|
There are currently, 126 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Should a free/open/reputable international FE technology testing organization be established?
yes (why?...comment pls) | 91.03% (142) | no | 8.97% (14) |
Total Votes: 156
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls ] |
|
"Should a free/open/reputable international FE technology testing organization be established?" | Login/Create an Account | 8 comments |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE tech. test (Score: 1) by solaris on Sunday, March 25, 2007 @ 23:19:43 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Because academics will laugh you in the face when you bring a FE device for testing, private labs will cost you an arm and a leg (and you don't know who they work for), the government labs will do it and say nothing, but you'll "feel" it immediately if you have something ...why do you think none of the hundreds various FE technologies invented so far have been "officially" tested yet? (looking forward to see what Steorn does).
If you can set up an international organization led by well known, open minded scientists, well funded by responsible people and organizations from all over the world (with branches in most countries) with a stated mission to provide open access to all inventors of alleged revolutionary but unconventional technologies to have their devices honestly & properly (scientifically) tested for free, this world would have FE and possible gravity control in no time. How you can make and keep this organization work for the people is a much more complicated issue. Any suggestions?
|
Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE tech. test (Score: 1) by Veryskeptical on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 @ 05:56:45 UTC (User Info | Send a Message ) | I would like to agree with you that a special testing lab for free energy devices is a good step. However, the free energy movement needs to consider the political dimension more carefully. A political action arm of some sort to promote a new public dialogue. Unreasoning skeptics in the opposing camp should be confronted. The public should be picqued in any way possible to take an interest in new energy devices. Assumptions about solar power, wind power, fuel cells and other darlings of the conservation movement could be attacked as foolish and destructive in the face of far better alternatives. Conservation could be challanged as unecessary, foolish and extravagant in its parsimonious concerns. At some point it should be possible to force the opposition to respond. The resulting fight would force the issue into the public consciousness. I have long thought the free energy movement has a political problem to face even more than a scientific problem.
|
] Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE tech. test (Score: 1) by modernsteam on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 @ 08:22:45 UTC (User Info | Send a Message ) | As a F-E lay-person, we'd still have to demonstrate a successfully
self-running F-E device to prove our point. We can condemn conventional
renewables ad nauseum, as being very inadequate, but the conventional
skeptics will rightly demand that we "put all our cards on the table".
The expression, "Show me the self-running device!" might be justified,
in that case.
Hal Ade
|
]
Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE tech. test (Score: 1) by modernsteam on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 @ 08:18:19 UTC (User Info | Send a Message ) | Ideally, the invention could be tested "for free", but somebody
somewhere has to pay the cost. Either the testers do it pro bono and
the lab equipment is loaned without rental cost, or the costs are paid
probably by taxpayers in one or more sovereign nations. There are
estimated to be hundreds of F-E device claims, and I've learned through
my involvement in the F-E movement over the past 11 years or so, that
most devices which appear to work at first, "wind down" after awhile,
like a
toy train clock-work mechanism returning to its natural shape by giving
off kinetic mechanical energy in the process. Most of these devices are
permanent magnet motors, or those which try to use pulsing to grab
extra energy from the quantum vacuum, only to output so little excess
time and again that not enough can be fed back to the front-end of a
system to keep the "sharp jolts" going "in phase" and maintain a
self-running status. One needs at least a COP of 3 to realize
self-running, from what I've read. To be kind, I'd say the
inventors in these situations had far less than they thought they
would. The only test that's universally agreed as worthwhile is a machine self-running under load for at least a year.
There may be a way of covering the costs, sometimes at public expense,
in a fair and reasonable way. If the device works as claimed, and can
be sold/leased, licensed or whatever, then a fair amount of the
revenues from that should return to those who've paid the costs of
testing, which includes testing organizations which have
done the job pro bono, and the tax coffers, of course. Let's just say it'd be a sort of "I.O.U." being
paid back, with some profit or share of the royalties, accruing
to the payers. Lawyers have been known to work that way
when setting up IP protection and a business enterprise for new
technology. It's one of the reasons many of them are so very rich. But
it may be a just price to pay to ensure that legitimate F-E devices
are produced and eventually sold/leased at a fair, and ultimately, very
low price.
