 |
There are currently, 195 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Embarasing "screw-ups" keep FE research in the fringe; what to do?
Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2007 @ 21:55:42 GMT by vlad
|
|
 Steorn's recent public demo failure (see article below) is a classic example of what NOT to do when you want to bring a disruptive technology to the world and change it forever. There is so much to lose from a public failure and so little to gain from a successful demo! ... and the enormous risk should have been obvious to any responsible person. If one is a gambler, at least improve your odds by testing the whole set-up, in situ, for days up to the event. Especially, when almost all alleged successful "free energy" (FE) technologies are notoriously unstable in their over-unity (O/U) operating mode (from plasma and (electro)magnetic based devices - rotating or solid state - to "cold-fusion" type cells).
STEORN started well by publicly challenging science to prove them wrong. A scientific validation of the experimental set-up is the first step every inventor of an alleged FE device must take to gain credibility. Indeed, quite a few inventors tried to do just that but the claim of "FE" is so outrageous and the scientists so "conservative" and busy (as the dog said: "so many trees, so little time!" ;-) that most don't even bother responding to such requests for validation (any involvement with "perpetual motion" could also be a career ending move). By going public in a big way, Steorn forced their hand and got their attention. Now, the public demo mistake will throw them in damage control for a long time (as you hear Sean admitting). I hope the smart people realize that nobody goes to such an extent as Steorn did to make a fool of themselves ("If we were here to rig a demo, we'd all be here watching a wheel spin." - Sean McCarthy).
A few weeks ago I was asked to respond to a few questions (from NEM) on this topic. Below is an extract from that questionnaire:
Question: What are your views regarding the reasons why the unconventional forms of free energy have not yet been released to the world?
Answer [Vlad/ZPEnergy]:
• The lack of adequate proof of concept (most important/ critical/ essential step).
Assuming that successful unconventional FE experimental set-ups
(devices) exists (and I believe they do), undeniably proving that to
the world is all it would take (in the present planetary circumstances)
to usher a new era in the human evolution. What Steorn is doing now is
one way to accomplish this. My Extreme Science Foundation (XSF and XS-NRG prize) proposal is another (I think better) way to do it.
• The unstable operation in the O/U mode. Many
experimental devices/ setups are not yet fully controlled in their O/U
operation mode. There is no clear understanding of what triggers the
“O/U state” and what happens when the unit trips out off that special
condition (the “why”?). Without stable and consistent O/U functioning,
there is no marketable product. Very few investors are willing to
support possible many years of [mostly empirical] research to overcome
this problem.
• The lack of a proper theory to explain the O/U operation. Very
few scientists are actively involved in the theoretical study of this
ubiquitous, permanent, nonzero [extremely dense] source of energy in
the Universe called ZP/Vacuum Energy. Unfortunately, this type of
research is still considered by the present scientific community and
media an unacceptable departure from the conventional thinking, and
consequently ignored (or worst, ridiculed). A theoretical understanding
of what/how to excite and organize the local vacuum for extracting
useful energy, would quickly “resolve” both problems mentioned above.
• Invention Secrecy Act, Inventor/Investor greed, “MIB”
suppression (?) No need to comment on the first two; we all know they
are real … valuable patents are being buried because our governments
“national security” paranoia and/or vested interest greed. Greed and
frustration is also responsible for the inventors choosing to take
their invention into the ground with them instead of giving it to the
world for free or to investors for less money than they hoped for. The
MIB active (physical) suppression? … Possible, but I’m still to be
convinced of that.
Question: What could be done to make it more likely for
inventors and scientists and their supporters to achieve breakthroughs
in this field? What forms of support are needed?
Answer [Vlad/ZPEnergy]
• The single most important thing that would quickly and
certainly achieve the breakthrough in this field is a “proper proof”
that O/U technologies are real. [Proper proof = scientific validation + world-wide, effective media coverage]
- Since seeking “government legislation” as well as “private
investment” support routs have miserably failed so far, the next
logical step is involving “the public” to do it. Access to the
general public is much easier these days through the wide spread
penetration of the traditional media (written, radio and TV). But, the
advent of the internet suddenly allowed the “connected” public to be aware of and get directly involved
in many more aspects of the world’s “affairs” (such as influencing the
democratic decision making process and the move of considerable funds
in the commercial and financial sectors, among them). Successful
businesses can be set up and public/media mobilization/influencing can
be done, with almost no funds required, using the Internet these days.
- The constitution of an international nonprofit reputable organization with the main purpose to carry out independent, objective, unbiased and widely accepted scientific validation
of "private research" in the field of unconventional new energy
technologies is the first needed step (to gain acceptance &
credibility). It will serve as an open access podium for all
inventors/innovators out there to present their work for proper and
honest validation (conducted for free and under NDA). It will also act
as a vehicle through which donors will reward and promote those
revolutionary technologies that prove to be viable, that otherwise
would have great difficulty finding recognition and financial support.
Once the general public and the academia are challenged with the
reality of the fuel-less energy technologies, nothing will stop
their rapid development and penetration in our day to day life.
Theoretical physics will soon experience an explosive (r)evolution and
concepts such as anti-gravity, inertia control, warp drive and worm
holes space travel, teleportation and maybe time travel will all come
down from the “fringe” into respectable leading edge scientific
research…. but I digress…
- The Xtreme Science Foundation (XSF) proposal goes into the details of how such an organization should be formed and function. It also proposes an innovative way of private-public funding which is a key aspect for the success of such an enterprise.
...
The feedback from NEM is good and maybe we can all join forces to end, once and for all, the gridlock FE movement finds itself in for decades. I call on all open minded people and organizations out there to get involved and support such a project that will help all of us go beyond what we think to be possible.
Vlad
"The illiterates of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." - Alvin Toffler
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 4.42
Votes: 7
| |
|
| "Embarasing "screw-ups" keep FE research in the fringe; what to do?" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Embarasing "screw-ups" keep FE research in the fringe; what to do? (Score: 1)
by bender772 on Monday, July 09, 2007 @ 07:15:20 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.suppressedscience.net | | There is a conceivable other explanation of why public demonstrations of overunity devices would fail: sabotage.
I have of course no evidence that such occured in the Steorn case. But purely hypothetically speaking, IF nature permits overunity, and IF, as for example Steven Greer or Tom Bearden allege, black-ops projects have such and other devices that operate based on principles that are beyond the understanding of current mainstream science, then it is conceivable that such groups could sabotage an overunity demonstration remotely, by directing some directed energy weapon at it that destroys the physical conditions which the overunity device depends on.
This may seem like an unlikely scenario to a mainstream thinker - who of course assumes that free energy doesn't exist in the first place - but if free energy exists, then the conditional probability of the scenario above being correct is substantial. |
|
|
|
|
