 |
There are currently, 165 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
|  |
Dump ZPEnergy
Posted on Sunday, July 15, 2001 @ 17:49:00 UTC by vlad
|
|
Dear Jonathan, As you know, here at ZPEnergy we value everybody’s opinion on the controversial but immensely important topic of Zero Point Energy. We were asking ourselves why would a presumably honest person be preoccupied to shut down this site "cold turkey". We think the following letter from a grad student at University of Maryland, Center for Superconductivity Research might be a good example and we took the liberty to insert our comments within his text to explain again why we do not share his opinion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Gubrud" mgubrud@squid.umd.edu>
To: jonathan@atomasoft.com>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 10:13 PM
Subject: your success
> Jon,
>
> I am very disappointed to see that you have not yet taken my advice to
> dump the zpe/free energy stuff from your network cold turkey.
Mark, you’re not alone but you’re persistent. You’re probably a young scientist and you should know by now that proof is what is required (and we are after), and not advice.
> Can it be that you are not in a position where you can just do this? Not
> if I understand anything about you. Yes, we confirm that Jonathan can do it anytime, if you convince him! The problem is that he is a young scientist too, with an open mind and a dilemma: Harold Aspden, Ph.D., a physicist like you, Thomas Bearden, nuclear physicist, Timothy Boyer, and Harold Puthoff, Ph.D.-s in physics and many other senior scientist have a different opinion than yours. With all due respect, why should Jon listen to your advice?
> It must be that you're thinking, "Hey, these guys are my partners, and > a lot of people say it's great that we're doing this, and some of them ", "> have money. What does Mark know? He's just this one grad student with an
> opinion." We don’t know what Jonathan is thinking, but we agree with your statements above. We don’t sell anything through ZPEnergy nor do we endorse anybody; we collect information as per our mission statement and facilitate contacts leaving interested parties to investigate further and decide for themselves the appropriate course of action.
> If that is what you're thinking, you are making a big mistake. Your
> ambition and determination and restless energy are your strengths. Not
> knowing a whole lot about the technical side of a technology business > you're trying to get established in is your weakness. Measuring ", "> everybody in terms of boot size is the trap you'll fall into.
Mark, you obviously read the mission statement and the section comments of the site you want dumped. We deliberately avoided the "why" a ZPE device works, the theory on how, etc., but we do want to know very well one thing : if it works or not! You, as a physicist know that there are various theories on what are and how inertia, gravity and magnetism intimately work, but that doesn’t prevent us from using them, to generate power for example. Let me put it this way: if someone dear to you has terminal cancer and you see the patients around him/her cured by a new experimental machine, what would you do?, a) get a doctorate in medicine, b) listen to the president of the Cancer Society who says this is pseudo-science or c) take the evidence as a fact and ask for your loved one to be treated? We consider the Earth as such a patient and hope a ZPE converter will emerge in time to save it, or better said to save us from self destruction. We don’t have time for futile debates with skeptics or believers; we’re only looking for evidence and provide information about it
> Believe me, all the people who are making money off "Free Energy" are con
> artists. Some of them are small-time, like Joseph Newman, some are
> big-time, like Randell Mills. Getting caught up with any of them is going
> to ruin your reputation in the real world of high technology.
Unfortunately you are right; the people who are making money of "Free Energy" are con artists and exposing them is also part of our mission. The real innovators though, don’t make a penny out of it yet; in many cases they’ve put everything they had or got from others in their experiments to try to make these devices good for public use. It seems it’s not that easy. You should know that Mark. We would like to buy a device with a Superconducting Electric Field Effect Transistor (your possible field of research) from Radio Shack, but there is none yet, even though you have been (and are) using millions of dollars in research grants! Does this make you a con artist? What if Bill Fogal brings his Charged Barrier Technology Transistor to the market first? Would you or your University feel guilty if accused of using the money for sophisticated labs and good salaries but no results? We think that should not be fair to you, because most of you scientists are doing your best and honestly believe in your work. What about the hot fusion scientists that have spend billions from public money (that could have been used to eradicate poverty or cleanup our toxic dumps, etc.) and who, for a couple of decades, claim every year they are just around the corner for the big break through to a limitless clean energy source? They sure look like big time artists to me. Do you think that the two big utilities PacifiCorp and Conectiv would decide to invest millions of dollars in Randell Mills without a qualified and thorough Technical Assessment Report on his BlackLight Power Inc.? Do you really believe that the former chair of your Physics and Astronomy departments, Robert Park and his "Voodoo Science" crusade is the only voice of reason we should listen to? What would the world look like if people would have had only listened to Lord Kelvin’s voice saying, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", cold turkey? I have a good friend who visited Randy