Free energy???
mike3
Why say that free energy is impossible? We do not know everything, and
we should never pretend to. Free energy may still be possible, it's
just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Hi.
Yeah, sure, you just keep believing that.
And hold your breath while you do it.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Eric Gisse
Jump off the roof and try to fly. We do not know everything, and we
should never pretend to. Flying after you jump off a roof may still be
gdew...@gmail.com
We have already made up our mind on star-travel being possible. Fuel
can only carry it self so far, after that distance it's all gone. So
we must find free energy.....
......o wait I found it already !
move the pointer over the underlined text and push down the mouse
button, a new page will open after that it all speaks for it self.
gdew...@gmail.com
Sam Wormley
Given that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains
constant, your "free energy" would have to come from somewhere, making
it not free.
Conservation of energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationofEnergy.html
"Put simply, The law of conservation of energy states that energy can
not be created (made from nothing), or destroyed (made to disappear to
no-where) and that energy can be changed from one form to another
(such as electrical energy in to heat energy).
Sam Wormley
>
> move the pointer over the underlined text and push down the mouse
> button, a new page will open after that it all speaks for it self.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
>
You, Gaby, can look up the historical papers, data, and all
the evidence you need in the area of conservation of energy
and thermodynamics. The record is clear... and the experiments
are repeatable... many done routinely in classrooms of colleges,
universities and even in high schools.
OK--Given that there IS friction and that there IS radiation
from accelerating magnets, your "device" loses energy in the form
of radiation and is, therefore, slowing down, eventually to stop
its rotational motion. You're just another loser... you'll never
build anything.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> You.. [snip kook crap]
Look at it and grovel, kook:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/february2007/270207bbc2.jpg
:-)
Don Stockbauer
Now, does that mean "Energy available at no cost", or does it mean
"Help! help! I'm energy imprisoned by an evil sorcerer and I want to
get out. Free energy! Free energy!!!!"
(No Darlene not now I'm posting to sci.physics. Later. Go amuse
yourself by seeing if you can remotely control The Cheyenne Mountain
Comlex by telekinesis.)
Igor
Uncle Al
1) Time is homogeneous, then
2) Noether's theorem, so
3) Mass-energy is locally conserved.
4) No exceptions, no footnotes, no alernatives.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
Of course it's possible. And you are *perfectly* entitled to expend
any and all resources available to you to demonstrate that it's
possible.
However, if you want to conscript or recruit *others* to the effort,
then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it.
Presently, the patent office has taken the position that any
application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation
is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it.
Or did you think that other people's time and effort is just as free
as energy?
PD
Robert S
> On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
>
> > Why say that free energy is impossible? We do not know everything, and
> > we should never pretend to. Free energy may still be possible, it's
> > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> Of course it's possible. And you are *perfectly* entitled to expend
> any and all resources available to you to demonstrate that it's
> possible.
>
> However, if you want to conscript or recruit *others* to the effort,
> then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it.
> Presently, the patent office has taken the position that any
> application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation
> is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it.
According to their regulations, they will examine perpetually motion
devices if they recieve a working model.
> Or did you think that other people's time and effort is just as free
> as energy?
The USPO is probably a bad example. They have issued (unwittingly)
several patents for perpetual motion/free energy devices over the
years, most of which unsurprisingly envolve magnets. None of them
work, of course.
Gris...@gmail.com
>
> Jump off the roof and try to fly. We do not know everything, and we
> should never pretend to. Flying after you jump off a roof may still be
> possible, it's just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
"There is an art to flying, or rather a knack. The knack lies in
learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Clearly, it is
this second part, the missing, that provides the difficulties." --
Douglas Adams
mike3
Also, remember that even if there was _no_ friction or
radiation losses it _still_ would not be PM, not in the sense
that this guy wants. It would be PM in the sense that once
started it keeps moving, but then again a twirling top in
the vacuum of space is a "PM" machine too. The thing is that
while moving indefinitely it contains only a finite amount of
energy, and the instant you stick a thingy on to extract power
from the system, it will slow down and stop. No more PM.
mike3
> mike3wrote:
>
> > Why say thatfree energyis impossible? We do not know everything, and
> > we should never pretend to.Free energymay still be possible, it's
> > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> Given that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains
> constant, your "free energy" would have to come from somewhere, making
> it not free.
>
Free does not mean it comes from nowhere, free means it costs very
little money to get. Free as in price, not as in "comes from nowhere".
Oil is not free energy, since it costs quite a bit of cash. Now, if I
found
a source of energy that would last zillions of times longer than the
age of
the universe at a consumption rate zillions of times bigger than the
world does right now that costs only a penny per _mega_watt I would
call that "free energy".
mike3
> On Feb 28, 5:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
>
> > we should never pretend to.Free energymay still be possible, it's
> > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> Jump off the roof and try to fly. We do not know everything, and we
> should never pretend to. Flying after you jump off a roof may still be
> possible, it's just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
Jetpack.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
energy than what goes in. It is a very big machine,and costs about 8
billion bucks to build. We need it for electricity,before our planet
becomes a killer of humans. Here in Florida lake fish,and birds are
dying by the millions each day. Whales and porpoises dying on our
shores. Bert
mike3
> On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
>
> > we should never pretend to.Free energymay still be possible, it's
> > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> Of course it's possible. And you are *perfectly* entitled to expend
> any and all resources available to you to demonstrate that it's
> possible.
>
> However, if you want to conscript or recruit *others* to the effort,
> then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it.
> Presently, the patent office has taken the position that any
> application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation
> is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it.
>
And I'm supposed to get all this proof _myself_? Few if any research
projects can be done on one's own.
What "risk" are you referring to? You mean, because the scientific
community ridicules them so much? And I did not say anything about
patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
about
patenting/selling anything.
What I am trying to say is that science can never pretend to have all
the answers, this is a fundamental precept. Therefore we should be
free to question absolutely every doctrine, every theory, every
experiment, search for any evidence for/against any claim, etc.
Questions are of the utmost importance in science, and without them
there can be no scientific progress.
mike3
> > we should never pretend to.Free energymay still be possible, it's
> > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> 1) Time is homogeneous, then
> 2) Noether's theorem, so
> 3) Mass-energy is locally conserved.
> 4) No exceptions, no footnotes, no alernatives.
>
Ie. there is no perpetual motion machines at all, absolutely,
positively, zip.
There is _absolutely_, precisely, _zero_ ways to build a perpetual
motion
machine in well-proven physics, then.
But once again you equate:
free energy = perpetual motion
The actual equation is
free energy = energy you can get independent of the utility companies
and that costs very little money.
Like if I could build a machine for $500 including repairs, that would
power all my house appliances 24/7 for life, that would be "free
energy". Free energy does not mean perpetual motion, it means a
source of energy so easy that it might as well be free.
Compare that to the price of the utility companies. Only $500. For
_life_. If your yektrik bill every month costs $100, and you spend
60 years of your life paying it, then you pay around $72,000 over
your life. The machine is 144x cheaper. It would be like paying 69
*cents* a *month* for electricity! To me, that's "free energy", okay?
Even if it's not "perpetual motion", it is still free energy.
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
mike3
Could you show me a working model? How is this thing supposed to
work?
mike3
Never mind people actually _saw_ the building come down. You
sure that's not a different building, or perhaps a hoax?
mike3
Um....
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4854/wtcconsphoax01yg7.jpg
<wink wink>
Eric Gisse
So what changed since 2006 that made free energy more possible in
2007?
gdew...@gmail.com
Fact: All electric motors already work with magnets.
Analysis: It makes your argument ridiculous.
Conclusion: You are an idiot.
gdew...@gmail.com
> mike3 wrote:
>
> > Hi.
>
> > Why say that free energy is impossible? We do not know everything, and
> > we should never pretend to. Free energy may still be possible, it's
> > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> 1) Time is homogeneous, then
> 2) Noether's theorem, so
> 3) Mass-energy is locally conserved.
> 4) No exceptions, no footnotes, no alernatives.
You have a nice website but you are an idiot uncle all. That means we
can not trust anything you say. Your argument not to go look for
something has to have a motivation of either laziness or pure
disinformation.
Denial is not research idiot.
.
gdew...@gmail.com
oh but the patent office argument is very good.
First there is a liar who claims perpetual motion apparatus can not be
patented.
This is obviously a fraudulent statement.
On display of a working device they have to grant you a patent.
Don't think they will just give you one for a baseless claim.
Howard Johnson didn't take no for an answer and got his patent.
Stanley Meyer only got his patent when he filled the patent office
building with hydrogen gas.
After looking like a goldfish the patent office priest started running
around the building. "Put your cigarettes out there is hydrogen in the
building!!"
It was hooked up to a battery so it was safe according to the
thermodynamics fairy.
Still they gave him the patent and build rockets as well as (adapt)
hummers based on his innovation.
@all
Now go look at the video brain-dead shit-heads
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800
Sam Wormley
Electric motors require an *energy source*!
gdew...@gmail.com
fuck you troll,.
your argument was "the magnets radiate away"
you are a liar.
Given that there IS friction and that there IS radiation from
accelerating magnets,
Friction is work idiot.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Energy_By_Motion_(EBM)
here you go you baboon faced dog.
Where does the energy come from?
Is it from friction or not?
AH??
Get your facts straight idiot.
Eric Gisse
gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
[...snip]
Be quiet. You don't know what you are talking about, as has been
proven on many occasions.
gdew...@gmail.com
> [...snip]
On the contrary, you are the one who always disagrees with everything
and everyone. You again bring no evidence. Now go look at the video
brain-dead shit-head and shut your trap.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800
thanks
Bill Snyder
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Brain-dead shit-head," huh. Funny, I could have sworn the specimen
who called Eric Gisse that was just now whining about being "defamed"
in a reply to one of my posts. But I must have been mistaken about
that, or he wouldn't be using such language himself. So he won't mind
my mentioning, as I did in my reply, that he himself is stupid, crazy,
arrogant, nasty, and hypocritical, and that his mother dresses him
funny.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
gdew...@gmail.com
> On 3 Mar 2007 02:20:50 -0800, "gdewi...@gmail.com"
but I did say "thanks"
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 3, 6:16 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...snip]
>
> On the contrary, you are the one who always disagrees with everything
> and everyone. You again bring no evidence. Now go look at the video
> brain-dead shit-head and shut your trap.
Since you are an idiot, that is an understandable assumption. I have
from the very beginning rejected your ideas due to lack of evidence
and conflict with experiment and theory. It is natural that you would
assume I disagree with everything and everyone.
By the way, where is a working model of a perpetual motion machine?
You have been posting here for a month now...what progress have you
made? Have you even started? Are you ever going to start?
I'm working on my physics degree. Do you think I do that by spewing on
USENET? Do you think you will get your magic device in a similar way?
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800
Sorry, standards for acceptable science does not include "biased video
on youtube and other variants". If you can't present a journal article
in which free energy is observed, or a video that does not involve a
black box [a moving car = black box], I am and will continue to be not
interested.
>
> thanks
gdew...@gmail.com
> [snip]
> I'm working on my physics degree.
so much for your lack of education claims huh?
> Sorry, standards for acceptable science does not include "biased video
> on youtube and other variants".
ow, you mean it's not real because the information is not delivered to
you on a golden plate? Seems rather far away from doing research.
You are like a spoiled baby? bheee bheeee wahaaa whaaaa
> If you can't present a journal article in which free energy is observed, or a video that does not involve a black box [a moving car = black box], I am and will continue to be not interested.
Ow, and where do the little journal articles come from? Send here by
God perhaps?
"""Invented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature
of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond
vapourised.
A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric
arc. H2 > H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely
hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The
atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is
the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-
hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC).
The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to
extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface.
It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical
reaction. H + H > H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the
atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output.
>From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter -""
is a nobel price good enough for you idiot?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1932/langmuir-bio.html
ow you wanted physics papers.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v40/i1/p78_1
""An equation is derived which gives the accommodation coefficient α
of a gas striking a surface as the ratio of the observed heat loss
from the surface to the theoretical heat loss that would be observed
if all the gas molecules came to thermal equilibrium with the surface.
The experiments show that at temperatures above 600°K the values of α
for hydrogen (0.20 mm pressure) are greatly reduced by the presence of
oxygen on the surface of the tungsten. Oxygen is inevitably produced
in a tube when a tungsten filament is burned at T>1500°K in hydrogen,
as the atomic H thus formed dislodges oxygen from the walls even when
the walls are cooled in liquid air. Hydrogen is adsorbed on tungsten
at T<1200°K in two different forms, both of which reduce α from its
value for bare tungsten. A film of the first type, which is adsorbed
at T<600°K, changes over into the second type slowly at 600°K and
rapidly at 1100°K. The numerical values of α range from 0.537 for bare
tungsten to 0.143 for tungsten with an adsorbed hydrogen film of the
second type, and 0.094 for tungsten with an adsorbed film of oxygen.
At T<200°K an oxygen film forms which increases α to 0.422 at 150°K,
provided that a small concentration of oxygen is continually present
in the gas phase.
©1932 The American Physical Society""
booo booo bwhaaaa whaaaa - yes?
Eric Gisse
[snip junk]
So what the hell does Hydrogen have to do with anything?
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Mar 3, 4:15 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip junk]
>
what are you whining now baby? First you pretend things are not real
because the information is not delivered to you on a golden plate.
Seems rather far away from doing research but ok. Then you whine like
a spoiled baby? bheee bheeee wahaaa whaaaa
"" If you can't present a journal article in which free energy is
observed, or a video that does not involve a black box [a moving car =
black box], I am and will continue to be not interested.""
Ow, and where do the little journal articles come from? Send here by
God perhaps?
I even give you your journals because you apparently cant search as
well as post.
"""Invented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature
of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond
vapourised.
A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric
arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely
hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The
atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is
the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-
hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC).
The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to
extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface.
It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical
reaction. H + H H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the
atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output.
From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter -""
is a Nobel price good enough for you idiot?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1932/langmuir-...
ow you wanted physics papers.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v40/i1/p78_1
""An equation is derived which gives the accommodation coefficient a
of a gas striking a surface as the ratio of the observed heat loss
from the surface to the theoretical heat loss that would be observed
if all the gas molecules came to thermal equilibrium with the
surface.
The experiments show that at temperatures above 600°K the values of a
for hydrogen (0.20 mm pressure) are greatly reduced by the presence
of
oxygen on the surface of the tungsten. Oxygen is inevitably produced
in a tube when a tungsten filament is burned at T1500°K in hydrogen,
as the atomic H thus formed dislodges oxygen from the walls even when
the walls are cooled in liquid air. Hydrogen is adsorbed on tungsten
at T<1200°K in two different forms, both of which reduce a from its
value for bare tungsten. A film of the first type, which is adsorbed
at T<600°K, changes over into the second type slowly at 600°K and
rapidly at 1100°K. The numerical values of a range from 0.537 for
bare
tungsten to 0.143 for tungsten with an adsorbed hydrogen film of the
second type, and 0.094 for tungsten with an adsorbed film of oxygen.
At T<200°K an oxygen film forms which increases a to 0.422 at 150°K,
provided that a small concentration of oxygen is continually present
in the gas phase.
©1932 The American Physical Society""
booo booo bwhaaaa whaaaa - yes?
> So what the hell does Hydrogen have to do with anything?
What hydrogen has to do with it? The topic is about FREE ENERGY
idiot. Sad how everything keeps escaping your attention. Are you
that dumb? It sure seems that way. Shit I'm talking with a dumb
person.
What a disappointment.
Sam Wormley
> On Mar 3, 2:48 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 4:15 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip junk]
>>
Hey Gaby--Learn about the conservation of energy.
PD
> On Mar 1, 10:33 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi.
>
> > > Why say thatfree energyis impossible? We do not know everything, and
> > > we should never pretend to.Free energymay still be possible, it's
> > > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> > Of course it's possible. And you are *perfectly* entitled to expend
> > any and all resources available to you to demonstrate that it's
> > possible.
>
> > However, if you want to conscript or recruit *others* to the effort,
> > then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it.
> > Presently, the patent office has taken the position that any
> > application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation
> > is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it.
>
> And I'm supposed to get all this proof _myself_? Few if any research
> projects can be done on one's own.
Precisely. But those that conscript others also have to demonstrate to
those same others that there is a reasonable risk of success. The time
and resources of others are valuable, and they try to choose wisely in
which directions to invest them. There certainly are many individuals
who are not able to gather enough rationale (what you call "proof") to
convince others of reasonable chance of success, or who are simply
willing to gamble more. These individuals do devote their own
resources to do it on their own -- or at least give it a go.
So you have a simple choice: gather the rationale sufficient to
convince others to buy into a reasonable risk, or invest enough of
your own resources to do it yourself. Please don't whine to me that
the choice is unfair.
>
> What "risk" are you referring to? You mean, because the scientific
> community ridicules them so much?
No, not at all. Ridicule doesn't come into it very much at all.
However, the risk of *wasting time and resources* without a reasonable
expectation of success is a daunting one for most responsible adults.
> And I did not say anything about
> patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
> about
> patenting/selling anything.
Still doesn't defray the risk.
>
> What I am trying to say is that science can never pretend to have all
> the answers, this is a fundamental precept. Therefore we should be
> free to question absolutely every doctrine, every theory, every
> experiment, search for any evidence for/against any claim, etc.
> Questions are of the utmost importance in science, and without them
> there can be no scientific progress.
Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
economics and a basic reality of life. The priority is partially based
on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
"risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
with anything of value to lend to the cause.
Does this come as a surprise to you, Mike?
galathaea
> we should never pretend to. Free energy may still be possible, it's
> just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
find out more about johann josef loschmidt
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/67e19c9a3e1d85a0/?hl=en#
http://users.aol.com/atrupp/loschmidt01.pdf
check out work on integrable quantum two-level systems
daniel sheehan organised a conference
to discuss work on the " quantum limits of the second law "
which is available as a conference proceedings by the same name
also
there are some proposals for engines driven off the zero-point
and other exotic phenomena
but do understand that this has been a long quest
many have failed
and most observers of the quest have come to expect failure
it is not something set in stone
however
and not something that has ever been derived from first principles
in fact
either way
the question is still wide open
and now with
dark matter
dark energy
and strange thermodynamic events with black holes
it is a field in need of courageous researchers
to at least question what is possible
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
mike3
> On Mar 1, 5:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > move the pointer over the underlined text and push down the mouse
> > > button, a new page will open after that it all speaks for it self.
>
> > >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
>
> > You, Gaby, can look up the historical papers, data, and all
> > the evidence you need in the area of conservation ofenergy
> > and thermodynamics. The record is clear... and the experiments
> > are repeatable... many done routinely in classrooms of colleges,
> > universities and even in high schools.
>
> > OK--Given that there IS friction and that there IS radiation
> > of radiation and is, therefore, slowing down, eventually to stop
> > its rotational motion. You're just another[blablabla]
>
> Fact: All electric motors already work with magnets.
>
Uh... yeah. So what's your point? That does
not mean that any configuration of magnets
will magically generate free energy.
> Analysis: It makes your argument ridiculous.
>
How does this follow from the "fact" above?
> Conclusion: You are an idiot.
This only works if your "analysis" really does
follow logically from the fact. Otherwise, your
argument fails.
mike3
That isn't the magnet motor.
> thanks
mike3
> On Mar 3, 5:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Mar 1, 5:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>> move the pointer over the underlined text and push down the mouse
> > >>> button, a new page will open after that it all speaks for it self.
> > >>>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor
> > >> You, Gaby, can look up the historical papers, data, and all
> > >> the evidence you need in the area of conservation ofenergy
> > >> and thermodynamics. The record is clear... and the experiments
> > >> are repeatable... many done routinely in classrooms of colleges,
> > >> universities and even in high schools.
>
> > >> OK--Given that there IS friction and that there IS radiation
> > >> of radiation and is, therefore, slowing down, eventually to stop
> > >> its rotational motion. You're just another[blablabla]
>
> > > Fact: All electric motors already work with magnets.
>
> > > Analysis: It makes your argument ridiculous.
>
> > > Conclusion: You are an idiot.
>
> > Electric motors require an *energysource*!
>
> fuck you troll,.
>
> your argument was "the magnets radiate away"
>
The magnets radiate away, yes. That means that an
electric motor can never be 100% efficient in converting
electrical energy to mechanical energy, much less
over 100% efficient.
100% efficiency is forbidden by 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>100% efficiency (as in energy from nowhere at all) is
forbidden by 1st law of thermodynamics.
> you are a liar.
>
> Given that there IS friction and that there IS radiation from
> accelerating magnets,
>
> Friction is work idiot.
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Energy_By_Motion_(EBM)
>
> here you go you baboon faced dog.
>
> Where does the energy come from?
>
In a motor? From the electricity. Which is generated by some
other source of energy.
> Is it from friction or not?
>
> AH??
>
> Get your facts straight idiot.
Maybe you could stop flaming? *All* of you, okay? It does not
serve to advance any side's argument and it is not mature,
civil behavior.
mike3
Maybe you should show him what he's talking about, like I
have been trying to do.
mike3
> On Mar 1, 4:26 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >mike3wrote:
>
> > > Hi.
>
> > > we should never pretend to.Freeenergymay still be possible, it's
> > > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> > 1) Time is homogeneous, then
> > 2) Noether's theorem, so
> > 4) No exceptions, no footnotes, no alernatives.
>
> You have a nice website but you are an idiot uncle all. That means we
> can not trust anything you say. Your argument not to go look for
> something has to have a motivation of either laziness or pure
> disinformation.
>
> Denial is not research idiot.
>
> .
Your magnet motor does not work.
mike3
Why aren't they able to gather enough rationale/proof? Is it because
their theory is wrong (which is an acceptable reason), or because they
need others to give them the means, and thus by denying them that they
cannot even gather enough rationale even if their idea works and _is_
worth
the risk (the Ed's Coral Castle problem, see below)?
> So you have a simple choice: gather the rationale sufficient to
> convince others to buy into a reasonable risk, or invest enough of
> your own resources to do it yourself. Please don't whine to me that
> the choice is unfair.
>
So then basically you say I should do it myself, ALONE???? Ok. Let's
say I need a particle accelerator, a big one, to demonstrate or test
some
crank theory I devise one day. So you expect me, alone, like Ed the
guy who built Coral Castle, to build the whole accelerator ring,
everything,
all on my own to gather enough starting evidence ("rationale" as you
call it)? No construction workers, no bankers, no nothing. Just me and
my
own two hands. Progress is never going to be made that way!
You _need_ to have other people come into the equation at some point.
Yes, the burden of proof is on the proposer, but if the proposer is
seeking to see if his proposal really is true, and willing to admit if
it is wrong,
he is supposed to do that, totally, completely, _alone_?! Literally,
like Ed
the guy who built Coral Castle?
>
>
> > What "risk" are you referring to? You mean, because the scientific
> > community ridicules them so much?
>
> No, not at all. Ridicule doesn't come into it very much at all.
> However, the risk of *wasting time and resources* without a reasonable
> expectation of success is a daunting one for most responsible adults.
>
Even if it ends up proving that free energy in any form is totally
impossible,
we have still gained knowledge. Questions, in my view, are never, ever
wrong. Science requires true freedom.
