Crisis Energética Foros

Entrevista del Dr. Steven Greer a la radio. Este señor es director y editor de la web: www.seaspower.com. Esta web lleva un par de años dedicada a´apoyar la investigación de energías alternativas especialmente "electromagnéticas".

En la entrevista anuncia el proyecto de un artilugio que generaría electricidad libre y que podría presentar al gran público para marzo o junio del 2004.(la entrevista es del 7/8 diciembre 2003) le preguntan directamente si ha sufrido alguna amenaza y dice que no, porque además sus contactos son de altas esferas y ni él ni sus ciéntificos "advisers" han sufrido la mínima molestia. El hombre rezuma optimismo y desgrana una y otra vez el mundo idílico que podríamos comenzar a partir de ahora. Busco en la web últimas noticias para ver si están a punto del anuncio de semejante "descubrimiento o por otra parte ha sido unos de tantas ilusiones que no han llegado a buen término. A todo esto en la entrevista dice tener un riquisimo hombre de negocios e inversor que había presenciado las pruebas del artilugio y estaba commocionado por los resultados.
Bien leo el último artículo de este hombre en la web que es del 26 de Mayo 2004. Es todo pesimismo. En el artículo llama la atención, a que estamos en las disyuntiva de irnos al infierno o al paraiso de forma inmediata. No menciona para nada el "descubrimiento" pero denuncia amenazas de tal calibre que ha dejado a todo su equipo paralizado y por lo visto su inversor se "enfumó".
Hasta aquí todo normal de otro "wish" más, mucho más que en esta web se estudia sobre todo energía extraterrestre. Reiros, pero vereis lo que viene a continuación. Leo otro artículo del 17 de Mayo y es un pésame por la muerte violenta (asesinado por presuntos ladrones que no se han encontrado) de unos de los ciéntificos más prominentes de USA, dedicado a la energía de cold fusion : Gene Mallove, popularmente conocido no solo en medios científicos porque edita una revista que se llama Infinity Energy, también tiene web y uno de los cerebros más lúcido mundialmente. Pues bien este señor era el principal "adviser" formando parte del grupo de la web seaspower o del Dr. Steven Greer como querais. ¿qué conclusión sacais de esto?, ¿es posible que exista energía alternativa libre y la estén suprimiendo? ¿es un cúmulo de casualidades y lo del "descubrimiento" fuera solo un deseo?

Transcript of Dr. Steven Greer's Interview
on Coast to Coast AM Radio with Art Bell
December 7/8, 2003



Coast to Coast AM Web site

[During the first 10-15 minutes of the program, Mr. Bell played a rebroadcast of a hypothetical disclosure briefing by John Lear and asked Dr. Greer to comment whether or not he would release that information to the public. That part of the interview is not included here in this transcript.]

Steven M. Greer, MD, is Director of the Disclosure Project, and CEO of Space Energy Access Systems (SEAS).

Art Bell (AB): All right, let me try this on you. Last night, I interviewed Bob Lazar - I know that you know that name - and --

Steven Greer (SG): Yeah, I know Bob.

AB: OK, fine. No matter what you think of Bob one way or the other, I got to a point in the interview where I asked Bob "Look, I'm going to ask -- there have to be other Bob Lazars out there. Send me email. Come forward. I'll give you air time. I'll put you on the air." And then I made the mistake - right after the break - of saying, "So Bob, what do you say to other people out there like yourself, should they come forward?" And he said, "Hell, no!"

SG: Right, oh yes, he has said the same thing to me because of the difficulties that people have experienced and yet - you know it's interesting, the Disclosure Project has over 500 people that we have identified. Over a hundred have come forward. None of them have had any harassment or problems associated with that. And I think that one of the problems is the "lone wolf syndrome". I think if you come forward as an individual, by yourself, trying to establish something this explosive, number one, the weight of the subject collapses that person. It can't be sustained with one person. It has to be sustained with dozens and I would posit to people maybe hundreds of people. And the other issue is that when a single person comes forward, there's an intrinsic credibility problem. Even if the person is saying everything that he says is true. But if it's something this explosive, it becomes hard to accept and when so much information is coming out about something this explosive from only one person, without independent corroboration, it sets that person up for a nightmare.

AB: Well, speaking of nightmares. Doctor, of the things that John Lear talked about, 75% which you said probably aren't so, are you discarding mostly the negative aspects of - I dont' know - either the alien presence or the way they look like, or what they've done to human beings? Or, what about the government stuff? In other words, what part of it do you buy into? You buy into the great secrecy, don't you?

SG: Well, I certainly, you know, accept the things that we have personally discovered and have multiple corroborating sources for. It's like at the New York Times, they want three separate sources. Well almost everything that we've bought into, we have more than half a dozen sources. So certainly there is extraordinary secrecy that's para-governmental, meaning that it is within certain aspects of what we might think of as the government. But in fact the Constitutional government as we think of it has very little sway over these matters and it's been really handled in an extra-constitutional manner.

