| |
|
Fair points, Lionheart. Before, I was just futzing around, not really being serious. However, in the name of journalistic inquiry I started digging around:
Re: the 1989 experiment--gimme the paper. Gimme a non-internet publication. Give me a unviersity press that lays out the entire experiment, not just sez it worked or didn't. What was the chemical, with the porous/solid difference? I coulnd't find that last bit explained anywhere.
Secondly, the 1989 cold-fusion experiment was the tip of the iceburg in terms of free-energy devices, but garnered attention because it was in a pukka lab.
Second: go to the Nobel Prize website, where they have all of the Laureates listed along with their accomplishments. Yang and Lee invented an experiment that generated quantum theory. It was a huge contribution to the understanding of states of matter and energy, but it's not what your link claims it is. You can also read their lectures in pdf formats. No mention of power-supply application.
And did you know that anyone can get a patent in the US for anything as long as they send in a diagram--again, go to the website. I'd post, but I'm a little internet daft. If I throw together enough relays and geegaws in a big shiny box, make drawings and photos, and piece together an explanation of what's supposed to happen, I have a patent. You never have to show that the machine works.
As for the Stirling Engine, I know what one is: I'm a fairly good mechanic. If you don't know by now, it has practical application limitations...look here: www.howstuffworks.com/stirling-engine4.htm
Stirling engines are applied on in cases where you need power at a precise, constant level: where there's power fluctuations requires, i.e. the piston of a car engine, it ain't so good.
Note that the new cars coming out aren't pure Stirling engines; they're hybrids. (which is progress, I admit)
Who's the South African inventor? Where did you hear about the death threats? Rumor? Self-report? From a poster board of alternative-science people?
Oh, gee, not that someone couldn't make that up. Even physical evidence of death threats tells you nothing...it's the easiest thing in the world to fake.
"Dear South African inventor,
We cigar-chomping bigwigs in the petroleum industry feel threatened by your new invention. Please stop or we'll kill you.
Signed,
Us."
Anyway, there's a lot easier ways to get rid of people than death threats. I sitting in my dinky little apartment can think of three or four ways off the bat. Cause an accident. Get him committed. Arrest him for something scandalous, like pedophilia. Sure, in all of these case, they'll be remaining, hard-core believers, but they can be written off as kooks.
If there was a real "conspiracy," we'd never know, no matter how much you delude yourself with "Lone Rangers" fantasies. The quantity of disinformation circulated by the US govt alone guarantees that half of the sacred cows of the intellectual underground are pure fiction. Go look at the de-classified stuff from the 40s and 50s...the wacky stuff that the US encouraged people to believe in to conceal much more concrete, insidious projects.
And if you were being hounded by a shadowy conspiracy, why wouldn't you diseminate the information to everyone, including other members of the scientific community who could verify it? Or can absolutely everyone in modern science be bought?
BTW, the inventors love to show their works...but not how everything inside functions. I've been to some of these little back-yard easy-energy shows...they come through my neck of the woods (NWern Kentucky) on a regular basis, trying to sell to the right-wing self-sufficient types and the really poor who are looking for short-cuts on their bills. Guess what? The machines don't work the way they say they will. Quel fucking surprise. A lot of the devices are Stirling engines that eventually wear down, not the "miraculous devices" they're purported to be. I've taken apart a few after they stopped working.
So cut the we-the-oppressed-enlightened-ones routine. Lots of people buy, lots of people see.
BTW, Tom Bearden is one of the big gurus of all sorts of different free energy devices, and a bigwig in the "power conspiracy" circulars, too, if you didn't know. From a skeptical perspective, this is like taking the opinion of Jerry Falwell on the authenticity of the Bible as "fact" or citing the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I suggest you explore other sources.
The Bufield-Brown effect, not unlike the Lee/Yang quantum theory experiments, does not necessarily create energy in any productive fashion that can be harnessed into mechanical systems. Furthermore, Brown himself wrote a paper in 1929 contradicting his own assertion regarding "electrogravitics," stating the effect was ionic, not gravitational.
Furthermore, digging around on the NASA website, the application of the Bufield-Brown effect NASA was exploring had to do with aerodynamic entropic effects and their counteraction, not power-generation.
I've never heard of homeopathic power (pleae exaplain), but I can tell you that homeopathic medicine is a crock of shit.
First of all, homeopathy is based on the idea that a little bit of poison will cure. Very Paracelsus, completely earlier than molecular chemistry, back in the days when substances had "essences." Well, things don't have essences, nor do they work on the body because of those innate qualities...it's biding sites, cataylsis, etc. Secondly, after the standard number of dilutions for a homeopathic tonic, there's isn't any "medicine" left--it's all water.
So the new position in homeopathy is that the water "encodes" the molecular formation of the diluted "medicine," an idea mentioned in the Invisibles by Mason. Now, why would the water "encode" that, but not encode the lead, mercury, and other contaminants that have passed through it? Give the modern state of water circulation, consider that we consume a great deal of H2O that was previous ly urine. If water can truly "encode" the molecular structure of the molecules passed through it, we'd all be dead of urea poisoning.
Lionheart, maybe you're just playing devil's advocate...I don't know you. But I suggest to you that skepticism does not mean simply accepting whole a different paradigm...just because free-energy scientists are an excluded minority doesn't mean there's any truth to what they're saying.
Question
absolutley
fucking
eveything.
Except the Archons, who send their love.
[smack]
[ 30-01-2002: Message edited by: [infinite monkeys] ]
[ 30-01-2002: Message edited by: [infinite monkeys] ] |
|
|
they could exist in a vacuum.