> > And I did not say anything about
> > patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
> > about
> > patenting/selling anything.
>
> Still doesn't defray the risk.
>
To me, the "risk" does not exist. If it turns out that the answer to a
question,
like "Is free energy possible?" is no, then it's been answered.
Knowledge
has been gained.
And the risk in the case of free energy is definitely worth it.
Consider the
energy crisis. I'm not asking, "does device X work?", but rather "Is
free
energy possible, yes or no?". Energy crisis could be solved if the
answer
is yes.
>
>
> > What I am trying to say is that science can never pretend to have all
> > the answers, this is a fundamental precept. Therefore we should be
> > free to question absolutely every doctrine, every theory, every
> > experiment, search for any evidence for/against any claim, etc.
> > Questions are of the utmost importance in science, and without them
> > there can be no scientific progress.
>
> Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
> economics and a basic reality of life. The priority is partially based
> on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
> "risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
> say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
> that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
> with anything of value to lend to the cause.
>
> Does this come as a surprise to you, Mike?
>
>
I think that one should not be slammed by their peers when they
try out an unorthodox line of investigation. You say that they should
have to invest their own resources. Then why go and slam them when
they try to do just that just because in your opinion the question is
worthless?
Free energy has the possibility to benefit all humanity. Anything that
does
that _is_ worth the risk, like it or not.
mike3
But what if gathering the rationale requires significant resources and
_other people_ (see the Coral Castle problem I mentioned in my other
post)?
The_Man
Then you have to provide a sufficiently compelling argument to
convince those others. If you want government funding, you have to
convince the agency that YOUR project is a good use of their money, or
at least a better use of their money than somebody else's idea.
This is why agencies generally fund those who have a good track
record. If you've taken money in the past, and made good on your
project, you are a good investment. If you are new, with no track
record, they'll look at your idea VERY carefully.
This is no different than a bank. Those with good credit can get money
on loan any time they want (sunject to their ability to pay it back,
income, etc.), and those who have failed to repay in the past only get
loans at very high interest, commensurate with the level of risk.
In the immoral words of Buddy Cianfrani (corrrupt Philadelphia
politician):
"Money talks, bullshit walks."
The mere fact that no one is interested in supplying THEIR money,
THEIR equipment, or THEIR manpower is the best indication that your
ideas are a waste. If they were are promising as you say, people would
be fighting each other to get a piece of your invention. Getting lots
of calls?
The fantasy that there is a conspiracy is contrary to human nature.
People want to make a buck. If they could make a buck with you, they
would invest. Why shovel their money down a shit hole when they could
lend it out for credit cards and get 20% interest?
"Money talks, bullshit walks."
>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mike3
> On Mar 3, 5:41 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 10:33 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi.
>
> > > > > > Why say thatfree energyis impossible? We do not know everything, and
And if I need equipment to gather _evidence_ for _that_ argument?
I have to build it all myself like Ed (see my other post, it hasn't
been
responded to yet)? I have to build the silicon chips? I need to make
my own chip fab and I'm the only one who should operate it?
> This is why agencies generally fund those who have a good track
> record. If you've taken money in the past, and made good on your
> project, you are a good investment. If you are new, with no track
> record, they'll look at your idea VERY carefully.
>
So then I just need an idea. If the logic is sound, I don't need to
use
someone else's equipment to get proof -- the solid logic alone
provides enough rationale to get the resources required to obtain
actual evidence?
> This is no different than a bank. Those with good credit can get money
> on loan any time they want (sunject to their ability to pay it back,
> income, etc.), and those who have failed to repay in the past only get
> loans at very high interest, commensurate with the level of risk.
>
> In the immoral words of Buddy Cianfrani (corrrupt Philadelphia
> politician):
>
> "Money talks, bullshit walks."
>
> The mere fact that no one is interested in supplying THEIR money,
> THEIR equipment, or THEIR manpower is the best indication that your
> ideas are a waste. If they were are promising as you say, people would
> be fighting each other to get a piece of your invention. Getting lots
> of calls?
>
Of course I'm not getting any calls -- I have no inventions as of yet.
None at all! I didn't even _claim_ to have any. I'm not talking about
something I am doing right now, I am talking about something I want
to do in the future.
mike3
> On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> there is a natural prioritization that must occur.
So if I go and choose to investigate a question _on my own_ that is
too
"low priority" then you believe it would be right to attack me and
claim
I'm wrong before I've even presented a case, and try to stifle the
project?
Even though I would be working like Ed on the Coral Castle, literally?
Eric Gisse
[snip outburst]
>
> > So what the hell does Hydrogen have to do with anything?
>
> What hydrogen has to do with it? The topic is about FREE ENERGY
> idiot. Sad how everything keeps escaping your attention. Are you
> that dumb? It sure seems that way. Shit I'm talking with a dumb
> person.
Oddly enough, nothing you wrote involves free energy.
Go back to spamming the ZPE forums, gaby. I bet they miss you. A
sucker like you is a rare and precious thing indeed.
>
> What a disappointment.
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> > > And I did not say anything about
> > > patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
> > > about
> > > patenting/selling anything.
>
> > Still doesn't defray the risk.
>
> To me, the "risk" does not exist. If it turns out that the answer to a
> question,
> like "Is free energy possible?" is no, then it's been answered.
> Knowledge
> has been gained.
Uh, that is the answer. That has been the answer for the last 150
years or so.
I think it is time to explain what your science background is.
[....]
>
> I think that one should not be slammed by their peers when they
> try out an unorthodox line of investigation. You say that they should
> have to invest their own resources. Then why go and slam them when
> they try to do just that just because in your opinion the question is
> worthless?
Except people like gaby are what I tend to call "stupid". Folks who
don't understand the basics aren't going to be able to figure out how
to look in a new and untried way.
>
> Free energy has the possibility to benefit all humanity. Anything that
> does
> that _is_ worth the risk, like it or not.
What risk? Go ahead, piss more time and money away. You aren't the
first and most certainly not the last to try.
Sam Wormley
Gaby, you are a excellent example of a person who can't think
critically. Pity that you painted yourself into the anti physics
corner! Oh the irony of posting your bullshit on sci.physics!
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
mike3
> On Mar 3, 1:07 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > > > And I did not say anything about
> > > > patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
> > > > about
> > > > patenting/selling anything.
>
> > > Still doesn't defray the risk.
>
> > To me, the "risk" does not exist. If it turns out that the answer to a
> > question,
> > like "Is free energy possible?" is no, then it's been answered.
> > Knowledge
> > has been gained.
>
> Uh, that is the answer. That has been the answer for the last 150
> years or so.
>
Free energy != perpetual motion
> I think it is time to explain what your science background is.
>
> [....]
>
>
>
> > I think that one should not be slammed by their peers when they
> > try out an unorthodox line of investigation. You say that they should
> > have to invest their own resources. Then why go and slam them when
> > they try to do just that just because in your opinion the question is
> > worthless?
>
> Except people like gaby are what I tend to call "stupid". Folks who
> don't understand the basics aren't going to be able to figure out how
> to look in a new and untried way.
>
But if I *did* understand the basics, then would you provide me with
resources to look in a new, untried way and to test my claim?
>
>
> > Free energy has the possibility to benefit all humanity. Anything that
> > does
> > that _is_ worth the risk, like it or not.
>
> What risk? Go ahead, piss more time and money away. You aren't the
> first and most certainly not the last to try.
>
"Piss" it away? Eventually I _am_ going to work on free energy and I
do _not_ consider it a waste of money! Not when there's the potential
to benefit the entire human race!
Whoof!
mike3
> I think it is time to explain what your science background is.
>
I don't have much at the moment, no degrees -- not yet. So
obviously then I haven't proposed any theories or inventions.
But when I get degrees and experience, I'm going to go and
investigate free energy -- bring the tools of real science
onto the free energy problem starting from a neutral point of
view, something that no other scientist has had the courage
to do since the scientific community HATES the idea.
mike3
So even if I _did_ know the basics and thus could be able to figure
out
how to look in a new and untried way, trying to do so would still be
considered a waste ("piss") by you?! What the frigg?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
mike3
> Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> there is a natural prioritization that must occur.
But when someone tries to tackle one of those "lower priority"
"interesting questions", like Jeff Meldrum and Bigfoot, they get
slammed for doing it (like the aforementioned J.M. did).
mike3
> Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
> economics and a basic reality of life.
And once all the "common" questions are exhausted then we MUST look
to the others otherwise NO more progress will be made.
> The priority is partially based
> on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
> "risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
> say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
> that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
> with anything of value to lend to the cause.
>
Nobody will be convinced of ANYTHING if they do not WANT to be
convinced. I won't try the "benefits are worth any risk" argument, but
if I try something more substantial and people still refuse to be
convinced
no matter how tough the argument is then they CANNOT be convinced.
But that does NOT mean the argument is wrong. Whether or not an
argument "convinces" someone does not determine it's validity as
people can (and many people DO) choose NOT to be convinced PERIOD!
Eric Gisse
Remind me, what is your education in modern science?
The_Man
Did you read the sentence just above? "If you are new, with no track
record, they'll look at your idea VERY carefully." Which means you
need TWO things - good (sound) idea, and a record of accomplishment
(turning good ideas into results).
Do you understand football? If you want to get drafted high into the
NFL, you need to have had a great college career. How many people walk
off the street into a big NFL contract? How do you KNOW that Joe
Schmoe off the street isn't the next Joe Montana?
People are very funny with their money - they don't want to piss it
away, or give it away. If your idea is great enough, maybe you can
convince your friends and relatives to invest. Or, you can accomplish
something small in physics - like getting a bachelor's degree. If you
do that well, schools will pay YOU to dom research for a master's or
Ph.D. Once you have accomplished a complete successful research
project, they might trust you to become a post-doc. Do that well, and
you might get a faculty position. Once you have that, you continue to
publish research papers, and you'll be a good risk for the NSF or such
to help you buy top-notch instrumentation, anhd pay for lots of
helpers.
That's the way the game is played. Wait your turn, prove yourself, and
pay your dues. Unfair? Tough. I still think it's not fair that my
parents aren't billionaires.
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is no different than a bank. Those with good credit can get money
> > on loan any time they want (sunject to their ability to pay it back,
> > income, etc.), and those who have failed to repay in the past only get
> > loans at very high interest, commensurate with the level of risk.
>
> > In the immoral words of Buddy Cianfrani (corrrupt Philadelphia
> > politician):
>
> > "Money talks, bullshit walks."
>
> > The mere fact that no one is interested in supplying THEIR money,
> > THEIR equipment, or THEIR manpower is the best indication that your
> > ideas are a waste. If they were are promising as you say, people would
> > be fighting each other to get a piece of your invention. Getting lots
> > of calls?
>
> Of course I'm not getting any calls -- I have no inventions as of yet.
> None at all! I didn't even _claim_ to have any. I'm not talking about
> something I am doing right now, I am talking about something I want
> to do in the future.
>
>
>
> > The fantasy that there is a conspiracy is contrary to human nature.
> > People want to make a buck. If they could make a buck with you, they
> > would invest. Why shovel their money down a shit hole when they could
> > lend it out for credit cards and get 20% interest?
>
> > "Money talks, bullshit walks."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
Nah, no one got slammed until he started telling others that they
should be chasing Bigfoot, too. That's when they looked at his
evidence *very carefully* and said, "Sorry, no sale."
PD
PD
> ....
>
> > Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> > are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> > there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
> > economics and a basic reality of life.
>
> And once all the "common" questions are exhausted then we MUST look
> to the others otherwise NO more progress will be made.
No need to worry there. There are LOTS of "common" questions that have
barely been touched, though it's plain (or at least *much* plainer)
that an answer there is much more likely than in some of the
"uncommon" ones.