AB: Do you think people have been killed over this information?

SG: Yes, I have no doubt of that.

AB: You have no doubt?

SG: Well, you - you know what I've said as well.

AB: Yes.

SG:You know we've had - before we got the security things in place that we enjoy today, our group suffered some terrible losses.

AB: I know that, but Doctor, do you really believe that if extreme prejudice has been used there would ever be an admission of that?

SG: Well, you know, it's very difficult to know whether something like that would be admitted to. I mean, some years ago, in the early first couple of years of the Clinton administration it was admitted that we deliberately infected African Americans with venereal diseases in the south.

AB: Point well taken.

SG: And we've also now admitted that there were nuclear experiments done where people were literally injected and infected with plutonium, the deadliest substance known to man. So I think that the world didn't fall apart then; it was acknowledged that those things happened. I think that many people understand that extreme measures are taken in the fog of war, or in the fog of confusion of dealing with something like this. I don't know that people would be happy with it - they weren't happy when those other things were disclosed. But of course, the point that we've always made about disclosure, and I think it has to go from disclosing information and documents about UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence to the next phase, which is what we're working on now, and that's the disclosure of the raison d'etre for the secrecy, meaning of course the actual very powerful energy and propulsion systems that are well known in very classified, corporatized projects, but which of course would result in the termination of the fossil fuel industry including all oil, coal, gas, centralized utilities and what have you. But this sort of disclosure is something which can be a positive event and again, one of the things I said many years ago to one of the senior Pentagon people is that if a disclosure is done that hits all the "hot buttons" of paranoia, and fear and insecurity that humans have...

AB: Like God? Like our maker? Like how we got here? That sort of thing?

SG: Well, yes, which gets into very speculative areas, quite frankly. That part of the briefing I felt to be almost gratuitously speculative and beyond the scope of what would be a briefing that would be believable by most people. But I think the other issue is that a disclosure which would focus on the facts in a nonemotional way and would also point out the up side of this information and the very positive things that could redound to humanity over a period of time, that would be not a terrible event. So I think it depends on how one does this, and one would want to exercise a measure of wisdom.

AB: OK. Hold it right there. We're at the bottom of the hour.We'll have a clean shot till the top of the hour. Stand by, and we'll get right back to you. Dr. Steven Greer is my guest. From the high desert, I'm Art Bell.

[commercial and news break]

AB: Even if you assume the most benign of the truths - I think we've just agreed that people had been killed over this information to keep this information silent, and lies surely have been built upon lies for years and years and years until the stack stretches most of the way towards the moon, I suppose, and with regard to disclosure, Doctor, one crack can bring down a wall, and if we, for example, got information about new energy, the next questions would be, "Well, where the hell did you get it?", "Who'd you get it from?", "What have we done with them?", and on and on and on. In other words, the wall comes down.

SG: Well, of course, and this is one of the reasons why, aside from the obvious need for a solution to the biosphere pollution, geopolitical and other problems associated with fossil fuels, bringing out the information related to the energy and propulsion systems that have been kept secret, many of which, by the way, are not of off-planet origin, they are not of extraterrestrial origin. I remind people that a human being can invent something just as well as someone from another star system. And in fact, whether you look at the work of T. Townsend Brown, or you look at the work of Tesla, or you look at the work of Sweet and many others, there have been humans - very much humans - who have come through their minds the sort of innovations and discoveries, of the nature of time and matter and space and electromagnetism to allow for the generation of energy which is not needing the burning of fossil fuels or nuclear power or what have you. So, in fact, the issue really becomes "what's relevant to people right now", and I think what is most relevant to people right now is the harmful effects of secrecy, which very specifically has to do with keeping the world rather addicted to this little line of supertankers filled with this black stuff called oil coming out the Middle East and elsewhere.

AB: All right, well Doctor, I know that you have been on a worldwide search for the "Real McCoy", you know, alternative, over unity, whatever. I know you've been on that search. Where are you?

SG: Well, it's interesting, it's been a 2 year search. I will tell you that, as we expected at the outset, the vast majority of claims associated with this area are fraudulent. The next largest category are people who are not frauds but are simply delusional, meaning that they're sincere, but they're sincerely wrong. They believe they have something that is in fact a source of quote "free energy" and it isn't, it's a calculation problem or what have you.

AB: Right.

SG: The third category of people are people who really do have something, and I'm speaking of people who have not yet been absorbed into a corporate structure or government structure. These are people who, unfortunately we have found, all but one of them so far, and I say all but one - and we'll get to that in a moment - who have been convinced that, quote "the world isn't ready for this yet", and to keep it secret. In other words, they've gone through the same brainwashing that has kept some of the military people in line to keep these other things secret.