last year and examined first hand his hydrino compounds and his power cell and conclued he’s on to something. He’s a Ph.D. in chemistry from an Eastern European country. Do you think that the former Soviet Union’s physics and chemistry science is of lower quality and rigor? Again, we don’t say Mills’ theory is correct, but we care less about that and more if what he produces is real. Would you be kind enough to share with us what do you have to prove Mills a fraud (beside Park’s statement that hydrinos are impossible, cold turkey). About Newman; we feel sorry for him and strongly feel his attitude doesn’t serve him to promote his energy machine at all. Again, we’re not interested if his theory is wrong or not. So far, the only reliable test performed by an independent lab seems to confirm his claims. JL Naudin built a Newman motor himself and posted the tests he conducted and the results on his web page for everybody to scrutinize at the following address: jlnaudin
Did you bother to do the same as Naudin in your much better equipped labs at the university before insulting Newman. Would you at least try, given the importance of the subject matter? Probably you just know he’s a small time crock and you don’t have time for this kind of crap! Now my favorite part 205 "Getting caught up with any of them is going to ruin your reputation in the real world of high technology." I can picture you Mark205a young ambitious lad so proud of being a scientist in the making that you probably have your university emblem even on your pajamas! Your real world of high technology obviously stops at a university border. This arrogance is notorious among the self proclaimed "real" scientists and responsible for countless battles between otherwise highly educated people (that have slowed down our scientific advancement with sometimes tragic consequences). We understand, envy is part of the human nature but we believe only the lack of character would let it grow to pathological proportions. The classic example of "the theory of the continental drift" comes to my mind. Here is a fragment (from the excellent mercatormag.com site) on what the real scientists did to Alfred Wegener and Marie Tharp: "The theory of continental drift was first advanced by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener in 1912. In one of the earliest and best examples of modern interdisciplinary science, Wegener amassed evidence from geography, geology, paleontology, and biology to propose that the continents were not fixed objects on the surface of the earth, but instead were analogous to icebergs, floating and drifting on top of the molten rocks of the earth’s mantle. 205 Both Wegener and his theory were immediately attacked. Many scientists resented this meteorological interloper on their turf. Others were troubled by his lack of evidence - not that drift may have occurred, but of the mechanism that could drive it. One prominent American scientist pronounced the theory "Utter, damned rot!" At Lamont, where Ewing was a loud and powerful skeptic, speaking out in favor of the theory would be an act of professional suicide. Heezen himself tried to dismiss Tharp’s rift valley as "girl talk." Sounds familiar? I rest my case. "These are tragic exceptions" Mark would say a little bit embarrassed (maybe). But we are seriously concerned the ZPE might be another one, this time with tragic consequences.
> Believe me, when your site reads, "...ZPE Most scientists agree this
> energy exists but many claim it can not be used for a practical purpose," > you put yourself, in any knowledgeable reader's mind, in the category of
> the amateurish lunatic fringe. When it says, "There are credible people
> out there saying that prototype devices doing just that, already exist.
> If that is true, we are here to help them prove it," it makes you look
> either naive or cynical and untrustworthy. If I am an investor looking at
> risky high technology propositions, and I see this kind of stuff on the
> website, I am not going to trust anything else I see.
Oops205 forgot about the "knowledgeable reader’s mind" who believes he is the possessor of all that is right and true205"amateurish lunatic fringe"205how about "utter, damned rot" Mark? Yes, we are naive if that’s what you call an open mind, and we thank God for that! We also believe eating organic is good for your health and that aliens smarter than us exist somewhere out there and its dangerously stupid to think otherwise! Would you invest in Dean Kamen’s controversial "IT" (code name Ginger) Mark? You know who did, right? Probably not, because he’s an engineer. What about some other inventions on his web site? Well, there are people making millions from Dean’s other stuff while you probably stay with your mutual fund investment (nothing wrong with that, really).
> I won't bother you again with this advice, but you should have the sense
> to listen to somebody who knows this from many years of observing the
> scene and who knows something about real science and technology. I have
> nothing to gain by helping you, except a certain perhaps misguided
> fondness having seen you casting around for a business venture and now
> apparently settling into something that looks like it could succeed.
>
> Good Luck, your friend,
>
> Mark
Jonathan, we don’t question that Mark knows something about "real science and technology" and that he observed the scene for many years (can’t be that many for a grad student!?). What we want to highlight is that "something" is not "everything" and "observing" is not "experimenting".
We think we have a healthy skepticism and we share with the hard core skeptics the "show me the evidence" concept but not the "it's more important to be clear than it is to be right" idea. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents in 1899 was very clear when he said "Everything that can be invented has been invented" but that didn’t make him right.