There is no shortage of solid, defensible work.
>
> > The priority is partially based
> > on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
> > "risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
> > say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
> > that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
> > with anything of value to lend to the cause.
>
> Nobody will be convinced of ANYTHING if they do not WANT to be
> convinced.
Of course not. Fortunately, there are lots of folks who are eager to
look at well-crafted proposals to study just about anything that looks
remotely interesting. This extends to government funding agencies. The
key phrase is "well-crafted proposal". Proposals well out of the
mainstream are approved all the time. Some of them even pan out. But
you DO have to do the work, as all the proposers do. Sorry, there's no
shortcut.
> I won't try the "benefits are worth any risk" argument, but
> if I try something more substantial and people still refuse to be
> convinced
> no matter how tough the argument is then they CANNOT be convinced.
> But that does NOT mean the argument is wrong. Whether or not an
> argument "convinces" someone does not determine it's validity as
> people can (and many people DO) choose NOT to be convinced PERIOD!
Well, you can always take this persecution-complex approach if you
like. I know there are many ill-fated cranks that are very adept at
it. I think you'll find, though, that if you ask, you'll find out
exactly what weaknesses were perceived in your proposal and what
recommendations they have for addressing those weaknesses. That ALSO
is standard procedure for reviewing proposals. Usually, those who are
committed and resourceful will then go back and address those
weaknesses until either the proposal is convincing, or until they are
convinced themselves that the idea has some serious flaws.
This, too, is part of the *work* of doing science. Everyone who does
science engages in it. That's what makes it *work* and not a hobby.
PD
> On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> > are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> > there is a natural prioritization that must occur.
>
> So if I go and choose to investigate a question _on my own_ that is
> too
> "low priority" then you believe it would be right to attack me and
> claim
> I'm wrong before I've even presented a case, and try to stifle the
> project?
Not at all. How could someone stifle a project that you are working on
alone?
Now, the moment you bring it out for view and solicit others to
comment on it, brace yourself if it's not ready, if it's not solid, if
it's just a germ of an idea and you haven't really thought it through
yet.
Have courage in your convictions, Mike! If you are sure that something
is worthwhile, and if you don't want to try to win someone over with a
benefits-risk argument, then knuckle down and do it. You don't need a
pat of assurance every step of the way while you work it out. If you
need to learn how to do something in order to answer your own
questions, then find someone that can teach you how to do that
something. If you are doing something that no one can help you with,
then develop it on your own until you are *sure* it is convincing.
> Even though I would be working like Ed on the Coral Castle, literally?
Sure. Didn't stop Ed, did it? Note that no one tried to stifle Ed,
either, did they?
PD
PD
No, I don't think you are following. It is not sufficient to say,
"Hey, let's give it a shot! If it doesn't work, then I'm wrong, no
harm done, we've learned something."
You CAN demonstrate that it is *highly* likely that something
interesting is going on, and *highly* likely that your idea is the
answer. See below following your particle accelerator example.
>
> > So you have a simple choice: gather the rationale sufficient to
> > convince others to buy into a reasonable risk, or invest enough of
> > your own resources to do it yourself. Please don't whine to me that
> > the choice is unfair.
>
> So then basically you say I should do it myself, ALONE???? Ok. Let's
> say I need a particle accelerator, a big one, to demonstrate or test
> some
> crank theory I devise one day. So you expect me, alone, like Ed the
> guy who built Coral Castle, to build the whole accelerator ring,
> everything,
> all on my own to gather enough starting evidence ("rationale" as you
> call it)? No construction workers, no bankers, no nothing. Just me and
> my
> own two hands. Progress is never going to be made that way!
> You _need_ to have other people come into the equation at some point.
Yes, of course. And let's take this example, because it's something I
have some experience in. Let's take the case where there is a particle
accelerator available and you want to run an experiment there to try
something, because that's easier than the case where you need a whole
new accelerator. Typically what happens in a case like this is this:
*There is a *known* problem that needs an answer.
*One person does some preliminary estimates and figures out that at
least in principle the accelerator is powerful enough, precise enough,
and bright enough to provide an answer to the question.
*This one person talks to a couple other people and convinces them of
the soundness of the preliminary estimates.
*This small group of people gets together to ask and work out the
answers to a few more feasibility issues: roughly how big a project is
this? what are the chief technical issues? how much data will we need?
is this likely to be answered at other experiments before we get this
one built?
*The answers to these questions are put together and those few make
trips to visit others who can help develop the idea still further,
including dividing up some of the work, doing more detailed
calculations of the kind of apparatus that will be necessary, doing a
significant number of computer simulations of how the apparatus will
work in the accelerator. By this time there is a largish collaboration
(perhaps a hundred or so) of people all convinced this looks like a
feasible idea with a strong likelihood of providing the answer needed.
*At this point, they start putting their calculations and estimates
and results of simulations together, and they make serious estimates
of the exact equipment needed, including first-round designs of never-
been-built-before equipment, and they estimate the number of people
and a realistic, understandable cost estimate for the project to make
it happen, and they write a detailed proposal.
*This proposal is then submitted for review for those that would
approve resources, laboratory manpower, funds to build equipment. The
review panel picks it over with a fine-tooth comb, sends comments and
concerns back to the collaboration and asks them to refine their
proposal to answer the lingering doubts. When everyone is satisfied
that this is a promising experimental proposal, all carefully thought
out, and likely to answer the question as well as claimed, then and
only then is it given the green light to proceed.
For a typical experiment at a particle accelerator, the collaboration
may run from 50 to 500 people, the equipment may cost $20M to $200M to
build, and lifetime of the project, from idea to completed and tested
equipment to data taking to analysis and determining the answer, may
run from 5 to 25 years. The laboratory will commit another $100M in
resources, from power bills to run the accelerator to beamline
technicians that aid in the installation of the equipment and check
that everyone turns in their personal radiation detectors on time.
And this is *precisely* how scientific progress IS made. It IS work,
no question, a lot of it.
> Yes, the burden of proof is on the proposer, but if the proposer is
> seeking to see if his proposal really is true, and willing to admit if
> it is wrong,
> he is supposed to do that, totally, completely, _alone_?! Literally,
> like Ed
> the guy who built Coral Castle?
As you can see, there is more to it than that. Even Ed the Coral
Castle guy had to submit plans, get construction permits, make sure he
knew how big a load-bearing beam has to be, all that.
>
>
>
> > > What "risk" are you referring to? You mean, because the scientific
> > > community ridicules them so much?
>
> > No, not at all. Ridicule doesn't come into it very much at all.
> > However, the risk of *wasting time and resources* without a reasonable
> > expectation of success is a daunting one for most responsible adults.
>
> Even if it ends up proving that free energy in any form is totally
> impossible,
> we have still gained knowledge. Questions, in my view, are never, ever
> wrong. Science requires true freedom.
No, science does not require true freedom, sorry to say. Every
endeavor, even science, needs to be defensible.
>
> > > And I did not say anything about
> > > patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
> > > about
> > > patenting/selling anything.
>
> > Still doesn't defray the risk.
>
> To me, the "risk" does not exist. If it turns out that the answer to a
> question,
> like "Is free energy possible?" is no, then it's been answered.
Yes, but there are people who will have chipped in millions of dollars
and aimed scores of employees to help you, just to find out "Nope,
didn't work," when they could have been aimed instead at something
that looks much more promising. I think you can see why others might
want to weigh their options more closely.
> Knowledge
> has been gained.
True, but perhaps more valuable knowledge can be gained if they are
working on something else, no? You perhaps don't see that you are
*competing* for resources. People and equipment don't grow on trees.
>
> And the risk in the case of free energy is definitely worth it.
> Consider the
> energy crisis. I'm not asking, "does device X work?", but rather "Is
> free
> energy possible, yes or no?". Energy crisis could be solved if the
> answer
> is yes.
Right, and your financial worries are over if you win the lottery. Is
it worth it to empty out your savings and buy lottery tickets?
>
> > > What I am trying to say is that science can never pretend to have all
> > > the answers, this is a fundamental precept. Therefore we should be
> > > free to question absolutely every doctrine, every theory, every
> > > experiment, search for any evidence for/against any claim, etc.
> > > Questions are of the utmost importance in science, and without them
> > > there can be no scientific progress.
>
> > Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> > are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> > there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
> > economics and a basic reality of life. The priority is partially based
> > on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
> > "risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
> > say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
> > that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
> > with anything of value to lend to the cause.
>
> > Does this come as a surprise to you, Mike?
>
> I think that one should not be slammed by their peers when they
> try out an unorthodox line of investigation.
You won't be. Just be careful in deciding when to air the
investigation to public view. When you do that, the assumption is that
you've done your homework. When food is brought to the table, it is
expected that it is cooked. It does no good to bring out a sketch of
the dish and a recipe card and say, this is what I have in mind.
> You say that they should
> have to invest their own resources. Then why go and slam them when
> they try to do just that just because in your opinion the question is
> worthless?
I don't, if they do it on their own. If they want to solicit my
review, though, that's an investment of time on my part, which is
valuable to me. So I expect to see something ready to be reviewed, not
a barely warmed idea.
>
> Free energy has the possibility to benefit all humanity. Anything that
> does
> that _is_ worth the risk, like it or not.
No, it's not worth ANY risk, sorry. It's much better if you can
demonstrate that a moderate investment is very likely to provide at
least partial progress, and that a deeper investment at a later point
is likely to provide more progress, and so on.
This is just business, Mike, sorry. Real life. Extends to science,
too.
PD
> On Mar 3, 4:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ....
>
> > I think it is time to explain what your science background is.
>
> I don't have much at the moment, no degrees -- not yet.
Well, this works against you. If you have some training, reviewers
take it for granted that you know the basics of experimental design,
how to do calculations, know how to check your work, and are familiar
with the work done to date.
If you don't have that advantage, you have to demonstrate that you
have those skills more explicitly.
> So
> obviously then I haven't proposed any theories or inventions.
> But when I get degrees and experience, I'm going to go and
> investigate free energy -- bring the tools of real science
> onto the free energy problem starting from a neutral point of
> view, something that no other scientist has had the courage
> to do since the scientific community HATES the idea.
Actually, there's a fair number of people in the scientific community
that are working on cheap energy, really cheap energy. You see, it
will help if you can demonstrate that you are familiar with the work
that has already been done and is being done.
PD
mike3
...
> Yes, of course. And let's take this example, because it's something I
> have some experience in. Let's take the case where there is a particle
> accelerator available and you want to run an experiment there to try
> something, because that's easier than the case where you need a whole
> new accelerator. Typically what happens in a case like this is this:
> And this is *precisely* how scientific progress IS made. It IS work,
> no question, a lot of it.
>
Yes, and I want to try to see if free energy exists. It IS work, yes
indeed, but you cannot expect to do it _totally_ alone! That's what
you fail to see -- you can't even _demonstrate_ it totally alone. Ie.
you are asking what amounts to the impossible.
...
> As you can see, there is more to it than that. Even Ed the Coral
> Castle guy had to submit plans, get construction permits, make sure he
> knew how big a load-bearing beam has to be, all that.
>
So then obviously he needed someone else. How could he "demonstrate"
his claim in a way that needed him, and ONLY him? As that's what you
seem to demand -- prove that it is a viable inquiry oneself and ONLY
oneself.
....
> No, science does not require true freedom, sorry to say. Every
> endeavor, even science, needs to be defensible.
>
So then you'd go and harass someone for trying to go off on
an unorthodox line of research?
...
> Yes, but there are people who will have chipped in millions of dollars
> and aimed scores of employees to help you, just to find out "Nope,
> didn't work," when they could have been aimed instead at something
> that looks much more promising. I think you can see why others might
> want to weigh their options more closely.
