Re: Free energy???

On Mar 3, 4:07 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@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.

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)?

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.


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. ... application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation ... is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it. ... those same others that there is a reasonable risk of success. ...
    (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)