Re: Free energy???

On Mar 3, 5:41 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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)?

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, bull*** 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 *** hole when they could
lend it out for credit cards and get 20% interest?

"Money talks, bull*** walks."


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast