ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 189 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: XSF and the XS-NRG Prize (Executive Summary) (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 @ 01:06:47 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    My comments in Italics:

    Hi Vlad,
    ...
    Congratulations on taking this step.


    Thank you. I had to do it since waiting for the NEM/NEC to join & help was no longer an option.


    ...You talk about a $1 to $10 millionaward for the XS-NRG Prize. One might assume in the context of its first mention that at least $1 million is already available; but reading further down it seems that this is still all just an idea, and that little or no money has been raised for the prize. How much is in the kitty now?


    The first time the $1 to $10 mill is mentioned it is also qualified by: "is the goal" (I said nothing about anything being in the kitty now). Given the type of revolutionary devices XSF is targeting for validation, I do not think a less that $1 mill prize is fair and enough of an incentive for any inventor of such a multi $bilion worth technology to come forward. But, considering that there are no other strings attached to the prize and the inventor can take advantage of his invention as (s)he sees fit, capping the prize to $10 mill looks reasonable enough to me.


    Second question: how far along are you in establishing some kind of guiding body for this initiative?


    Sterling, this is the first time I posted my XSF/XS-NRG Prize proposal to the public. As you know, more detailed info was sent to the New Energy Movement (NEM) and the New Energy Congress (NEC) more than a year ago. After the NEC (or should I say you) rejected it, this exec summary was sent to NEM (at their request) when discussions with a potential sponsor were (I was told) going on. I haven't heard from anybody since, and I consider I'm under no obligation to continue to wait. I have clearly mentioned to both these organizations that I do not have the time and the necessary resources to run with it, so my next step will be to go public.That's where I am now. The SXF membership and the "guiding body" positions are all open. Those interested will contact me for the time being until we open the SXF site to the public.


    I would like to recommend that you open up the website and just make part of the http://XtremeScienceFoundation.org [xtremesciencefoundation.org] [xtremesciencefoundation.org]website password protected. It seems to me that with announcing this initiative that there should also be some kind of web presence where people can go to read more, sing up, donate, or otherwise get involved.


    Yes of course, that was the original plan and the reason for waiting for the outcome of the NEM discussions with the potential sponsor (would have provided the money for the XtremeScienceFoundation.org website development, at least). Since the site I quickly put together so far is far from what I envisioned it to be, it will stay protected from the general public until I find a profesional web developer to do it properly. This announcement was intended to facilitate finding that person or organization (such as Mambo, etc.) and those interested should respond to this post and/or contact me directly (through ZPEnergy.com/Feedback).


    In your account you say that the XSF will "Contribute to leveling ... That phraseology needs some kind of a caveat.


    What the statement says is that the XSF will not discriminate based on inventor's academic qualifications, origin, gender, religion, etc... it will examine every device submitted for validation solely on its own merits. The best ones (real breakthroughs) will be scheduled for testing. XSF intends to enroll as many qualified members as possible from all over the world (the TASs) to do the initial screening (make it practical, as you say). Same with the university labs and other testing facilities that will agree to work with the XSF to validate these extraordinary claims. Remember, this is a challenge the XSF will throw to them to, essentially, disprove the claims (same as Steorn or CF, with the same massive media exposure). Since we're talking "impossible" technologies here, I see these facilities competing to secure the glory of "putting the cat back in the sac".


    We at PES/NECare constantly beingapproached about new ideas, nearly daily. There is no way we could possibly test every single one of these. That would be a waste of money, resources, time. There must be a screening process -- which is what the NEC is doing.


    Sterling, I must parafhrase your potential next VP,  Ms. Sarah Palin,  and say: Here we go again Sterling! You, of all people, should know better what are the main diferences between the PES/NEC and my proposed XSF. Most of your effort and time (and NEC's, unfortunately) is spent with technological improvements to well known, more or less alternative techs (solar, wind, burning waste, hydro, biofuels, fuel-cells, inverters ... you name it). These are well understood by science and also well supported by gazillions (literally) very qualified groups out there that do that for living (since they're not controversial or revolutionary/disruptive, and good and quick money can be made from the new trend of investing in alternatives these days). Appropriate for you would be to turn your private business (PESN) into such for profit group and invite NEC members to join as your partners/employees, if they want to do that kind of work. Leave the NEC to actively pursue its original mission of seeking the truth about revolutionary energy technologies that, to this day, remain to be (dis)proven and which, according to reliable witnesses, can change our destiny forever. That's what XSF is all about.


    About 1-2 times a month, we encounter an exotic technology claim that seems legit, and we then hone into a process of validating as prerequisite to assisting; yet so far we have not yet found anything legitimate.
     

    I, as a member of the NEC, don't seem to be aware of what you're referring to. Can you give an example? If this is done privately, it's of no use to anybody ...that's what the XSF will try to do properly.


    Here are a few wording suggestions or things I noticed that you might want to rephrase or fix:

    Contradiction in wording: "Its only mission is to carry out independent, objective, unbiased and widely accepted scientific validation of "private research" in the field of new energy technologies (for now) -- research that the present scientific community and media would otherwise consider an unacceptable departure from the conventional thinking. It will also award the Xcess-Energy Prize (XS-NRG) according to well defined winning criteria."

