Still bad reporting though. Some journalists still haven't learned to google 
That, to my mind, is actually the more harmful and far-reaching crime here. The reporter simply took
de Beer’s word for it without bothering to cross-check against a reliable source, e.g.
Wikipedia or a physicist or an engineer at a university. (I am also quite suspicious of
de Beer’s being labelled an “engineer,” rather than a “technician,” which former term should only be applied to university graduates.) On the other hand, as
AAH suggests, it is extremely unlikely that an article will appear that will describe the inevitable and utter failure to meet expectations of
de Beer’s woo-woo device. Thus, it is similarly unlikely, I think, that the original article would have been published at all without the wow!-factor (as in, “Hey, free energy for all!” and SA’s current situation in that regard) if the reporter and editor had, in fact, done their rather easy research homework properly. Who’d want to read an article titled, “
Kragkrisis lank nog met ons – nes die natuurwette!” Actually, who wouldn’t?
This issue is also peripherally relevant to
this thread.
'Luthon64
