> From: Jones Beene> --- Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > >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 > deceive 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. > > In principal and in the perfect-world, that would be > correct, Jed, but in actuality i don't see that ever > happening - even if the Moller/Langmuir effect turns > out to be very robust.
<snip> > Not to mention the simple fact that *eventually* you > will need and want to make the device "useful" above > all else - which means self-power It doesn't have to self-power if you can show it will save people money on energy. Provide a reliable, simple operating heat generator and you'll have plenty of money to prove the effect later. Edison made his power source before the light bulb and used the source to light southern Manhattan.