    Where is the contradiction please? Validation of these claims is the only mission of the XSF. Awarding the prize is a consequence of passing the validation test ...no passing marks, no prize (but the mission will go on).


    This wording needs clarification: "An agreed upon small prorated percentage from the accumulated prize funds will be transferred to the XSF’s operating fund and be used to cover all expenses incurred with the validation process." You might give a ballpark percentage so people have some kind of idea of the level of overhead that will be involved -- something that is expected of any initiative.

    This will be something for the XSF management comettee to decide, based on the projected foundation's operating costs and the funds acumulated in the prize account. But even for the first cycle, I would cap it to 10%, hoping that a lot of services (advertising, lab testing, maybe banking services, etc.) can be obtained for free or paid in the future, once the prize funds grow larger (we'll try to convince these companies  to join the XSF and so, sponsor it directly).


    what do you mean by: "Essentially, all contributors should be paid from the future accumulated operating funds, so everyone on the team is motivated to see the foundation succeed (since operating funds are % of the $ accumulated in the escrow “prize” account)." 


    People keep track of their work and, if and when they succeed and money come in, they get paid retroactively. It is frequently used with small start-ups (especially software) Sort of "pay it forward" with expectation to be paid.

     

    Overall, my general impression of the XSF initiative is as follows. I see two objectives you are tackling: 1) validate, 2) award. It seems to me that the New Energy Congress is already established and doing a pretty good job of validating, within our limited budget. I don't know of any other public (open) body that is doing what we are doing in that regard. Rather than reinvent that portion of the initiative, you ought to use the NEC to perform that function, and focus on the second thing: collecting prize money and granting the prize. And even there, it seems to me that that second portion is something that the New Energy Congress could also administer. 

    It's within our mission scope and talent base, if it is plausible. 
     

    Sterling, you know I proposed to the NEC to rank all exotic (claimed O/U) technologies in our database into a Top 20, so we can start focusing on something. I was ignored. In my XSF proposal, I invited NEC members to join as TASs since this is something that many can do. With all due respect, NEC does not carry the necessary credentials for a scientifically recognized validation. In the 3 years since it was constituted NEC was busy with many other things irrelevant to the XSF mission, and I'm not aware of any validation of at least one of the real important breakthrough devices that we all know about (and their inventor is still alive) that need to be validated as soon as possible. The XSF to work requires large "buy in" by reputable scientist and a totally transparent operation. It must be non profit which PES/NEC is not  - a huge handicap in inventor & public acceptance. This is the first time I hear the NEC can administer the funding system I proposed for the XSF/XS-NRG (you may want to read it again). If still yes, I'll be happy to get some help here.
     
    Before you get too critical of the NEC, bear in mind that there are a log of things that happen off-list that you don't know about. A lot of the vetting and screening and support initiatives happen privately, both by myself and by other NEC members.


    I'm sorry, but I'm beyond that. The XSF is not about making money from and for inventors but getting the truth out, protecting the public from scams and hopefully liberating it from any future energy crisis. Everything will be in the open.
     

    In today's economically tight climate, I don't think you're going to have much success pulling in donations for a prize like this. If people are going to contribute something, they'll probably contribute to Greer's initiative which has more of a reputation for this kind of work and body of well-known support. 

    Read the proposal again. There is an essential difference from any "strings attached" initiative such as Greer's. Where are the results (devices validated) of what Greer did with the previous 2 initiatives? Greed and secrecy will kill any such initiatives, always. People will get it and if the right people will support the XSF, it will succeed. I do not expect you and many others to understand this, since there is no personal gain in the XSF, only the desire to get this important truth out given the potential benefits for science and humanity.


    Rather than shoot for a million or more dollars for this prize, we could make it a prize for whatever has been accumulated, awarded it once a year.  
    (see above)

    The NEC is already in the business of vetting and ranking technologies. It would be a natural fit for us to recognize each year one technology that in our best estimation is the best "XS-NRG" modality. 


    Makes sense ...good idea. Again, XSF is not about better solar, more efficient wind turbines, etc. (they are very useful, don't get me wrong, but I think they're well taken care of already). Breakthroughs is what the XSF and the XS-NRG Prize are after.


    We could even give the award without monetary backing if none is available, just for the sake of giving recognition to those who deserve it. 
    (A noble thought, why not?)
     

    This would help us stay abreast of those cutting-edge technologies which aren't far enough along to warrant inclusion in the Top 100, but which are nevertheless revolutionary and potentially promising. And it would help them get the attention they deserve, to hopefully attract the funding, business expertise, and other things needed to help move them forward. 


    Sterling, I understand you, and you're doing a good thing ... it is just that I want an energy revolution now, since I believe it has already happened, but it is still hidden by vested interests, dogmatic thinking, ego, greed and apathy. Our priorities are different, but one time I thought they were the same. If the XSF dies before birth everybody looses ... but if it becomes what I envision it to be in time, it will indeed help humans go beyond what they think to be possible.

    Vlad


    | Parent

     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.