Yes folks, that is Graham P. Collins' conclusion in his second article in the Staking Claims series, "Selling the Free Lunch - Perpetual motion has changed its name but not its methods", published in the November issue of the American Scientist: We have to thank him for not proposing more Charles Duell-s, who, as the U.S. Commissioner of Patents in 1899, made the famous statement: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Here are my two cents on these articles...(more)
Tom Bearden, the "old retired dog" (how he likes to call himself these days), must have scared some powerful forces to death to have such a concentrated effort on preventing a harmless patent on his MEG! Let's examine more closely some relevant paragraphs (in ) from these articles:
The author gives the impression that only "patents such as...", but in reality any patent is not a certification that the device will work. Then he admits what it is still a reasonable working procedure:
Makes sense: The goal behind any patent office is (and should be) to encourage invention and innovation by protecting an inventor's IP--the only way a civilized society can rapidly progress. Revolutionary inventions, such as the MEG, should be of particular interest even if (from what we know now) they might have only a small chance of success. But the payoff for that small chance is so huge that we, as a society, should not miss it.
Mr. Collins, since you write for the "American Scientist" you should know better. The energy is very well known to science - what we (at least most of us) don't know (yet) is how to harness it. But some may have found a way, and that's the role of the patent office: to find that important person and help him/her get this crucial invention to the world, because we don't have the luxury of time anymore. And most of all, if there is a prototype (such as the MEG) the patent office should have a qualified lab ready to test the device IMMEDIATELY and for free (their fees are ridiculously high anyway).
Yes sir, it turns out that the inventors are fully qualified scientists with new ideas about the physical world we live in. They know all about the laws of thermodynamics, about the nonlinear oscillation theory and higher group symmetry electrodynamics. Tapping energy from the vacuum is not easy; otherwise even the vocal skeptics would have done it by now (temptation for money is bigger than pride). If it were simple electromagnetics or ordinary electrical engineering, it would not have taken Tom's group 10 years to do it with three Ph.D's and two experienced engineers working on it. Or you think, Mr. Collins, the science and the final truth stops with Bob Park or James Randi? They have a lot of legitimate scam artists to deal with who put on "public appearances to drum up investment money or to sell franchises and making it onto TV news shows with gullible hosts." But unfortunately they, CSICOP, etc., don't realize that this is different, beyond them, and at least they should give these researchers the benefit of a doubt. But that's not easy either, because of other powerful forces at play. Yes, as incredible as it may be that somebody could oppose bringing of free clean energy to this world in desperate need of it, there are humans and organizations out there capable of doing that, to maintain their privileged status quo (power/control/money).
Wake up Graham, the guided scientific advance is also transforming the world into a living hell: hot, with no breathable air and drinkable water, with poisoned soil and weekly plant and animal species extinction, with rampant poverty and violence and cancer killing even children in the most "advanced" nations. THESE are contradicting the most fundamental laws of Nature!
But here is probably the real reason behind these series of articles:
In other words, we want incentives (public money) and time (the inventors can wait) for the debunkers and lawyers to debunk (I assume challenge) the "science" (??) of an "erroneous" (already found guilty!?) patent in court (remember Charles Darwin trial?). And that is, of course, to protect the gullible from the scamsters and the most fundamental laws of Nature (like somebody could change them anyway?). If common sense is so common, why do so few have it?
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said: "If we are to survive, we must have ideas, vision, and courage." I see none of them in these American Scientist articles.
Vlad
P.S.
"Professor Goddard.does not know the relation of action to reaction205he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools" [New York Times, January 13, 1920]. In 1969, the day after Apollo 11 left earth orbit for the moon, the New York Times published an apology for printing derisive comments about the inventor's theory. It took New York Times almost 50 years to do the right thing. But the damage was done and we'll never know the consequences.
