On 15/2/2008 7:51 AM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: > Many thanks, Michel. I was traveling and missed the discussion. The > introduction route that the article reports made me wonder whether this > might be 'too good to be true.' How do I find my way to the archives? > > Generally, to members of the list: > > On a much larger question, and not referring to the compressed air car, I > wonder if the energy-engine field lends itself more readily to exaggerated > (or even crack-pot) claims more than other fields? > > Is there something about it -- the universal and eternal desire for a > machine that will do anything we want to for nothing, the current worry over > energy sources, the sometimes counter-intuitive (to the lay-person) > mechanics of energy conversion, the relatively cheap entry cost for > newcomers to the field, the levels of interest and publicity that attend the > announcement of such claims, etc. -- that makes it vulnerable to successive > claims and disappointments? > > Is there any particular cognitive or sociological key to the false or > exaggerated claims in the energy-engine field? > > Your thoughts? > > Lawrence
Even a free energy machine will need maintenance, so the notion that free energy enthusiasts are out to build a machine that will do anything we want for nothing is simply rhetorical bullsh*t. Harry