>
But what if I have an idea, and I want to develop it. And it turns out
I'll need more people than just me _myself_ to do that. To develop
and _test_ it.
...
> True, but perhaps more valuable knowledge can be gained if they are
> working on something else, no? You perhaps don't see that you are
> *competing* for resources. People and equipment don't grow on trees.
>
I don't think a whole heap of people right now really want to take
free energy as seriously as I want to.
...
> You won't be. Just be careful in deciding when to air the
> investigation to public view. When you do that, the assumption is that
> you've done your homework. When food is brought to the table, it is
> expected that it is cooked. It does no good to bring out a sketch of
> the dish and a recipe card and say, this is what I have in mind.
>
But what if it will take the help of others in order to build a
working model, or "cook the food", so to speak. Let's say I
come up with a logically consistent new theory of physics that
agrees with observations, and makes new predictions. But I
cannot test those predictions myself, totally alone, as I would need
equipment that I might not be able to buy and I would not have
enough hands, if you get my drift. I have a theory, and it sounds way
"out there", but it agrees with all known observations, and makes
falsifiable predictions -- ie. it's scientific. It also predicts the
possibility
of a nearly unlimited source of energy, and then I deduce from it
plans to build a machine. But I cannot build the machine without
access to specialized laboratories, and thus I still need other
people.
And this is to make a _working model_ to _demonstrate_ my claims.
> > You say that they should
> > have to invest their own resources. Then why go and slam them when
> > they try to do just that just because in your opinion the question is
> > worthless?
>
> I don't, if they do it on their own. If they want to solicit my
> review, though, that's an investment of time on my part, which is
> valuable to me. So I expect to see something ready to be reviewed, not
> a barely warmed idea.
>
What would be "ready to review" in your opinion? Would a logically
self-consistent theory that agrees with all known observations and
makes new predictions that haven't yet been tested, and/or a detailed,
consistent, well-explained set of schematics for a free energy machine
based on this theory be considered "ready" in your opinion? These
things one can work on on their own if they are committed to it
enough.
Or would you demand a working model? But say it requires some
sophisticated nano-chip or something that can only be built by a
specialized factory. Then I would need to recruit the resources of
_others_ simplly to _demonstrate_ my claim. See where this is going?
>
>
> > Free energy has the possibility to benefit all humanity. Anything that
> > does
> > that _is_ worth the risk, like it or not.
>
> No, it's not worth ANY risk, sorry. It's much better if you can
> demonstrate that a moderate investment is very likely to provide at
> least partial progress, and that a deeper investment at a later point
> is likely to provide more progress, and so on.
>
But how can you demonstrate it, without invoking the resources of
others?! See above.
> This is just business, Mike, sorry. Real life. Extends to science,
> too.
>
Of course that's not how things _should_ be, but unfortunately they
are and nobody wants to see it's a problem and change.
mike3
Well I'll go and chase Bigfoot if I want, based on his evidence. It
may
not be 100% conclusive, but I think it suggests something is out
there.
Nobody wants to find out *what* that is, though. Maybe it IS Bigfoot,
maybe not. But until somebody investigates...
> PD
mike3
> On Mar 3, 6:15 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ....
>
> > > Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> > > are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> > > there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
> > > economics and a basic reality of life.
>
> > And once all the "common" questions are exhausted then we MUST look
> > to the others otherwise NO more progress will be made.
>
> No need to worry there. There are LOTS of "common" questions that have
> barely been touched, though it's plain (or at least *much* plainer)
> that an answer there is much more likely than in some of the
> "uncommon" ones.
>
> There is no shortage of solid, defensible work.
>
Can you make solid work on an "uncommon" question? Are there
more hurdles to it than on a "common" one? If so, why?!
>
>
> > > The priority is partially based
> > > on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
> > > "risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
> > > say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
> > > that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
> > > with anything of value to lend to the cause.
>
> > Nobody will be convinced of ANYTHING if they do not WANT to be
> > convinced.
>
> Of course not. Fortunately, there are lots of folks who are eager to
> look at well-crafted proposals to study just about anything that looks
> remotely interesting. This extends to government funding agencies. The
> key phrase is "well-crafted proposal". Proposals well out of the
> mainstream are approved all the time. Some of them even pan out. But
> you DO have to do the work, as all the proposers do. Sorry, there's no
> shortcut.
>
I did not say I didn't have to do any work. There's a difference
between "hard work" and "impossible task". The former can be
done with enough willpower, the latter is insanity. For example,
demanding that before others can investigate some theory I have,
that I have to run a big experiment myself to get some evidence.
And I cannot invoke any other people as unless I get that evidence
shred, I might be wasting their time. Thus you would be forcing
me in this scenario to build all the machines I need from scratch,
literally alone. That is insane, and impossible.
But does "well-crafted proposal" mean that if I put up two good
papers with a logically self-consistent, well-thought theory that
agrees with all known observations, and perhaps even some
"mysteries" (woo!) though I have no ability to run complex tests
of it's untested predictions myself (the above Ed and the Coral
Castle problem) due to the evidence demands that would have to
be met to get others to investigate that I cannot meet since I cannot
wield all those investigative tools and facilities totally on my own
(impossible task), that you would still take a look?
> > I won't try the "benefits are worth any risk" argument, but
> > if I try something more substantial and people still refuse to be
> > convinced
> > no matter how tough the argument is then they CANNOT be convinced.
> > But that does NOT mean the argument is wrong. Whether or not an
> > argument "convinces" someone does not determine it's validity as
> > people can (and many people DO) choose NOT to be convinced PERIOD!
>
> Well, you can always take this persecution-complex approach if you
> like. I know there are many ill-fated cranks that are very adept at
> it. I think you'll find, though, that if you ask, you'll find out
> exactly what weaknesses were perceived in your proposal and what
> recommendations they have for addressing those weaknesses. That ALSO
> is standard procedure for reviewing proposals. Usually, those who are
> committed and resourceful will then go back and address those
> weaknesses until either the proposal is convincing, or until they are
> convinced themselves that the idea has some serious flaws.
>
Well I would. Make a good proposal. Work. But right now I have no
proposals. I'm discussing about the future, not the present.
> This, too, is part of the *work* of doing science. Everyone who does
> science engages in it. That's what makes it *work* and not a hobby.
>
I didn't say there was no work. I said that I want to know if it is
possible to pursue unorthodox lines of research.
mike3
...
> Did you read the sentence just above? "If you are new, with no track
> record, they'll look at your idea VERY carefully." Which means you
> need TWO things - good (sound) idea, and a record of accomplishment
> (turning good ideas into results).
>
But if my idea is really, REALLY good (I mean EXTREMELY good -- top
notch, A+, 5-star, superb, wonderful, rock-solid logic), that can
override
a short record of accomplishments.
> Do you understand football? If you want to get drafted high into the
> NFL, you need to have had a great college career. How many people walk
> off the street into a big NFL contract? How do you KNOW that Joe
> Schmoe off the street isn't the next Joe Montana?
>
> People are very funny with their money - they don't want to piss it
> away, or give it away. If your idea is great enough, maybe you can
> convince your friends and relatives to invest. Or, you can accomplish
> something small in physics - like getting a bachelor's degree. If you
> do that well, schools will pay YOU to dom research for a master's or
> Ph.D. Once you have accomplished a complete successful research
> project, they might trust you to become a post-doc. Do that well, and
> you might get a faculty position. Once you have that, you continue to
> publish research papers, and you'll be a good risk for the NSF or such
> to help you buy top-notch instrumentation, anhd pay for lots of
> helpers.
>
> That's the way the game is played. Wait your turn, prove yourself, and
> pay your dues. Unfair? Tough. I still think it's not fair that my
> parents aren't billionaires.
Up to the challenge? If I have a dream, I'll do whatever it takes to
see where it goes. Dreams should be pursued, especially if they
are intent to benefit the world and humanity.
Oh, and my parents ain't no billionaires, and I don't really give much
of a darn. In fact I am quite poor right now -- so that's the first
thing
I'm going to have to work on -- getting out of my financial rut.
mike3
> On Mar 3, 6:02 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 4:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ....
>
> > > I think it is time to explain what your science background is.
>
> > I don't have much at the moment, no degrees -- not yet.
>
> Well, this works against you. If you have some training, reviewers
> take it for granted that you know the basics of experimental design,
> how to do calculations, know how to check your work, and are familiar
> with the work done to date.
>
It doesn't work against me right now, as I have no proposals right
now. None at all. Zip. I'm talking about the future, not the present.
> If you don't have that advantage, you have to demonstrate that you
> have those skills more explicitly.
>
I guess I'll have to get those skills first -- which is my intention.
I
want to pursue these dreams, okay?
...
> Actually, there's a fair number of people in the scientific community
> that are working on cheap energy, really cheap energy. You see, it
> will help if you can demonstrate that you are familiar with the work
> that has already been done and is being done.
>
> PD
Like I said, I do not have any ideas yet. But are they working
on energy so cheap that for only $500 you can buy a machine
that will power a giant mansion-sized home for life? That's what
I mean by "really cheap energy". Stuff that would be as cheap
as perpetual motion, even if it is not real perpetual motion, which
is impossible and I know it.
mike3
> On Mar 3, 5:17 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> > > are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> > > there is a natural prioritization that must occur.
>
> > So if I go and choose to investigate a question _on my own_ that is
> > too
> > "low priority" then you believe it would be right to attack me and
> > claim
> > I'm wrong before I've even presented a case, and try to stifle the
> > project?
>
> Not at all. How could someone stifle a project that you are working on
> alone?
>
You can't, but then again if you are the _only_ one working on it and
nobody else even knows about it, working on it is going to be a little
bit of a problem, if you get my drift. <snicker> (whispers "ed and the
castle and that's a far simpler task than making ICs in your garage")
> Now, the moment you bring it out for view and solicit others to
> comment on it, brace yourself if it's not ready, if it's not solid, if
> it's just a germ of an idea and you haven't really thought it through
> yet.
>
Well I could, but what if I need access to some big piece of lab
equipment or require someone else's help in order to run some key
experiment or find some key data I need to get the theory developed
past some point I'm hung up on, or to test the veracity of the
approach
I am taking?
> Have courage in your convictions, Mike! If you are sure that something
> is worthwhile, and if you don't want to try to win someone over with a
> benefits-risk argument, then knuckle down and do it. You don't need a
> pat of assurance every step of the way while you work it out. If you
> need to learn how to do something in order to answer your own
> questions, then find someone that can teach you how to do that
> something. If you are doing something that no one can help you with,
> then develop it on your own until you are *sure* it is convincing.
>
> > Even though I would be working like Ed on the Coral Castle, literally?
>
> Sure. Didn't stop Ed, did it? Note that no one tried to stifle Ed,
> either, did they?
>
> PD
No, nobody didn't. But are you saying that I must build all the
accelerators,
all the nanochips, all the chip fabs, all the clean rooms, mine all
the
metal, etc. all myself just to get enough evidence to convice some
others
to work on it if that type of equipment is required (accelerators,
chip fabs, science labs, spectrographs, etc.)? And I would have to be
the _only_ person running all this equipment?! I sure hope not. Do you
have any idea how long it would take a single person to build a world-
class physics laboratory working from nothing but scratch and their
own two hands, with absolutely no other people helping them? If that's
what you are asking for you are asking the IMPOSSIBLE of me. Sorry,
but
it's true. No progress is going to be made THAT way.
mike3
> convince those others. If you want government funding, you have to
> convince the agency that YOUR project is a good use of their money, or
> at least a better use of their money than somebody else's idea.
