Jones Beene wrote:
Let's face it... Mainstream Science will NEVER be convinced by anything less than **self-power** in a device like this, as there are just to many ways for one to decieve oneself.
I disagree. I think that with good, professional instrumentation, plus maybe five independent replications, you could convince the mainstream with an input:output ratio of ~1:2 or better. The mainstream is not as stupid as we sometimes imagine.
Also, mainstream people would assume that a self-powered machine was some kind of fraud, with hidden wires or a hidden battery. It would seem too good to be true. Actually, I think a prototype running at a low ratio or a temperature far too low for effective conversion into electricity would actually be *more* convincing that a self-powered machine, because it would look like a laboratory prototype. It is very hard for me to believe that anyone working in isolation could make a self-sustaining machine, and a less-impressive machine is actually more credible. At least, it is to me.
- Jed