- Vlad
|
| |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5 Votes: 2

| |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Dump ZPEnergy (Score: 1) by Anonymous on Monday, July 16, 2001 @ 03:39:00 UTC | Mark
Gubrud (gubrud@squid.umd.edu) writes: I am sorry that Jon sent you my letter, which
was intended as private friendly advice. I have in the past engaged in discussions like this at great length, and I've
taken the time to investigate the whole "new energy" scene and to look at a number of the claims in depth. I am a graduate
student in physics, but I am older than most, and I've had a chance to see how things turn out years after. Besides,
pseudoscience has a long history; it's older than real science, in fact. So you can go back and look at a look history of
bullshit and fraud and draw your own conclusions. Years from now, you will be an old man. None of the free energy
miracles you're promoting here will have materialized. Randell Mills will either have gone to jail or taken the millions
he's raised from greedy suckers and skipped to some Caribbean shelter. Others will have risen and fallen in the same line
of business. So it goes. Since Jon sent you the first letter, I'll append the one I sent him after he suggested I should
argue with you. Which I am not going to do. But I will say this: If you or anyone has a new energy device that you are
absolutely certain really works, and you would like me to test and verify it, I would be willing to do so provided my
expenses are covered. Not only I, but a lot of people would. As you point out, there are lots of people, including
"credible" people with money or institutional connections, who are interested in this sort of stuff. The fact that they have
consistently failed to come up with demonstrable proof of any of these by now very old claims is, to my mind, the most
convincing evidence that none of them are valid. Jon, I'm sorry, I really don't have time to get into the
argument with Vlad, at least not right now. I'll tell you though, that I've wasted lots of time on such arguments in the
past. It never gets anywhere. You encounter lots of different kinds of people among the true believers, but I'll put them
into three categories here: * Weak or pathological minds that you can't argue with at all. * New Agers who
respond with beatific smiles and ask why you're so hostile. To them, it's all a matter of personal space. *
Pseudoscientists. They always have another paper that you should read, another report of someone somewhere who got some
amazing result sometime. They have theories you can't refute, findings by "credible" researchers, and it's all endless. If
you take any one claim and try to look at it in detail, you find that the inventor can't actually show you the machine, or
there's a problem with the way a measurement was done, that the theory is blatantly wrong (once you figure out what it's
saying), that you're dealing with a case of obvious fraud, or that the amazing result is actually some very ordinary
phenomenon that has been misinterpreted. It takes a fair amount of time to get to the bottom of any particular claim, and
when you do, the guy you're arguing with just cites something else. The bottom line is I'm sure I can't convince
Vlad and maybe I could convince you through such an argument but it would take a lot of time. You're going to have
to make a decision. All I can tell you is that I have looked at this stuff quite a bit in the past and I know what
I'm talking about. I think for you the most important point is that it makes your site look amateurish. |
|
|
Re: Dump ZPEnergy (Score: 1) by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 @ 00:40:00 UTC | vlad
(vlad@raw.net) writes: Mark, you're not only a real scientist but you're a clairvoyant too
(New Ager without knowing?). What's amazing is how certain (categorical and clear) you are about this future. Fortunately,
you physicists have a very poor track record in predicting the future ("Radio has no future" - Lord Kelvin). Better let the
SF writers do it for you. As you can see from our site's motto "When nothing is certain, everything is possible" we have
a difference of opinion on this one too. It wouldn't be hard for me to prove you wrong205 I would only have to ask you :
are you certain Mark? Because you're not a "week or pathological mind", a New Ager or (God forbid) a Pseudoscientist like
us, in your moment of honesty you will say: "Noouuu, but205..bla, bla". Let me give a twist to your scenario: "Years
from now, you will be an old man. Some of the free energy miracles we're promoting here will have materialized. Randell
Mills will either have gone to the Space Station or taken the millions he's raised from some smart investors and skipped to
some Caribbean shelter. Others will have risen and fallen in the same line of business. So it goes." You see Mark, what
you're fighting for is to protect the "greedy suckers" by killing a beautiful idea. The greedy suckers will find something
else to put their money into, possible drugs, arms, sex, you name it! But a beautiful idea is like a child; if you keep
saying "you can't do it" no wonder you get another Charles H. Duell! I prefer the risk of growing old with an unfulfilled
beautiful dream than that of the embarrassment of being one of the skeptic-inquisitors in a free energy world! Mark,
despite the fact that you hate us so much, we would like to help and give you the opportunity to share with the world your
findings from your time taken "to investigate the whole "new energy" scene and to look at a number of the claims in depth".
You know you can freely post in the "Testimonials" section all the claims you have looked at in depth and you want to debunk.
