“Officially, it was postponed because speakers were afraid to travel during the war in Iraq, its organizers say. But as calls go unanswered and sponsors' refunds fail to arrive, some of those who signed up to attend wonder whether the World Nanotechnology Summit had never existed in the first place...”

“‘If this was a scam, it was done very professionally,’ said Vic Kley, president of General Nanotechnology…”

Statements such as: “Industry veterans say that despite the organizers' sudden appearance on the nano scene, the group made a solid impression…The list of speakers eventually recruited reads like a who's who of the nanotech set…” prove nobody is immune from scams no matter how “seasoned” or vigilant they are. “According to e-mail from the organizers, people signed up in droves to attend at prices ranging from a little over $1,000 to more than $2,000 apiece…”

We also learn from the article that those who paid for anything through Acteva, a third-party facilitator of online event registrations, have been issued refunds but “…for those who sent checks directly to Emerging Technologies or wired funds to its Silicon Valley Bank account, it's a waiting game – for a check in the mail or for information about a rescheduled event.” This is good to remember! Maybe such agencies could and should be set up to “interface” with the general public willing to “help/invest” in new “close to the edge” energy research. Their mission would be to better screen all the candidates and minimize the chances for scams to get through as well as encouraging support for legitimate promising inventions by protecting the public’s hard earned cash.

New revolutionary energy devices are also “emerging technologies”! Even though this field of research is far from the hype and official support nanotechnology has got in the recent past, a breakthrough here (i.e. a FE-O/U device validated) has a far more “Earth shattering” economical impact and consequently, investment appeal.

Can we, as a News Web-Portal, avoid these situations in the future and be somehow “smarter” than many experienced people and companies in the field who still fall, from time to time, for ingenious scams? A realistic answer is NO if we want to continue to report important news on the controversial topic we deal with. We are not mainstream media and don’t have their resources but neither their rules nor biases (and don’t want to!). Often, we are mainstream media’s “other side of the story”. We believe some things are/will be possible that very few in the mainstream science and media do.

We prefer to report and follow up on important news, such as the Edison device for example, as long as there is still a reasonable chance it might be legit. We inform our readers of both pro and con points of view because we value their intelligence to make the best personal decision based on all the information available. We have no intention of serving the interest of any skeptic or promo groups and censor the information in one way or another. But we admit we rely mostly on our readers to research the issue and report their findings. But in the end, as we can learn something even from a bad book so we should learn the lesson from a bad investment too (ours or others).

We believe one day abundant, clean and free (almost) energy will be extracted from the vacuum/environment/space directly through electromagnetic devices or indirectly through LEN reactions. We’ll do whatever it takes to bring the good news to the public as soon as we’re aware of it, even if so far we seem to be overly enthusiastic!