>
And if they don't WANT to be convinced... ?! You know, you
can only change those who desire to be changed.
mike3
> THEIR equipment, or THEIR manpower is the best indication that your
> ideas are a waste. If they were are promising as you say, people would
> be fighting each other to get a piece of your invention. Getting lots
> of calls?
>
I'd send some of my money to a free energy project if someone
was doing one and I had some spare money lying around.
mike3
> away, or give it away.
Well here's a newsflash for you. I am planning to get myself rich.
Okay. Now, when I get rich, I am going to use that personal capital
to finance my ideas, and I am also going to finance world-bettering
projects with it. In fact, I am going to probably only leave around
$10,000,000 (yes, ten million, that's all) for myself, my whole life.
Period. You can live reasonably on ten million for life. I'm going to
set a trend and give the vast majority of my money to benefitting
the world instead of indulging in selfish personal-life practices.
mike3
I'm going to leave this discussion now. I'm, quite frankly,
tired of your attempts to dissuade me from my dreams.
I am still undaunted, and I do not think arguing further with
you is going to advance either of our cases and is just
a waste of my time. Thank you for your input, but I am
not convinced.
Goodbye!
The_Man
> On Mar 3, 7:29 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > People are very funny with their money - they don't want topissit
> > away, or give it away.
>
> Well here's a newsflash for you. I am planning to get myself rich.
By buying properties with "no money down"? By taking out small ads in
thousands of newspapers? By stuffing envelopes at home?
> Okay. Now, when I get rich, I am going to use that personal capital
> to finance my ideas, and I am also going to finance world-bettering
> projects with it.
So, are you going to piss your money away on cranks, or give to
established scientists with a proven track record of accomplishment
and brilliance? You'll be like the Beatles, whose Apples Corps was
founded on idealistic principles, but collapsed because the Beatles
had no idea how to run a business, or how to distinguish worthy
projects from bogus ones. When I say you'd be like the Beatles, I
mean, of cousre, without the talent, drive to succeed, and cool
haircuts.
> In fact, I am going to probably only leave around
> $10,000,000 (yes, ten million, that's all) for myself, my whole life.
You can buy plenty of coke and broads with 10 million. Yes, Jesus
would have lived on 20 million, so you are TWICE the man Our Lord was.
Even Ghandi would have wanted AT LEAST 15 million, although he wanted
it in rupees, and not dollars.
> Period. You can live reasonably on ten million for life. I'm going to
> set a trend and give the vast majority of my money to benefitting
> the world instead of indulging in selfish personal-life practices.
If you were to do that, it would be great. Instead of being ignorant
and poor, you can be ignorant and rich. Being ignorant, you will
become separated from your money very quickly by every con artist out
there.
The_Man
> On Mar 3, 2:28 am, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 10:33 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Hi.
>
> > > > Why say thatfree energyis impossible? We do not know everything, and
> > > > we should never pretend to.Free energymay still be possible, it's
> > > > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> > > Of course it's possible. And you are *perfectly* entitled to expend
> > > any and all resources available to you to demonstrate that it's
> > > possible.
>
> > > However, if you want to conscript or recruit *others* to the effort,
> > > then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it.
> > > Presently, the patent office has taken the position that any
> > > application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation
> > > is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it.
>
> > And I'm supposed to get all this proof _myself_? Few if any research
> > projects can be done on one's own.
>
> > patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
> > about
> > patenting/selling anything.
>
> > the answers, this is a fundamental precept. Therefore we should be
> > free to question absolutely every doctrine, every theory, every
> > experiment, search for any evidence for/against any claim, etc.
> > Questions are of the utmost importance in science, and without them
> > there can be no scientific progress.
>
> > > as energy?
>
>
> oh but the patent office argument is very good.
>
> First there is a liar who claims perpetual motion apparatus can not be
> patented.
"without a working model"
>
> This is obviously a fraudulent statement.
"Fraudulent" implies both FALSE and INTENTION to profit by deception.
The reason the statement seemed false in the first place is because
YOU misquoted it.
>
> On display of a working device they have to grant you a patent.
And there has never been a working perpetual motion machine.
>
> Don't think they will just give you one for a baseless claim.
The operative words here are "Don't think"
>
> Howard Johnson didn't take no for an answer and got his patent.
They patented HoJo's????
>
> Stanley Meyer only got his patent when he filled the patent office
> building with hydrogen gas.
"If a single bomb falls on the German Reich, you can call me Meyer" -
Hermann Goering
>
> After looking like a goldfish the patent office priest started running
> around the building. "Put your cigarettes out there is hydrogen in the
> building!!"
There are priests in the patent office? Lock up the altar boys!
There are goldfish in the patent office? "My fish's name is
Eric" (Monty Python)
>
> It was hooked up to a battery so it was safe according to the
> thermodynamics fairy.
"Not that there's anything WRONG with that..."
>
> Still they gave him the patent and build rockets as well as (adapt)
> hummers based on his innovation.
Do you GIVE hummers based on this innovation, or your own?
>
> @all
>
> Now go look at the video brain-dead shit-heads
Don't be so hard on yourself.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800- Hide quoted text -
The_Man
> On Mar 3, 2:48 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 4:15 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip junk]
>
> what are you whining now baby? First you pretend things are not real
because they aren't.
> because the information is not delivered to you on a golden plate.
Eric prefers platinum plates, though I'll settle for osmium /iridium.
> Seems rather far away from doing research but ok. Then you whine like
> a spoiled baby? bheee bheeee wahaaa whaaaa
MIxed metaphor. It is either "Cry like a baby" or "whine like a
spoiled brat" At least LEARN the cliche before you USE it.
>
> "" If you can't present a journal article in which free energy is
> observed, or a video that does not involve a black box [a moving car =
> black box], I am and will continue to be not interested.""
Of course - every scientist has exactly the same attitude.
>
> Ow, and where do the little journal articles come from? Send here by
> God perhaps?
No, little journal articles comes from a MOMMY journal article and a
DADDY journal article, who love each other VERY MUCH.
>
> I even give you your journals because you apparently cant search as
> well as post.
"You don't bring me JOURNALS any more.." Barbara Streisand and Neil
Diamond
>
> """Invented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature
> of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond
> vapourised.
Hot stuff!
>
> A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric
> arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely
> hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The
> atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is
> the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-
> hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC).
Do you even know what "endothermic reacton" means?
>
> The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to
> extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface.
This is a restatement of the first law, which Langmuir found so
obvious that he didn't feel the need to explain it to other physicists
who ALSO found it obvious.
> It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical
> reaction. H + H H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the
> atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output.
So apparently, it takes 422 kJ to dissociate 1 mole of H2, and then
the H2 recombines, to give off 422 kJ of heat. Where does the "free"
energy part come into it?
>
> From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter -""
So you can't find an article more recent than 1926 to misunderstand?
If you were a University student, you would have access tro current
(2007) journals. Or if you walk in off the street, many Universities
will LET you read their journals. (supposing, of course, that you CAN
read)
>
> is a Nobel price good enough for you idiot?
Yes, thanks - I always wanted to visit Stockholm.
>
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1932/langmuir-...
>
> ow you wanted physics papers.
>
> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v40/i1/p78_1
> ""An equation is derived which gives the accommodation coefficient a
> of a gas striking a surface as the ratio of the observed heat loss
> from the surface to the theoretical heat loss that would be observed
> if all the gas molecules came to thermal equilibrium with the
> surface.
> The experiments show that at temperatures above 600°K the values of a
> for hydrogen (0.20 mm pressure) are greatly reduced by the presence
> of
> oxygen on the surface of the tungsten. Oxygen is inevitably produced
> in a tube when a tungsten filament is burned at T1500°K in hydrogen,
> as the atomic H thus formed dislodges oxygen from the walls even when
> the walls are cooled in liquid air. Hydrogen is adsorbed on tungsten
> at T<1200°K in two different forms, both of which reduce a from its
> value for bare tungsten. A film of the first type, which is adsorbed
> at T<600°K, changes over into the second type slowly at 600°K and
> rapidly at 1100°K. The numerical values of a range from 0.537 for
> bare
> tungsten to 0.143 for tungsten with an adsorbed hydrogen film of the
> second type, and 0.094 for tungsten with an adsorbed film of oxygen.
> At T<200°K an oxygen film forms which increases a to 0.422 at 150°K,
> provided that a small concentration of oxygen is continually present
> in the gas phase.
No shit! Langmuir's work centered on the nature of the chemical bond
(He was an early proponent of the "Lewis dot" structure), and surface
reactions ("Langmuir isotherm")
If you knew jack-shit about the Langmuir isotherm, you'd realize that
one of the assumptions of the isotherm is that desorption from the
surfaces is "activated" (to non-morons, this means "it takes energy")
>
> ©1932 The American Physical Society""
Wow - 1932! There has been NOTHING done on chemical bonding or surface
reactions since 1932!
>
> booo booo bwhaaaa whaaaa - yes?
Use more lube next time, bite the pillow, and maybe it won't hurt so
much.
>
> > So what the hell does Hydrogen have to do with anything?
>
> What hydrogen has to do with it?
"What's love got to do, got to do with it? What's love, but a second-
hand emotion?"
> The topic is about FREE ENERGY
> idiot.
Yes, it's about a Free energy idiot - you.
> Sad how everything keeps escaping your attention. Are you
> that dumb? It sure seems that way. Shit I'm talking with a dumb
> person.
Yes, you're talking to yourself.
>
> What a disappointment.
That's what your mother always says, particularly when you play "hide
the salami" with her.
The_Man
> On Mar 3, 7:29 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Did you read the sentence just above? "If you are new, with no track
> > record, they'll look at your idea VERY carefully." Which means you
> > need TWO things - good (sound) idea, and a record of accomplishment
> > (turning good ideas into results).
>
> But if my idea is really, REALLY good (I mean EXTREMELY good -- top
> notch, A+, 5-star, superb, wonderful, rock-solid logic), that can
> override
> a short record of accomplishments.
Maybe, but your idea is lame. If you had more training, you would see
immediately that it is lame. When learning to become a good chess
player, the first step is to learn to stop wasting time considering
worthless moves. Experience shows that posting knights to the rook
file is a bad move.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do you understand football? If you want to get drafted high into the
> > NFL, you need to have had a great college career. How many people walk
> > off the street into a big NFL contract? How do you KNOW that Joe
> > Schmoe off the street isn't the next Joe Montana?
>
> > People are very funny with their money - they don't want to piss it
> > away, or give it away. If your idea is great enough, maybe you can
> > convince your friends and relatives to invest. Or, you can accomplish
> > something small in physics - like getting a bachelor's degree. If you
> > do that well, schools will pay YOU to dom research for a master's or
> > Ph.D. Once you have accomplished a complete successful research
> > project, they might trust you to become a post-doc. Do that well, and
> > you might get a faculty position. Once you have that, you continue to
> > publish research papers, and you'll be a good risk for the NSF or such
> > to help you buy top-notch instrumentation, anhd pay for lots of
> > helpers.
>
> > That's the way the game is played. Wait your turn, prove yourself, and
> > pay your dues. Unfair? Tough. I still think it's not fair that my
> > parents aren't billionaires.
>
> Up to the challenge? If I have a dream, I'll do whatever it takes to
> see where it goes.
Like get off your ass, and study science until you get bachelor's,
(master's), Ph.D., post-doc, assistant professor, associate professor,
full professor?
No - you'll do "whatever it takes", so long as that is not too hard...
> Dreams should be pursued, especially if they
> are intent to benefit the world and humanity.
Good - pursue your dream. There is a library near you, padi for out of
evferybody's taxes. I the library are these wonderful things called
BOOKS. Go get a few, and start learning something. Even Einstein
learned this way.
