 |
There are currently, 122 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Why 'Free-Energy' Investigation Makes Sense
Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 @ 18:35:18 UTC by vlad
|
|
Chris Zell writes (free_energy yahoo list): It is likely that 99% of the devices claimed to provide 'free-energy' are fakes or simply the result of measurement errors.
.. but if that was true, we would still be wise to explore the remaining 1%, wouldn't we?
The idea that no useful device could exist because of lack of development seems to be sheer nonsense to me. Market forces are powerful - but not perfect, in bringing practical inventions into public view. Just because you can't buy it at Walmart, doesn't mean it was never real.
There are a number of inventions that may have been "forgotten" simply because of poor timing, no money or just bad luck such as the Bourke engine or Farnsworth's Multipactor tubes.
Let me expand on the money factor: development costs can be high enough to bury a useful technology. If the technology is sufficiently radical, funding may be prevented by 'sneer review' - in which ridicule blocks the entry of potential venture capital - and if you can't visualize strong profit emergence , you can forget about market forces completely. I've seen breathtaking results of seaweed extracts against cancer reported by Japanese researchers. I doubt you'll ever see a product brought to market.
I found similar results in my search for a multiple sclerosis treatment: cheap effective therapies lie dormant while expensive drugs ( i.e. profitable drugs) are brought to market. The Swank diet and linoleic acid were barely looked at while interferon was tested ad nauseum. It happens.
I once read that every system of knowledge is also a system of ignorance - depending on what gets excluded as 'impossible'. Meteorites were once thought to be frauds because everyone knew that stones couldn't fall from the sky.
Finally, we need to consider an analogous situation that easily involves the same - or even greater intensive analysis by humans: the stock market! I defy anyone to attempt to reason that this field of knowledge involves less intense research and brainpower than science. Now, you wouldn't expect to ever find a "perfect" stock, just sitting there, unbought at a low price, would you?
And yet it does happen! I held shares of Continental Homes for some time - which were hugely profitable , with solid fundamentals, and great projections for future growth. At one point, the P/E ratio was 4 ( !!!!!).
The stock just laid there, dead in the water because everyone "knew" it was a poor investment! No one of any note bothered to investigate any further! Eventually, I doubled my money - and read the messages on internet investment boards that said things like "why on earth was this stock so cheap? Why didn't somebody see this????".
The world isn't perfect. Consider the remarkable "1%" that just might lie out there - unappreciated, "impossible" undeveloped ...
|
| |
|
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: 3
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Why 'Free-Energy' Investigation Makes Sense (Score: 1)
by Marv on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 @ 20:00:23 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I quite agree with you Chris. The CMOS oscillator, bilateral gate, charge pump circuit I have been developing has slowly been improved to the point it self-runs. There are those out there who know of it, but they don't see it as competition, or an immediate cash-cow for them.
Developers ignore it--even the sceptics are myopic enough to demand anything they look at produce a kilowatt, even as most technical electrodynamicists have not witnessed one real ZPE microwatt.
Naysayers, skepts and developers are real. And must be very busy with those 1KV machines they set their limits on.
A chain of command cannot be pushed, so must be pulled by a leader who knows his own craft very well. One of them will be the technologist who places a purely electrodynamic solution into the hands of the common world energy consumer.
|
Re: Why 'Free-Energy' Investigation Makes Sense (Score: 1)
by pulsed_ignition on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 @ 20:50:59 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://diamondlube.com | You mean, All things common among friends - don't you?
Chris
|
]
|
|
If you come up with a revolutionary scientific idea (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 @ 20:20:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | In the free_energy yahoo group Tom Schum writes: I keep trucking out the same old slogans....
If you come up with a revolutionary scientific idea, you can deal with it as a scientist, or as an inventor.
A scientist would merely publish. If other scientists can duplicate the results, the world is enriched. The originator of the idea then becomes famous, and is first in line for research grants, book publishers are friendly, etc. Basically, he is set for life. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
An inventor usually conceals all the important data about the "innovation" so no one can duplicate it (they say Dean did this in his patents, to protect his ideas). Then he tries to get rich. If he fails then the world is all the poorer, and the inventor dies many years later, probably penniless. If he succeeds, that would be great: The inventor is rich, and the world is enriched by his invention. Chances are, the successful inventor will spend the rest of his life in court, prosecuting patant infringers. It sounds pretty dismal to me, but if that is your favorite activity, go for it!
Tom Schum |
Re: If you come up with a revolutionary scientific idea (Score: 1)
by pulsed_ignition on Thursday, December 30, 2004 @ 10:07:40 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://diamondlube.com | I have hidden nothing in my patent, that is why so many people are copying it in their patents. Other people expect knowledge to be given to them without cost and without expending effort to understand on the part of the receiver. New technology also has unknown dangers, but keep copying it and you will discover what I mean all by yourself, after all - what could I possibly know about it?
Chris |
]
Re: If you come up with a revolutionary scientific idea (Score: 1)
by JAB on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 @ 07:47:07 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | My invention is a personal aircraft of a new kind, it is patented in the US and UK. Nothing is hidden and a very complete discription is published in the internet under www.hoverplanes.org with pictures of concept proving models and links to patents etc.
I am in the middle of building a full size machine in a workshop near Valleyfield Quebec, with my own funds. However this is not a small gadget and additional funds are needed, even if the prototype is as successful as the models I do not expect to become an instant millionaire, even after nine years of development.
Use of a viable Minato motor would revolutionize personal aircraft which would then use no gas or roadways other than the driveway. Also this aircraft is one of the few hovering machines that is stable in hover ! There has been no reaction from aircraft professionals.
Even though we may have only scratched the surface of ZPE potential this subject is going to become extremely important despite the disinterest of governments and scientists.
Myron B Evans theory (see AIAS) that the assumption of a longitudinal B(3) field would allow MEG operation has been refuted by Gerhard W. Brun of Darmstadt and if anyone knows of another possibility, such as a theory based on the Casimir effect let me know.
John Austen-Brown |
]
|
|
Re: Why 'Free-Energy' Investigation Makes Sense (Score: 1)
by Rothhaar on Thursday, December 30, 2004 @ 13:59:46 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I have a book entitled, "Electric Motors and Control Techniques," by Irving M. Gottlieb. It's a very mainstream book - I see it for sale at Barnes & Noble all the time. I have no idea if any college professors use it for their classes. It makes a good introduction to the subject, though. Anyway, in one of the early chapters, Gottlieb has a section called, "Attempts to produce motor action from permanent magnets." In this section he writes:
"... the best result that can be achieved is transient rotary motion, after which the sectors lock in position. No one has yet succeeded in producing continuous rotary motion from the interplay of force fields from permanent magnets alone! However, such failure is not due to the same reason why perpetual motion cannot be brought about. It is, rather, a matter of "switching logic." At an appropriate instant in the momentary turning motion, something would have to be done to prevent the oncoming condition of "lock-up." Devising such an arrangement could be an interesting project for long winter evenings."
So here's a respected mainstream technology writer saying essentially that free energy is not impossible, just a complex puzzle waiting to be solved. |
|
|
Re: Why 'Free-Energy' Investigation Makes Sense (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Friday, December 31, 2004 @ 20:25:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | A very good point, how much easier it would be if that 99% wouldn't waste their time and ours by trying to pull wool over us with their scams.
At this point the tricksters should realise there's enough technical savy by interested parties NOT to be fooled by their claims. Fraud can be dispatched easily by carefull measurement or analysis.
Free up serious research time by not scamming us. We've seen it all, calorimetry never lies. |
|
|
|
|
