UnNews talk:New company to solve all energy problems and global warming

Much of the humor of this article is that the science is sound but for the fact it ignores some of the laws of thermodynamics, making it funny in the sense that it has the ring of truth. Don’t try to make it funnier by throwing in random BS such as flux capacitors, warp fields, Oscar Wilde, Brownian motion powered dildos, etc. If you don’t understand all of what is said, remember that articles can be different things to different people. I just hope it is funny.

Constructive criticism is welcome. I'm new at submitting news stories Verp 10:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That was impressive. But don't dis my Brownian motion powered dildo... grr --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 07:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a mechanical engineer and I must admit, this is a wonderful article. We need more of this type of thing; thank you so much! — Ben pcc 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

Holy magillicuddy, that's a long UnNews! I truly like the concept, and I love that you've made it so damn sciencey. However, there are a bunch of things missing from this that could take it from the plane of passable UnNews to truly great UnNews (in my opinion). I'm 'a lay them out for you, because I'm a nice guy:

1. It's too long

   What I mean by that is this; there's no law against UnNewses that are as long as this, but this is going beyond the realm of length and crossing the line into rambling territory. That mega-quote at the bottom can certainly be condensed, which is something I'm going to cover more in depth in my next point:

2. Quotes should be approximately even with the reporter's voice

   There is hardly any actual "reporting" being done in here; it reads as a gargantuan quote with summation sentences interspersed within. Instead of doing this, try to have the reporter (ie: you) paraphrase what the scientist is saying in reporter-y style.

3. It could use some more jokes

   I know, I know, you're gonna kill me for this, but hear me out. I can tell the places where you were trying to lighten the mood (I’ll have a monopoly that will make Bill Gates look like an owner of a small motel out in the desert in middle of nowhere. springs to mind), but it all reads as very clinical. There's really nothing that makes this funny for someone with little to no outside knowledge of the scientific world. In fact, it looks rather like a pseudo-scientific journal report. I love subtelty, but what you're suffering from here is a major overdose of subtlety. I'm going to tell you one way you can do this without inserting references to the "Brownian noise" (yukyukyukyukyuk).

   As I mentioned, the reporter needs to say more. However, related to this is that the reporter has to be something. The way it is now, you've got two straight men. There's no interplay between the straight-man scientist (whose "jokes" sound more like helpful metaphors to make us understand better) and the straight-man reporter; you can't have Martin with himself, you need Lewis to make it funny. Try to make the reporter a skeptic who's trying to subtly point out that all of this seems vewwy vewwy suspicious.

4. It needs a picture

   Hell, it may even need two or three. Consider adding level 3 headers (===Three equal signs===) to break it into logical sections. This is all to help the reader, because organization, formatting, and accessability are big parts of whether a reader stays to finish the piece.

All of these are, of course, my personal opine. Take them or leave them, or spit on them and toss them to the dogs. Doesn't matter to me so much. I can understand if you want to keep it subtler-than-subtle, but even if you change nothing in the text, add a picture or two.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User Friendliness

I'm not sure if you did this intentionally or not, but I think you struck the PERFECT balance between technobabble and ABC. I'm a normal person, and I understood almost every word of it. It's a good concept, and might actually work for a while before the ambient temperature of the world drops below absolute zero.

Second law of thermodynamics guarantees that it would have 0% efficiency unless the thingys picking up the Brownian motion were at a lower temperature to begin with. -Ben pcc 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you all for the compliments and constructive criticism. Sadly, I have a life so I've not had a chance to apply the criticism. I will use it, however in the future and I will keep you all posted on the exploits of Bill Jake. (If anyone knows where I can bullshit do technical writing for a living, let me know. I've also thought about science fiction and fantasy writing.)

Grak! Verp 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, what have I done?

Right after I submitted the article, I had the realization that in coming up with a fictional, utterly useless device that would seemingly solve all the words problems, some people would take it seriously. That it might degenerate into an urban legend of technology ruthlessly crushed under the thumb of Machiavellian conspiracies of big oil and God knows who else. Also, it would be wonderful con artist fodder. I got this recently;

Hello,

My name is Marck. I frequently check Uncyclopedia now and again because it brightens my day. However, when I stumbled across your Un-News article on Brownian Motors, I was taken aback! I have been interested in the application potential for these devices and, although I am not a scientist by any means, have been studying them extensively for some time. My research has lead me to confer with numerous respected sources on the subject, and as an entrepreneur of sorts, it is my goal to create a scenario similar to the one you jokingly described in your article with Brownian motion technology capable of producing electrical currents strong enough to replace the current dirty and inefficient carbon-based fuels we now use. I wonder, do you have any background in the application of these devices? Are you a scientist or a research fellow? If so, then know that we are looking for all of the expertise we can get our hands on. The potential for this technology is limitless, but we need vision. We need someone to look into the future and see a world which was not there before.

Thank you,

Marck Goldstein

Kogod School of Business

American University

Washington, DC

Mg5146a@american.edu

Verp 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds exploitable. UnNews it! --The Dit 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)