>
> Oh, and my parents ain't no billionaires, and I don't really give much
> of a darn. In fact I am quite poor right now -- so that's the first
> thing
The point I was making sailed over your head. The point was that life
works a certain way, and that no matter how harsh or un juest, THAT'S
the way it is. Adjust accordingly.
> I'm going to have to work on -- getting out of my financial rut.- Hide quoted text -
gdew...@gmail.com
> Except people like gaby are what I tend to call "stupid". Folks who
> don't understand the basics aren't going to be able to figure out how
> to look in a new and untried way.
go fist fuck yourself eric.
gdew...@gmail.com
> Gaby, you are a excellent example of a person who can't think
> critically.
go fuck yourself child.
The_Man
> On Mar 1, 3:57 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > Why say that free energy is impossible? We do not know everything, and
> > > we should never pretend to. Free energy may still be possible, it's
> > > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> > should never pretend to. Flying after you jump off a roof may still be
> > possible, it's just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
Bird brain.
>
> :0)
gdew...@gmail.com
peeps make wild claims of zero substance?
I claim a "hoax claim" is just that, a >>claim<<. In order to be able
to claim something you do need to deliver the evidence.
Preferably first the evidence then the claim. yes?
I just wrote "all this".
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?p=5839
You do have to abandon your claims if you cant make them evident. :-)
Bill Snyder
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Want to post those rules of conduct again, retardo?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Bill Snyder
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then why haven't you abandoned yours, liar?
The_Man
> On Mar 4, 3:56 pm, "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:56 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 3:57 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 5:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi.
>
> > > > > Why say that free energy is impossible? We do not know everything, and
> > > > > we should never pretend to. Free energy may still be possible, it's
> > > > > just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> > > > Jump off the roof and try to fly. We do not know everything, and we
> > > > should never pretend to. Flying after you jump off a roof may still be
> > > > possible, it's just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.
>
> > > Jet Powered Birdman Suithttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=5820
>
> > Bird brain.
>
> > > :0)
>
> peeps make wild claims of zero substance?
wild CLAIMS
>
> I claim a "hoax claim" is just that, a >>claim<<. In order to be able
I CLAIM a hoax CLAIM is just a CLAIM, in order to CLAIM
> to claim something you do need to deliver the evidence.
>
> Preferably first the evidence then the claim. yes?
first the evidence, then the CLAIM
>
> I just wrote "all this".http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?p=5839
>
> You do have to abandon your claims if you cant make them evident. :-)- Hide quoted
text -
You have to abandon your CLAIMS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe you could try to repeat the word "Claim" a few hundred more
fucking times. Didn't they teach in 3rd grade English not to repeat
the same exact word over and over again, becuase it is BORING?
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> 1) Time is homogeneous, then
> 2) Noether's theorem, so
> 3) Mass-energy is locally conserved.
> 4) No exceptions, no footnotes, no alernatives.
Except that time isn't homogeneous in big bang cosmology, and Noether's
theorem doesn't apply. Certainly energy is locally conserved in general
relativity, but it's hard to even make sense of the idea of a global
conservation law in a generally covariant world. And anyway, mike3 is right.
"It's impossible" is the wrong reason for rejecting claims of perpetual
motion. The right reason is that the claimed result is (a) empirically very
hard to achieve, and (b) extremely desirable. Whenever you have these two
properties, the claim is statistically almost certain to be a scam or
delusion, especially if it comes from someone with no prior reputation. This
is equally true whether or not some current theory predicts that the thing
is impossible.
-- Ben
PD
> On Mar 3, 8:54 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Yes, of course. And let's take this example, because it's something I
> > have some experience in. Let's take the case where there is a particle
> > accelerator available and you want to run an experiment there to try
> > something, because that's easier than the case where you need a whole
> > new accelerator. Typically what happens in a case like this is this:
> ...
> > And this is *precisely* how scientific progress IS made. It IS work,
> > no question, a lot of it.
>
> Yes, and I want to try to see if free energy exists. It IS work, yes
> indeed, but you cannot expect to do it _totally_ alone! That's what
> you fail to see -- you can't even _demonstrate_ it totally alone. Ie.
> you are asking what amounts to the impossible.
>
OK, then you have to buy into the benefits-risk thing, which is
precisely what I described in the business of building an experimental
proposal for a particle accelerator. Did you get that?
> ...
>
> > As you can see, there is more to it than that. Even Ed the Coral
> > Castle guy had to submit plans, get construction permits, make sure he
> > knew how big a load-bearing beam has to be, all that.
>
> So then obviously he needed someone else. How could he "demonstrate"
> his claim in a way that needed him, and ONLY him? As that's what you
> seem to demand -- prove that it is a viable inquiry oneself and ONLY
> oneself.
No, if you recall, I gave you a choice: Either do it alone, or figure
out the benefits-risk analysis and use that to build a collaboration.
You don't want to do the latter. That's not my problem. You don't get
a collaboration for free.
>
> ....
>
> > No, science does not require true freedom, sorry to say. Every
> > endeavor, even science, needs to be defensible.
>
> So then you'd go and harass someone for trying to go off on
> an unorthodox line of research?
Didn't say that at all. Just that if they need resources, they have to
do the benefits-risk analysis to make the investment of those
resources attractive. That's not harassment.
>
> ...
>
> > Yes, but there are people who will have chipped in millions of dollars
> > and aimed scores of employees to help you, just to find out "Nope,
> > didn't work," when they could have been aimed instead at something
> > that looks much more promising. I think you can see why others might
> > want to weigh their options more closely.
>
> But what if I have an idea, and I want to develop it. And it turns out
> I'll need more people than just me _myself_ to do that. To develop
> and _test_ it.
>
Then do what I described with the particle accelerator example.
> ...
>
> > True, but perhaps more valuable knowledge can be gained if they are
> > working on something else, no? You perhaps don't see that you are
> > *competing* for resources. People and equipment don't grow on trees.
>
> I don't think a whole heap of people right now really want to take
> free energy as seriously as I want to.
>
Well, I'd dispute that. If you want just a popularization-level
account, suggest you do a search of past issues of Wired magazine
using keywords "cheap" and "energy" and see how many people have multi-
million dollar research projects underway to get cheap energy. And
that's just scratching the surface.
I think you're both naive and overly self-important, and I would wager
that you are pretty young, because that is the third common trait
where the other two occur. Now, if your passion will translate into
personal commitment to learn whatever you need to learn, and to
accomplish whatever mundane chores need to be done to get you from
where you are now to where you want to be, then you stand a chance of
success. But no whining, please.
> ...
>
> > You won't be. Just be careful in deciding when to air the
> > investigation to public view. When you do that, the assumption is that
> > you've done your homework. When food is brought to the table, it is
> > expected that it is cooked. It does no good to bring out a sketch of
> > the dish and a recipe card and say, this is what I have in mind.
>
> But what if it will take the help of others in order to build a
> working model, or "cook the food", so to speak. Let's say I
> come up with a logically consistent new theory of physics that
> agrees with observations, and makes new predictions.
First you have to accomplish this. This will mean learning some skills
(math, design, instrumentation) because *quantitative predictions* are
required, and you are not presently skilled enough to do this to the
degree required.
Then you have to learn enough about experimental methods to do a first-
order feasibility estimate. Even Einstein and Feynman knew enough
about experimental methods to design practical devices. Did you know
they had patents for practical devices?
> But I
> cannot test those predictions myself, totally alone, as I would need
> equipment that I might not be able to buy and I would not have
> enough hands, if you get my drift.
Once you have a *quantitatively rigorous* theory and some experimental
feasibility estimates, you will find people to help you.
> I have a theory, and it sounds way
> "out there", but it agrees with all known observations, and makes
> falsifiable predictions -- ie. it's scientific. It also predicts the
> possibility
> of a nearly unlimited source of energy, and then I deduce from it
> plans to build a machine. But I cannot build the machine without
> access to specialized laboratories, and thus I still need other
> people.
OK, then you need to actively recruit. This means contacting
researchers in the fields where you are at and explaining to them *in
full detail* your theory and your feasibility estimates as best as you
presently have them. There are three possible outcomes:
a) You will have a well-formed idea and the feasibility will look
sound, and you'll win some help.
b) You won't be as forthcoming as you could be about revealing
everything about your background or the details of your work, and so
the researchers won't be convinced that you are serious about
collaborating with them.
c) Your ideas won't be sufficiently developed to be attractive to the
researcher, and you'll have to find out what you need to do to get it
to be attractive.
> And this is to make a _working model_ to _demonstrate_ my claims.
>
> > > You say that they should
> > > have to invest their own resources. Then why go and slam them when
> > > they try to do just that just because in your opinion the question is
> > > worthless?
>
> > I don't, if they do it on their own. If they want to solicit my
> > review, though, that's an investment of time on my part, which is
> > valuable to me. So I expect to see something ready to be reviewed, not
> > a barely warmed idea.
>
> What would be "ready to review" in your opinion? Would a logically
> self-consistent theory that agrees with all known observations and
> makes new predictions that haven't yet been tested, and/or a detailed,
> consistent, well-explained set of schematics for a free energy machine
> based on this theory be considered "ready" in your opinion?
Provided that the principles of the theory are sound, mathematically
sound, agrees *quantitatively* with all known observations, yes. This
last part is important because this is where many amateurs fall down.
Agreeing with all known observations is not the same as being
compatible with or open enough to accomodate those observations.
"Quantitative agreement" means that you can *calculate* what a
measurable quantity will be, and measurement will match that
calculation in number or size. I've seen way too may "theories" that
say things like "my theory says that X will grow bigger and that's
what we see." The question is whether you theory says X will be 2.56
times bigger, and measuring it, we find that it is indeed 2.56 times
bigger." Do you understand the difference?
> These
> things one can work on on their own if they are committed to it
> enough.
> Or would you demand a working model? But say it requires some
> sophisticated nano-chip or something that can only be built by a
> specialized factory.
No, I wouldn't need a working model to commit. But then again, I would
become suspicious if you said you needed a sophisticated nano-chip
that *doesn't exist* and there is no evidence of any nanochip that
could do anything close to what you claim you need. You can always say
things like, "A working model would need an atom bomb the size of a
half-dollar." Unfortunately, this is dependence on a fairy tale and
your idea suddenly becomes worthless.
> Then I would need to recruit the resources of
> _others_ simplly to _demonstrate_ my claim. See where this is going?
>
Right, and be prepared to be told by any of your recruits that
something you think is required is simply not feasible. At that point,
you either have to gain enough expertise to prove them wrong and that
the thing you need IS feasible, or you have to accept that the idea
will go no further. Are you ready to do that?
>
>
> > > Free energy has the possibility to benefit all humanity. Anything that
> > > does
> > > that _is_ worth the risk, like it or not.
>
> > No, it's not worth ANY risk, sorry. It's much better if you can
> > demonstrate that a moderate investment is very likely to provide at
> > least partial progress, and that a deeper investment at a later point
> > is likely to provide more progress, and so on.
>
> But how can you demonstrate it, without invoking the resources of
> others?! See above.
You don't have to demonstrate feasibility with a working model. You DO
have to demonstrate feasibility with detailed calculations and a
design. Do you see the difference?
>
> > This is just business, Mike, sorry. Real life. Extends to science,
> > too.
>
> Of course that's not how things _should_ be, but unfortunately they
> are and nobody wants to see it's a problem and change.
No, Mike, it's not really a problem. That's the way it SHOULD be.
Scientific endeavors compete for valuable resources just like *every*
endeavor. Science is no different than medicine, no different than
architecture, no different than electronics design, in this regard.
Reality check, Mike.