Hal Ade
|
]
|
|
Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE technology (Score: 1) by techmac on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 @ 17:13:21 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.geocities.com/mgmlab04 | Testing by disinterested organizations can more quickly legitimize a new device. A very energetic machine will sell itself, but to be able to overcome the unscientific critic's voodooization, an international organization needs to be formed for each legitimate sub-group of free energy device. The less government of any sort is involved, the more any free testing system will be effective. Private agreements can work worldwide. I like Hal Ade's idea of lawyer-like contingency fee charged to the technology that makes substantial income. In aviation's infancy, many international organizations for its support sprung up almost a century ago. This website is one international, loosley organized group, which is a catalyst for new specialized groups which may represent the different sub-species of FE. Cold fusion because of its greater age is already apparently more developed with international cooperations than are other forms of FE. |
|
|
Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE technology (Score: 1) by adjudicator on Wednesday, April 04, 2007 @ 18:38:58 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | The short answer is No.
There is no practical need for independent international assessors or testers. If you have not got a working model or prototype they, the assessors will have nothing to assess or test.
If you have a working model or prototype the world will beat a path to your door.
|
Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE technology (Score: 1) by vlad on Sunday, April 08, 2007 @ 21:58:37 UTC (User Info | Send a Message )http://www.zpenergy.com | For a "garden variety" invention your short answer is correct.
It is not so (and has never been so) for inventions/discoveries of a revolutionary nature, especially when considered by the scientific community and media as an unacceptable departure from the conventional thinking. The world would just ignore you and your working prototype, as it did to the White brothers (who were flying their prototype plane for years!). Here is something interesting for you to read so you can understand the issue better:
The Wright Brothers were summarily dismissed by the US government and most academic experts of their day. This quote sums it all up - from THE WRIGHT BROTHERS, by Fred C. Kelly: "When a man of the profound scientific wisdom of Simon Newcomb (for example) had demonstrated with unassailable logic why man couldn't fly, why should the public be fooled by silly stories about two obscure bicycle repairmen who hadn't even been to college. Professor Newcomb was so distinguished an astronomer that he was the only American since Benjamin Franklin to be made an associate of the Institute of France. It was widely assumed that what he didn't know about the laws of physics simply wasn't in books. And that when he said that flying couldn't be done, there was no need to inquire any further."
If your technology is also "disruptive" (major vested interest of economical and political nature impacted), you are lucky to get a Secrecy Oder stamped on your patent (if you got one) or you will be made an offer that you can not refuse. You don't have to take my word for it; see http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/index.html [www.fas.org]. These are real people with real inventions and some with amazing working prototypes. They got nowhere because they thought (same as you) that "the world would beat a path to their door". For that to happen the whole world must know about them and must be convinced they have what they claim. Then "the world" must recognize their accomplishment, reward them properly and demand the governments, academia and the private enterprise to support and bring the respective technology to the market, for the benefit of humanity and the planet.
In essence, that is what the proposed international scientific organization I'm working on now - named Xtreme Science Foundation (XSF) - is envisioned to do. We want to gather a number of real intellectuals (people motivated by a disinterested love of truth), recognized and respected international personalities (from science but also media, politics, finance, industry, etc.) to form the core of such an organization. It would serve as THE open access podium for all inventors/innovators whose ideas otherwise would have great difficulty finding validation, recognition, protection and financial support through the conventional channels. It would also discourage fraud (people would demand XSF validation before investing) and, at the same time, educate people on how an objective, unbiased scientific investigation should be conducted. More on this project soon to be posted in our "Special Sections". If you want to join and help with this historic effort, please contact Vlad (use Feedback).
|
]
|
|
Re: Should a free/open/reputable international FE technology (Score: 1) by nanotech on Saturday, May 12, 2007 @ 07:44:33 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | In order to have a clearing house of working designs, and, standards. The downside is that this would also allow the "Suppression Forces" to target the working designs and designers!
|
|
|
|
|