…I’ve bookmarked your website and is going to back

If spammers are going to post comments like this, the least they could do is use coherent english.

        JB said:

I yet to read anyones opinion that has support to back their opinioniated claims, as yours Finrod fall with in the same catagories. I would love to debate subjects of the matter, but would need to find someone knowledgeable enough to debate other then express alleged claims. Have a wonderful weekend

Whatever, man. It’s your town. You have a good weekend too.

It is fairly clear that the conversation you’ve quoted from was a bit of chitchat between Odessa locals, not a scholarly disputation between academics, so I’m not sure why anyone expected themadscientist to come up with a peer-reviewed scientific paper on it. By the way, for what it’s worth, themadscientist is spot on. Manna is a scam.

http://skepticblog.org/2010/03/08/another-energy-scam/

http://www.trailswestgrapevine.com/forums/display_topic/id_635/page_1/

        JB said:

The below material was taken from another forum in which themadscientist as he likes to call himself makes scientfic claims to the Magnetic Technology, that he nor anyone else has done the proper testing and research to support such claims

You haven’t linked to the post in question, or explained themadscientist’s position in enough detail for anyone to really get what your talking about here.

Dear Mr. Mad Scientist:

You’ve written standard internet polemics, but have not written a scientific paper. Manna of Utah will succeed and hire people here, or it won’t. The outcome will matter, but the pre-outcome debate won’t. I’m not offended that you have an opinion, and have no reason to think you’re wrong or right, but I do wish you wouldn’t make science look bad by claiming more than you’re doing.

A scientific writing has three parts. Part one is to write a testable hypothesis. You’ve done the hypothesis part for Manna’s generators, but it could be tough to do a real test without having either a working generator or some help from Manna.

Part two of a scientific paper is to describe the hypothesis test methods and results. I think you’ve given us three bits of evidence, none of them scientifically valid. One of the evidences in your links is that many people agree with your hypothesis, but that’s not really evidence; many people also once agreed that night air caused malaria.

Your other tests allege violations of the accepted thermodynamic principle that it isn’t possible to create energy. One of the ways you come at that is to say Manna people claim the generator isn’t a perpetual motion machine, so therefore it must be. That notion requires an assumption you didn’t prove. You also say that because you can’t think of any way the machine could work without creating energy, it can’t work. But pure ignorance isn’t a test. I don’t understand how computers work either, but we know they do.

After writing a hypothesis and describing test results, a scientific paper will discuss possible conclusions that can be based on the results. Since you have neither real tests nor real results, you’re left with an unproven hypothesis, or an opinion.

Finally, it’s fine for you to have an opinion and to express it. It isn’t fine to confuse opinion with science.

Duh.