At 05:19 pm 15/06/2006 -0400, you wrote: >[Another message to Hathaway] > >To summarize, your readers will probably all assume that every >machine on earth must have a primary source of energy: nuclear, >chemical or mechanical. > >If your claim is that this machine does not tap any primary source, >and it just sits there generating energy apparently from nowhere, >then I think you must boldly state this is what you mean. Perhaps you >should call it "an apparent violation" of the conservation of energy. >You seem to be ignoring this issue. This will give your readers the >impression that you do not understand elementary physics and the >conservation of energy. You have to show that: > >You DO understand conservation of energy, > >BUT > >You think it does not apply (for thus-and-such technical reasons >which are over my head). > >Do not evade the issue. Confront it directly. Many people, including >me, will assume you are wrong and your claim is impossible. But at >least we will see that you are familiar with the textbooks, and you >realize this claim is impossible by the standards of conventional >physics. It is better to be thought wrong than both wrong and ignorant. > >- Jed > >[That last point about politics and perception is something that free >energy claimants often overlook. Some of them, of course, are unaware >of the conservation of energy. They do not even realize their claims >violate conventional physics.]
True, but sometimes, where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise. Theory is unavoidably an inadequate idealization of the real world and can act as a terrible brake on innovation - as you know perfectly well from CF. Frank
