Thanks for your excellent perspective on *alleged* F-E devices, Mark.
You're one of the most knowledgeable people I've read. So, you're no doubt well apprised of a subject called "Stats and Probs". Therefore, like you, I'd wonder how probable it is that SuperMag has the F-E device they claim, though they dare not say it provides "Free Energy". If I read about the SuperMag being demonstrated successfully as a self-running device before an investors' meeting in California, I think the probability would be extremely high that SuperVision has what it claims: a fuel-less generator of electricity gotten by interfering permanent magnet fields, one moving relative to the other. So, I doubt that SuperVision is just marketing a lot of "hot air", because they *have* installed that artificial heart device in a patient in Montreal. If it failed for "lack of energy", we should have heard by now, since I'm surfing the web for SuperMag info all the time.
Wouldn't you agree, though, that even if the SuperMag works as claimed and is in production, the first devices are going to be tremendously expensive just to get back R&D and set-up costs? So, I don't think such F-E devices would be in WalMart or KMart for several years, unless production costs turn out to be "peanuts", for large runs, that is.
BTW, did you notice SuperVision's claim for about 1200 orders for their one-MegaWatt unit? Wouldn't that be the size of a small locomotive diesel engine/generator, about
1340 HP? Have you ever seen permanent magnets for an item that big? Or would they just gang together a bunch of 10-Kw units in series and parallel?
SuperVision had better "come across" with their
*self-running* SuperMag public demonstration this year, or there'll be a lot of angry folks in the F-E "community", to say nothing of those who've invested in SuperVision stock.
All the best in 2007,
Hal Ade
Regards,
Hal Ade.
------------
--- "Dan S. Ward" wrote: I have also been following the SuperVision SuperMag saga with great interest.
The curious part is that there are a LOT of press releases from
SuperVision, many of which are speculative and without hard facts. "Orders" for
17,000 units -- when they're still looking for a manufacturer -- are less "money
in the bank" and more expressions of interest. How, for example, can you place
an order when they're are no prices and/or products available -- except in the
laboratory?
Such APPARENT hyping is not something generally encouraged by
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Furthermore, the delays associated with
providing a demonstration of the technology, while in the interim, such
relatively mundane events as a World Gaming League formation and a park in
Southern California (with access to a LOT of water), seems to be missing the
point. Such expected planning from something called SuperVision Entertainment
is clearly part of the company's efforts to promote itself in the brokerage
community. But when compared to the enormously more important aspect of having
a truly revolutionary energy device, one wonders if the executive level of
SuperVision has any inkling of the true dimensions of what they may have.
Perhaps they don't really believe it, even when the SuperVision
engineers/inventors/scientists are convinced.
One can only hope that the
roughly six month lead time before a demonstration in front of knowledgeable and
open-minded energy types can be significantly foreshortened. If they truly have
a revolutionary product to offer, they really need to initiate a full court
press on demonstrations, independent assessments, and so forth. I suspect this
can best be accomplished by providing a select group of people -- such as those
on this mailing list -- with some initial access (with, of course, legally
binding non-disclosure and non-compete agreements in place). Once this has been
done, and with the blessings of some respected scientists/engineers, the process
of independent testing at a truly qualified laboratory can be greatly
facilitated.
Procrastination is NOT the order of the day. :-)
Daniel
---------------
--- Tim Ventura writes: Hey Daniel --
Personally, I wrote off magnet-motor ideas forever shortly
before Steorn started their latest round of hype, and I don't regret it a bit. I
think that I've heard of at least several hundred magnet motor experiments, all
of which "almost made it, but not quite"...which is exactly what conventional
science would predict. The Minato motor is different because it's
a high-efficiency electric motor, and the Flynn motor also doesn't qualify as
being the same (Boeing did a wonderful study on the Flynn motor, which actually
uses a series of MEGs to increase efficiency to astounding levels - 97% or
higher...)
Other than those two examples, I have no interest in magnet
motors these days. Maybe that sounds judgemental, but with so many wonderful,
ingenious ideas out there to be examined, I just can't help wonder why people
throw good money after bad and continue to play with something that has nobody
else has made work.
Also, I tend to believe that magnet motors as a genre tend
to attract scam-artists, adding yet another reason for serious researchers to
move on to another area of study. Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but it was hard
to even watch the Steorn promo without feeling embarrassed. It consisted of 10
straight minutes of the CEO talking about "how nobody's going to shut them down"
and "how the government is out to get them", and zero information on what
actually made it work.
Tim ----------
--- Mark A. Solis writes: Greetings All,
Let's grant SuperVision the benefit of the doubt:
1 - Supposedly, they have a viable product (so they claim).
2 - I assume they have identified a target market.
3 - Apparently, they are engaging in at least SOME attempt at marketing, however awkwardly they might be doing so.
4 - They claim to have orders, or at least formal expressions of interest in the product ("letters of intent" and such, which must be presented to a bank to arrange financing for manufacture).
5 - Arranging manufacture should not be such a problem. Any good e-motor manufacturer should be able to handle the process. Special requirements to be met are the manufacturer's problem. That's what engineers are for.
6 - Presumably, the product is at least "patent pending." Upon the granting of a patent, all pertinent facts about the device are published by the patent issuing authority.
7 - The product either will succeed or fail in the marketplace, which is the ultimate "court of public opinion."
I will make one comment. Based on what Mr. Ventura says about the presentation by the CEO, it would appear that the folks at SuperVision have not learned a fundamental lesson that I would recommend to all in this field:
Better to say too little, than too much, about the product, to finance people (or anyone else, for that matter).
Secrecy? No. It's just that some things (such as the apparently paranoid comments) are best left unsaid. Likewise, anything of a technical nature that might lead to such comments ALSO should be left unsaid. Say ONLY what is absolutely necessary. (Sometimes people don't seem to have a good handle on exactly what that is.)
Always focus on the product, and how it is better than [fill in the blank with your favorite competition].
If SuperVision is making a mistake, I would say, as I said before, that they are wasting energy trying to convince people that the product in fact works as claimed (whatever the claims may be, precisely). This is the wrong approach. GET THE PRODUCT ON THE SHELF AND LET THE PRODUCT SELL ITSELF. (Rhyme unintended.)
Remember the example of the Model T which I mentioned previously.
The cry of "Get a horse!" was directed NOT to some curious onlooker thinking about the contraption, but rather the driver of it as he rode past the critic, complete with clattering engine, backfires, exhaust fumes and all.
To paraphrase Hal Ade somewhat, THERE'S NOTHING LIKE A GOOD DEMO.
There are numerous good trade shows that would make excellent forums for SuperVision to put on a demonstration of their technology. By all means, let them stand forth!
I'll gladly pay the admission fee....
Best regards,
Mark A. Solis
|
