Re: Free energy???

On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:33 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> 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?


Or did you think that other people's time and effort is just as free
as energy?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Free energy???
    ... then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it. ... is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it. ... See below following your particle accelerator example. ... Even if it ends up proving that free energy in any form is totally ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Free energy???
    ... then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it. ... is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it. ... Even if it ends up proving that free energy in any form is totally ...
    (sci.physics)
  • OT: Business As Usual? Scary....
    ... lifting the ban (who gets to determine exactly what 'public opinion' ... this pressure to find ways to maximize our energy efficiency. ... creative) and its extensive national resources were not enough to save ... in Business As Usual only dooms us to failure at a more severe level, ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: OT: One more for the deniers
    ... But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place? ... forms of energy be established, ... Are they more economically efficient that oil? ... But they acted as if resources were infinite. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: U.S. Can Remain Strongest Nation Via Space and Ocean Resources
    ... U.S. expands its economy into outer space, we will acquire resources ... essentially inexhaustible source of energy ... It's true that 1kg of anti-matter has the same energy ... the lion's share of UNDER OCEAN resources! ...
    (alt.politics)