PD
PD
Right, and there are hundreds of researchers that think that the
payoff of finding out that there IS a Bigfoot, multiplied times the
likelihood that it IS a Bigfoot, ends up with a number that is a
rather small investment of effort and resources. Some choose to chase
it at that appropriately small level -- consider all the reporters and
TV crews sent to make TV specials about Bigfoot, rather than sending
them to Katrina recovery efforts or AIDS vaccine developments or
filming endangered species in Alaskan oil fields or anything else that
competes for their time and attention. The issue is whether there is
MORE attention deserved.
Now, you may think it is worth YOUR time to join that Bigfoot effort.
That's fine. I'm sure you've done the calculation of how much your
time is worth and what the cost will be to you to chase that rather
than chase something else that might be of value. (That's called
"opportunity cost".) Just don't insist that everyone will end up with
the same conclusion as you.
PD
The_Man
If they don't want to be convinced, that is THEIR right, since it is
THEIR money. "he who pays the piper calls the tune."
Elsewhere on this thread, PD gives you excellent advice, but you are
unwilling to accept it.
YOU want others to help you, but they are not interested, and we want
to help YOU, but you don't want our help. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
The first rule of getting others to help you, is to to show THEM how
it helps THEM. If you present it as how it helps YOU, nobody will be
interested
The_Man
But you don't have any, so that is a moot point. If you are dedicated
enough to this goal, you will demonstrate your dedication by putting
in the years of work that is required.
PD
> On Mar 3, 8:08 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> > > > are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> > > > there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
> > > > economics and a basic reality of life.
>
> > > And once all the "common" questions are exhausted then we MUST look
> > > to the others otherwise NO more progress will be made.
>
> > No need to worry there. There are LOTS of "common" questions that have
> > barely been touched, though it's plain (or at least *much* plainer)
> > that an answer there is much more likely than in some of the
> > "uncommon" ones.
>
> > There is no shortage of solid, defensible work.
>
> Can you make solid work on an "uncommon" question? Are there
> more hurdles to it than on a "common" one? If so, why?!
>
Sure you can make solid work on an "uncommon" question. It happens all
the time. When superstring theory was invented, it was *long, long*
before it became popularly interesting. It was indeed an uncommon
question when it was first pursued. Fortunately, the people who
worked on it first knew how to convey why the problem was interesting
and why their idea looked promising.
>
> > > > The priority is partially based
> > > > on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
> > > > "risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
> > > > say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
> > > > that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
> > > > with anything of value to lend to the cause.
>
> > > Nobody will be convinced of ANYTHING if they do not WANT to be
> > > convinced.
>
> > Of course not. Fortunately, there are lots of folks who are eager to
> > look at well-crafted proposals to study just about anything that looks
> > remotely interesting. This extends to government funding agencies. The
> > key phrase is "well-crafted proposal". Proposals well out of the
> > mainstream are approved all the time. Some of them even pan out. But
> > you DO have to do the work, as all the proposers do. Sorry, there's no
> > shortcut.
>
> I did not say I didn't have to do any work. There's a difference
> between "hard work" and "impossible task". The former can be
> done with enough willpower, the latter is insanity. For example,
> demanding that before others can investigate some theory I have,
> that I have to run a big experiment myself to get some evidence.
I didn't say run a big experiment yourself. Read my list of steps
required to get an experiment even *approved* at a particle
accelerator. You need to do those steps *first*.
> And I cannot invoke any other people as unless I get that evidence
> shred, I might be wasting their time.
No, that's simply not true. You do not have to have physical evidence
that you are right before you can recruit. Five hundred physicists
were convinced to dedicate ten years of their lives on the CDF
experiment at Fermilab before CDF took a single bit of data at the
accelerator. But there was a *ton* of work that had nothing to do with
a "working model" that was done to get those 500 people together.
Edison had dozens of people working in his lab on a light bulb before
he had a *single* working light bulb.
> Thus you would be forcing
> me in this scenario to build all the machines I need from scratch,
> literally alone. That is insane, and impossible.
No, you're not listening to me. I'm NOT telling you have to do it
alone. You have it stuck in your head, though, that you need a working
model to convince ANYBODY to join you. That's not true. It's apparent
that you have some difficulty understanding exactly *what* you need to
do to convince others to help you *without* a working model. Do you
know what you have to do next?
>
> But does "well-crafted proposal" mean that if I put up two good
> papers with a logically self-consistent, well-thought theory that
> agrees with all known observations,
Put them up where? Here? On a personal website? How do you *know*
they're good? Have you sent them to a journal where you will get the
benefit of a thoughtful review by experts from the very same arenas
you need to recruit from? What insights do *they* have to offer on the
soundness and thoroughness of your theory? Do you know *how* to submit
a paper to a journal that will offer that service to you?
> and perhaps even some
> "mysteries" (woo!) though I have no ability to run complex tests
> of it's untested predictions myself (the above Ed and the Coral
> Castle problem) due to the evidence demands that would have to
> be met to get others to investigate that I cannot meet since I cannot
> wield all those investigative tools and facilities totally on my own
> (impossible task), that you would still take a look?
If I were asked to be a reviewer on behalf of your papers by the
journal to which you submitted them, then yes, certainly I'd review
it.
An alternative is to *pay* someone with some expertise to review your
papers and see if they are as sound as you think.
The work, you see, requires some investment on your part as well.
>
>
> > > I won't try the "benefits are worth any risk" argument, but
> > > if I try something more substantial and people still refuse to be
> > > convinced
> > > no matter how tough the argument is then they CANNOT be convinced.
> > > But that does NOT mean the argument is wrong. Whether or not an
> > > argument "convinces" someone does not determine it's validity as
> > > people can (and many people DO) choose NOT to be convinced PERIOD!
>
> > Well, you can always take this persecution-complex approach if you
> > like. I know there are many ill-fated cranks that are very adept at
> > it. I think you'll find, though, that if you ask, you'll find out
> > exactly what weaknesses were perceived in your proposal and what
> > recommendations they have for addressing those weaknesses. That ALSO
> > is standard procedure for reviewing proposals. Usually, those who are
> > committed and resourceful will then go back and address those
> > weaknesses until either the proposal is convincing, or until they are
> > convinced themselves that the idea has some serious flaws.
>
> Well I would. Make a good proposal. Work. But right now I have no
> proposals. I'm discussing about the future, not the present.
Well, then, your theory is not not as well-developed as you thought.
When it is, you will have a proposal.
>
> > This, too, is part of the *work* of doing science. Everyone who does
> > science engages in it. That's what makes it *work* and not a hobby.
>
> I didn't say there was no work. I said that I want to know if it is
> possible to pursue unorthodox lines of research.
Absolutely. It's done all the time. That's how science is done. How do
you think all this work on string theory, oscillating neutrinos, and
biodiesels got started?
PD
PD
> On Mar 3, 8:59 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:02 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 4:25 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ....
>
> > > > I think it is time to explain what your science background is.
>
> > > I don't have much at the moment, no degrees -- not yet.
>
> > Well, this works against you. If you have some training, reviewers
> > take it for granted that you know the basics of experimental design,
> > how to do calculations, know how to check your work, and are familiar
> > with the work done to date.
>
> It doesn't work against me right now, as I have no proposals right
> now. None at all. Zip. I'm talking about the future, not the present.
In that case, your theory isn't as far along as you think. When you
have a really solid theory, you'll also have a proposal.
>
> > If you don't have that advantage, you have to demonstrate that you
> > have those skills more explicitly.
>
> I guess I'll have to get those skills first -- which is my intention.
> I
> want to pursue these dreams, okay?
Absolutely. Right now, you should be asking people what kinds of
training you need to get closer to your dreams.
PD
> On Mar 3, 8:16 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
> > > > are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
> > > > there is a natural prioritization that must occur.
>
> > > So if I go and choose to investigate a question _on my own_ that is
> > > too
> > > "low priority" then you believe it would be right to attack me and
> > > claim
> > > I'm wrong before I've even presented a case, and try to stifle the
> > > project?
>
> > Not at all. How could someone stifle a project that you are working on
> > alone?
>
> You can't, but then again if you are the _only_ one working on it and
> nobody else even knows about it, working on it is going to be a little
> bit of a problem, if you get my drift. <snicker> (whispers "ed and the
> castle and that's a far simpler task than making ICs in your garage")
That doesn't count as stifling, sorry.
You still have a choice:
- You figure out how to do it by yourself, in which case no one will
stifle you.
- You learn how to present your work as a coherent proposal, in which
case people
will either be won over or they won't.
>
> > Now, the moment you bring it out for view and solicit others to
> > comment on it, brace yourself if it's not ready, if it's not solid, if
> > it's just a germ of an idea and you haven't really thought it through
> > yet.
>
> Well I could, but what if I need access to some big piece of lab
> equipment or require someone else's help in order to run some key
> experiment or find some key data I need to get the theory developed
> past some point I'm hung up on, or to test the veracity of the
> approach
> I am taking?
You won't. You should be able to determine that *without* a working
model
or a sophisticated experimental test. You do that by looking at what
*other*
people have already tried and accomplished, you do that by developing
your
theory to the point where it is quantitatively compelling, and you do
that by
formulating a sound design.
>
> > Have courage in your convictions, Mike! If you are sure that something
> > is worthwhile, and if you don't want to try to win someone over with a
> > benefits-risk argument, then knuckle down and do it. You don't need a
> > pat of assurance every step of the way while you work it out. If you
> > need to learn how to do something in order to answer your own
> > questions, then find someone that can teach you how to do that
> > something. If you are doing something that no one can help you with,
> > then develop it on your own until you are *sure* it is convincing.
>
> > > Even though I would be working like Ed on the Coral Castle, literally?
>
> > Sure. Didn't stop Ed, did it? Note that no one tried to stifle Ed,
> > either, did they?
>
> > PD
>
> No, nobody didn't. But are you saying that I must build all the
> accelerators,
> all the nanochips, all the chip fabs, all the clean rooms, mine all
> the
> metal, etc. all myself just to get enough evidence to convice some
> others
> to work on it if that type of equipment is required (accelerators,
> chip fabs, science labs, spectrographs, etc.)?
No, I'm not saying that. You seem to be thinking that is how you have
to proceed
to make progress. You do NOT need to have a working model to
demonstrate
the plausibility of your proposal. You don't even have to have a
working model to
earn a patent -- did you know that?
PD
PD
Believe me, government agencies are looking for good ideas. They fund
"out there" research all the time, PROVIDED it is well proposed and
well thought out.
PD
PD
Even if it was by someone who just *said* they were working on a free
energy project? Even if you had NO idea whether they were on the up
and up? Even if you had NO clear idea what they were doing?
Just how old are you?
PD
PD
Being given a reality check is not an attempt to dissuade you from
your dreams, Mike. Perserverance, which is what I wish for you, is the
art of getting dreams to live in a real world.
PD
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On Feb 28, 9:38 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 2:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > You.. [snip kook crap]
>
> > Look at it and grovel, kook:
>
> >http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/february2007/270207bbc2.jpg
>
> > :-)
>
> Um....
>
> http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4854/wtcconsphoax01yg7.jpg
>
> <wink wink>
Stop grasping at straws and look at the video - take a screen capture
when they zoom in and see that the scene is consistent.
Irrespective of that, there is now much stronger timestamp evidence
here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/february2007/280207bbc.jpg
Looks like your <wink wink> is now a <sob sob>?
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Mar 4, 11:12 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just wrote "all this".http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?p=5839
>
> > You do have to abandon your claims if you cant make them evident. :-)
a most interesting website.
And yes, a claim is a claim. And a theory is a theory. Theories may
become probabilities. probabilities may become facts. You may find it
boring. But it's just one of those theories of yours, nothing factual.
PD
You know, it's pretty sad when you realize that no one is reading your
posts on these groups, and so you feel compelled to hijack other
people's threads to tack your spam up.
PD