arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

This was an exchange I had with a fellow free energy visionary today.  This friend comes at free energy more from the scientific end, while I come more from the political-economic end.

Hi:

Not that you don’t know this stuff, but let me give you my two cents on my interactions with XXX (a popular “radical” political author) and company, and what I am trying to do with my work.

As I quickly discovered with YYY (a popular author on the coming end of the fossil fuel age) his semi-ridicule of free energy stemmed from his ideological position, not a careful consideration of the evidence.  He believes that we will quickly destroy our planet with free energy - only looking at a worst-case scenario.  He is into humanity becoming a self-limiting society, and if we grow up first, then we can have something like free energy.  When I began taking him to task to get to the nitty-gritty of what a “resource” is and other words that he throws around, I found that he really had not thought very deeply about the issues, and was largely parroting academic texts.  The bizarre part of interacting with YYY was that nothing I have proposed

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/visions.htm#can1

in any way conflicted with his voiced ideals.  I show how we can have an environmentally harmless society that has a standard of living orders of magnitude higher than today’s and goes way, way beyond conventional ideas of “sustainability,” and it all sailed way over YYY’s head, and I got parrot sounds back from him.  He is into riding bikes and the other austerity solutions that the mainstream environmentalists keep cooking up, very unimaginatively, I might add.  Again, he seems to have done virtually no thinking for himself on these issues, but is just repeating, almost as a tautology, the mainstream stuff.  Then he engaged in circular logic to dismiss free energy, saying that until engineers certify free energy, there is no point in even thinking much about it.  I let him know that history has shown that scientists and engineers are about the last people on earth who will wake up to something like free energy, as the experiences of the Wright brothers,

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy.htm#wright

Edison and his light bulb,

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy.htm#edison

Rife

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/medicine.htm#rife

and Naessens and their microscopes,

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/medicine.htm#naessens

Brown and his gas,

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy.htm#yull

and others have clearly shown.

One of the great ironies of all the “laws of physics” stuff people like XXX throw up is that the greatest physicists were decidedly unimpressed with science as an arbiter of reality,

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy.htm#mystical

or that the scientific world really knew all that much about how the universe operated. 

Again, I have found that people like XXX are mired in their conventional views, which is bizarre when you consider how “radical” XXX’s political views are.  Again, nothing is new there to you.  I have done some exchanging with XXX in the past, and he seems to play the same game that YYY did (“I do not have the time to look into it – but I also am skeptical”).  There is some circular logic for you.  Here is an issue of incredible potential and import to humanity, but they say they have no time to look into it, and voice skepticism that they will find anything anyway.  That is not what any investigator worth two cents does. 

The mainstream throws up the walls of conventional physics to play their games of dismissal, and that is really OK with me, but if they stay in their easy chairs and dare people to prove something to them, they are not worth the time to engage, in my experience, because I have always found that attitude to be a cover for their denial.  When I begin laying out a trail of evidence for them, they quickly run away (“I don’t have enough time”) or play rhetorical games (or attack me) to enforce their denial.  I have yet to meet an exception to that dynamic. 

What I do with my work is something very different than trying to prove the physics of free energy, because it is just theory.  Data is another matter.  What I do, especially when recounting my adventures with Dennis, is show how the real world works in regard to energy and potential revolutions in it.  I have never heard of anybody marketing a more effective heating system (and especially selling very many of them) than the LamCo-style heat pump that Dennis marketed, built and installed in the 1980s. 

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy1.htm#new

The high COPs the system got, or why it was a highly superior way to generate space heat, is not controversial in the least, and operates well within the theoretical Carnot limits. 

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy.htm#carnot

Dennis’ heat pump was pretty meat and potatoes.  What I show, instead, is what happened to somebody trying to bring that pig to market.  Long before Dennis had any ideas about making free energy by marrying his heat pump to heat engines, he had his clock cleaned in Seattle,

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy1.htm#run

which was how he got radicalized.  By laying out Dennis’ and my adventures, I show how the real world of capitalism works.  Not one of Dennis’ public critics that I have seen has any entrepreneurial experience, nor has ever tried bringing any new technology to market, much less something that could impact the energy industry as greatly as Dennis’ heat pump could have.  So their criticisms have almost always been empty exercises.  I lay out the data, an explanation of the economics and physics of Dennis’ heat pump, and none of it is even controversial in those realms, as well as my mentor’s revolutionary engine design. 

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy.htm#glimpse

The reason I did all that was two-fold.  One was to get people away from the obsession with Dennis’ personality.  He is an incredible human being, but the issue of his heat pump and how he took it to market (and what happened to him) can be understood quite independently from considering Dennis’ personality and other stuff that can really detract from understanding the dynamic of how the real world works.  I also do the data, physics and economics stuff to show how Dennis was not selling moonshine, and why they took him out.  Then I say to those who are “skeptical” of the possibility of free energy that whoever offered us at least a billion dollars to stop pursuing free energy sure did not seem skeptical. 

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/advent.htm#offer

I do not even get back from them that they do not believe Dennis, or me, or the many other offers I have heard of, from credible sources:

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/advent.htm#make

I just receive silence.  Until people begin understanding how the world really works (and want to begin understanding it), all the lectures about free energy physics and other aspects of it will probably fall short.  People need to find the integrity and courage to understand how their world works, not blindly cling to their fantasies about how it works.  In my experience, that is the big hurdle, because whenever I have talked about even the heat pump, much less the esoteric physics behind stuff like Sparky Sweet’s device,

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/letter.htm#make

or the free energy demo that one of my pals once got

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/letter.htm#underground

the most common response I have ever received was also the most naïve, and it goes like this, “If it is so great, why can’t I buy it?”  That shows that they have no idea how the real world of capitalism and technology operates, especially in the powerful and monopolistic ones.  Even Adam Smith remarked that wiping out the competition was what capitalism was all about:

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/america.htm#smith

Until those political-economic dynamics are understood, the rest seems pretty futile to me.  Anyway, that is what I think, and that is my rant for the morning.  : - )

Have a good day.

Wade