As hard as it is for you to understand and admit, we want to "throw the dirty water" from this field too205 but of course we
want to "keep the baby" when we spot it! I personally would be interested in your opinion on Peter Baumann's Testatika
machines which allegedly have been used for years by the Methernitha group in Linden, Switzerland. I haven't been able to
find any decent debunking info for that one. In the end I would like to thank you for your offer to test and verify "a new
energy device that you are absolutely certain really works". "Absolutely certain really" is probably too much and I don't
think your testing would matter in that case anyway. Covering your expenses is beyond us, but this message will be out and we
should hear from more experienced people a proper way to do it. Vlad |
|
|
Re: Dump ZPEnergy (Score: 1) by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 @ 02:15:00 UTC | Mark
Gubrud (gubrud@squid.umd.edu) writes: I offered to verify any claims (if it's paid
for; otherwise I'd spend the rest of my life chasing will-o-the-wisps) because that's all I can do. If you had something,
and I could verify it, that would be great! And if someone walked up to me and handed me a million dollars, that would be
great, too! But I am certain enough that neither is going to happen that I am not going to waste any time on either
fantasy. If you are a fool and want to waste your life on shit like this, or if you are a pathological parasite looking
for a few suckers to suck on, I can't stop you. One thing I know is you are one or the other, and from the tone of your
writing I suspect it's a mixture of both. All you have is words, words, words. None of the bullshit you are vomiting up
onto the web is new. It's all been swirling around for years and years, and no one can ever flush it dowm because people
keep swallowing and regurgitating more of it--all the same shit. ZPE, cold fusion, vortex blah blah... Tesla blah blah...
None of it is new and so where's your fucking free energy machine? You got it, show it to me. I am an honest man. But I
really doubt you are. If Jon wants to be an ass, I can't stop him, either. |
|
|
Re: Dump ZPEnergy (Score: 1) by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 @ 23:54:00 UTC | vlad
(vlad@raw.net) writes: Well, well205now we have a glimpse of the real Mark, the graduate
student. He would spit on me, or possible kill me if he could! Imagine him going to a civilized place like Linden,
Switzerland, steaming and trembling, his mouth foaming with invectives, to test Testatika machine! What is that beast ?,
would have been a legitimate question in those people's minds. I suspect you're an unstable individual and I don't want
you to have a stroke. Not because you're of any perceivable value (from what you showed us so far205even Tesla is shit for
you) but because I don't want you to miss even that minute chance you think there is for a device tapping the zero point
energy field to be perfected in your life time. If we're still here, I and all the people who read this will think of you
then; and you will know it! I told you what you can do to post your in depth/extensive research in the ZPE field as you
claim you have. I also told you where one of the possible "fucking free energy machine" is (a couple more are mentioned on
this site) for you to scientifically debunk and consequently, bring some value to your presence here. But of course, the only
thing you're interested in is money. That's probably why you shifted to nanotechnology205billions of $ of easy government
money "real scientists - grant suckers" flock to instantly! What's left for these kids like Jonathan and his partners, who
did all this work for free, after school?205calling them asses! The irony is that even there, ZPE will stare you in the
face205look at the new NASA sponsored "Vacuum fluctuation tap" project.Mark, it's easy to shit and fuck all over, and
you're good at that, I admit. This site has a purpose and I have no time to go to the slum you want to drag me into. And
don't worry about me and my life. Waking people up is not a big deal but it's not a wasted time either. John O'Malley
Bockris (physicist) once said: "The public is a lot more powerful than special interest groups. But the public is asleep."
To prove that we're both honest men we should stop here with dignity. Good bye Mark. Vlad |
|
|
Re: Dump ZPEnergy (Score: 1) by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 @ 21:22:00 UTC | Sean
Sullivan (seansullivan@lineone.net) writes: Hello everyone! I have just sent
Mark (AKA Doubting Thomas)some of Tom Bearden's material on extacting and using electromagnetic energy from the
vacuum. If he is as clever as he likes to think he is, the light should fially go on for him now - assuming that he is
willing to read the material.Only through an open mind can we see the truth. Best Wishes, Sean. |
|
|
Re: Dump ZPEnergy (Score: 1) by Anonymous on Sunday, August 12, 2001 @ 23:07:00 UTC | Jonathan Després (jonathan@atomasoft.com) writes: Hi, (Sorry, my second language
is ENGLISH). Something I can see for the future of the energical market is "the perfect solar collector". It would be good
to get a very powerful, free energy (the so called ZPE) but in my head we won't use the same tools in the future than today
and so we will need to get the energy in a different way, as in the leafs of a tree. We don't want to use big and black
wires lines! We want to see this energy spreading on every dusts.. with software in and then get powerful, more complex and
better tools using nanotechnology, so there is a future in the energy market, I see some nanocells able to collects photons.
In space it will be more good too. So here you can see the future of energy, if we have all the energy for free but
nothing to put with this energy.. I mean why we need so much energy if we don't use powerful or more complex/smart machines
with? Smart machines will come with nanotech and usually we are the most greatest thing in this universe, we humans, and we
don't use so much of energy, and we have several natural molecular machines. --Jon |
|
|
|
|