Re: Free energy???

On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.


But what if gathering the rationale requires significant resources and
_other people_ (see the Coral Castle problem I mentioned in my other
post)?

.

Loading