Re: Free Energy

fkasner <fkasner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:jyoHg.12655$kO3.11174@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

William Morse wrote:
Don Lancaster <don@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:4l3s3oF5lb0U2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Gary Grundy wrote:
Did you read some of the discussions at the bottom of the page. As
an engineer I fully understand your scepticism as my first thoughts
were similar to yours. I really thought it was a spoof. But reading
through some of the feed back it just makes you wonder whether or
not there is something in it.

Prospector dies, tries to get into heaven.
Gets told there already too many prospectors here.
Agrees to get rid of them.

Sidels up to the bar and mumbles "big gold strike in hell".
Place clears out.

Gets told he can stay, but leaves.
"Dunno, there just might be something in it."


Love the story!

And now for a quote from the web site:


"But for us to be able to commercialise this and put this into
peoples' lives we need credible, academic validation in the public
domain and hence the challenge," McCarthy said."

So they can't commercialize it just because it works? Seems to me if
you can produce energy for free you could probably get a lot of
people to buy it whether it had "academic validation" or not. I note
that the bumblebees kept flying while the scientists were figuring
out how they did it.

Yours,

Bill Morse

The fact that the science of aerodynamics was in its early stages when
the comments about the ability of the bumble bee to fly were made. In
the early days of aerodynamics it would have been impossible to
predict the mechanisms that would allow jet planes and space rockets
to be viable. Engineering is an applied science. When the basic
science is not properly applied then strange predictions are made and
have to be revised after the applications are changed.
FK


Actully the explanation I heard was that the scientists had
underestimated the rate at which the bumblebees wing muscles could
produce energy. But my point is that the statement about needing academic
validation to commercialise the technology is a dead giveaway that the
whole thing is a sham.

Yours,

Bill Morse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: misconceptions on computer science
    ... > There speaks an engineer! ... > for the at and beauty of their form. ... Show me an algorithm that is beautiful but useless. ... That wasn't computer science it was mathematics. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: misconceptions on computer science
    ... >> for the art and beauty of their form. ... I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. ... A lot of pure science is like that. ... The obvious one is the Turing test. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: What is a software engineer?
    ... We aren't arguing about what is or isn't science, ... distinguishing a software engineer from a hack. ... Actually the first logic circuits were invented by mathematicians, not computer scientists, and the first electronic computer was built by a post office engineer, because the mathematicians hadn't got a clue how to make 20,000 valves run for more than a minute without one failing. ... Yes, it was some advanced mathematics that hinted at the idea of a general purpose programmable computer, but having hinted, that's roughly where the clever bit stopped. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: OT: US Engineers/Scientists a vanishing breed
    ... and the fact that we no longer respect science or scientists in ... No wonder our kids don't want to be scientists. ... Keeping the salaries depressed in the engineering disciplines. ... foreign engineer, as they say they can not find an engineer locally. ...
    (rec.boats)