aspects of physics. A prime example is electromagnetic induction, which is much more subtle in nature than standard textbooks would suggest. Special relativity often has to be invoked in order to explain fully phenomena which occur at very slow speeds! Moreover, static circuits can possess electromagnetic momentum and current circuits can have static charges associated with them. The 'academics' who are unaware of these subtleties are always the ones who 'discover exceptions to accepted laws'. This is why peer-review is essential - and why laymen should be kept away from new, 'undigested', research results. A fact is not a fact until the majority of scientists accepts it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.104.102 (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because they made perpetual motion claims doesn’t mean the article should be deleted; by your criteria, the very article perpetual motion arguably ought to be deleted. Wikipedia’s main criteria here is notability; see also Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Also, “laymen should be kept away from new, 'undigested', research results” doesn’t make sense. Laymen (laypeople, to be gender-neutral) have full freedom to follow new, fringe research if they want to. Plenty of people read Galileo’s works before scientists fully accepted heliocentrism. I myself have read Occult Ether Physics; Pentagon Aliens; and Occult Science Dictatorship by William R. Lyne of New Mexico; not to be confused with Sir William John Lyne (1844-1913), Premier of New South Wales; or William Lyne Wilson (1843-1900) of West Virginia. In the books, Lyne claims that free energy is being suppressed to fraudulently protect Big Oil and suchlike; and flying saucers are really electromagnetic anti-gravity aircraft, invented by Nikola Tesla but suppressed because they would run so many vested interests (e.g. airplane manufacturers, or Big Oil [they consume no jet fuel]) out of business, and are secretly flown by governments. William R. Lyne’s claims are plausible if you consider the obvious and almost infinite potential for corruption, given the sheer size of Big Oil alone. Therefore I believe his claims; while you fellow Wikipedians may or may not. (Lyne says all three of his books were self-published, because Lyne was being suppressed so hard that he had no choice.)

Note: While Quackwatch writes that “Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney.”, this is an obvious lie. The potential for corruption is obvious; such technologies are going to be ruthlessly suppressed if they have any validity. Same with Lyne’s claims.

Your idea of keeping laypeople away from fringe research sounds too much like censorship.

Also, I distrust peer-review; it is an obvious and effective tool for suppression of dissent; all it takes is a peer-reviewer who disagrees with you, which is usually the case if a majority of relevant scientists disagree with your theory. Consider Galileo, Semmelweis, etc.

Btw, I am not advocating an article on William R. Lyne of New Mexico; such an article, as I said, would only be appropriate if Lyne is judged to be sufficiently notable, which may or may not be the case.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Marinov DIDN'T KNOW the secret of the Testatika !

The reference from Dr.Bass given (http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_5_2.html) is conflicting with what Marinov himself always claimed (see The Thorny Way of Truth vol.V and also several Italian articles on local magazines like Frigidaire n.108: http://digilander.libero.it/altraenergia/testa1.html): Marinov after all always acted honestly and politely before a so much controversal fact; he did test the little Testatika machines by Baumann, he was photographed with them and he also reported that Baumann tried to explain him the principle of his machines, but always using a little understandable and unscientific language - thus Marinov ALWAYS ADMITTED he never understood the principle ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.123.46 (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned out

I removed Categories “Pseudoscientists” and “Pseudoscience” as inappropriate. The former because no such category exists. The latter because (a) it is a Contentious label; (b) it is, in the opinion of me and many if not most people, a very stigmatizing label, and so should be used sparingly; (c) articles on real people are normally placed directly in said category. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

I am wondering who put this non-sense label? It is clearly written in the article that Marinov has died on 15 July 1997 (aged 66). Danko Georgiev (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)