AB: No kidding?

SG: Yes, and what's interesting - and some of these are people who have systems that we have personally seen and tested and which would revolutionize the way the people on Earth live on the Earth. However, I believe they have been intercepted by people who appear to be friendlies to them, and who are actually counterintelligence and disinformation people who have convinced them of sort of a, sort of played into the inventor's syndrome of a Messianic complex where they're told, "Well, look you know, the world isn't ready for this yet, but when there's this eschatological solution to the human problem, sort of the "End of theWorld" scenario, we can then bring this out, phoenix like, and recreate, or resurrect, life on Earth in a positive way, and you can be the bearer of this information."

AB: Yes, but Doctor, you would have to -

SG: You would convince many of these people to then say "I'll just keep this secret."

AB: Well, wait a minute, Doctor. Let's just say I'd invented something. Let's say I had the over unity device. It's the "Real McCoy" and somebody comes to me. What could they say to me beyond "look the world isn't ready for this yet?" that would cause me to keep my mouth shut? It's not going to be enough to say -- I'm gonna say "Bull! The world has been ready for this for the last thirty years. Where have you guys been? So what else are you gonna say to keep me from releasing it?"

SG: Well, there's a combination of veiled threats and a history of threats and then a sort of grandiose appeal to people to keep these things quiet until quote "the right time". Now, of course, one of the things that we've pointed out to these gentlemen, is that if you want to take sort of a spiritual view of this - if the Divine Being has allowed the minds of men to discover these wondrous sources of energy and sciences for almost a hundred years, only to have them cast aside out of lust for power and greed and secrecy and other dark human emotions, how can you say the world isn't ready? It IS ready. It's just that the sort of power elite, if you will, aren't ready because they don't want to let go of the centralized power that is contained within the entire structure of the macro-economic structure that's based on the energy system that runs the entire world economy. But the point is that we believe that this last category of people are people who actually have discovered great things, are geniuses, but unfortunately have been convinced to keep it secret.

Now, there's one final category of people, and - we have to date only met one person who's been able to demonstrate a viable - when I say viable, something capable of putting out multiple kilowatts of power that could power a home or something -

AB: How much can you tell me about him?

SG: Well, what I can tell you is that our group, Space Energy Access Systems, has a worldwide exclusive license to try to bring this out. The person involved is offshore, is very frightened, has demonstrated to us that these technologies that he's been able to build, while somewhat crude, are actually very impressive, but to date has never been able to deliver to us a system. Now, this has been a very frustrating drama that has been going on now for about ten and a half months.

AB: Well then why doesn't that push him back a couple of categories?

SG: The only reason it doesn't is because -- he's in a gray box. What I would say is that this particular inventor is in a gray box where it's not quite clear yet if this is someone who has been unduly influenced by a third party to not cooperate, or actually has something, because we have seen and tested one of these systems.

AB: But I mean that puts the whole invention in the gray box.

SG: Well, yes. You have to separate out the behavior of the inventors from the technology itself, you really do. But in reality the result is exactly what you said, and that is, that it's in a gray box because at this point we're still waiting to take delivery.You know, we had - it's interesting - the first of March we had a private jet loaded to go and pick up this gentleman and the device and bring it back to a secure facility here, near our place here outside Washington.

AB: And what happened?

SG: A corporate lawyer and a business person that had been associated with this inventor stopped the whole transfer dead in its tracks, and it's very interesting. A whole book could be written about the drama of this little misadventure, or adventure, we're not sure which it is yet - but...

AB: On what basis was this stopped?

SG: Well, you know, the claim was that there was someone who was not being taken care of by the inventor who was supposed to be taken care of in the agreement that he had. In reality, we're not sure what was behind it. This is something that still isn't clear, and because we're dealing with a controversy and three separate countries, it's been a morass. So this is another one of the things that happens with these sort of efforts, is that you get these people surrounded by legal and business people who do everything they can to put a monkey wrench in having the technology brought forward. So the reason I say that this is in a class by itself is because we have been able to see an extraordinary phenomenon with this particular device that we cannot explain as anything but a device that is extracting electromagnetic energy that's usable from the so-called quantum vacuum space around that object. But in reality, because we have not actually taken possession of the machine or the plans to reproduce it, it remains very much in the questionable category.

AB: The claim here is that it extracted essentially zero point energy and turned it into kilowatts you could see.

SG: It wasn't quite kilowatts, maybe it was about half a kilowatt,and this is the machine that we were able to pick up and take outside, plug things into it, inspect it. There was no hidden source of power. It was one of the most extraordinary things I have personally ever seen. Now, that's the good news. The good news is that I'm quite sure that this can be done.

SG: Now, there's another category, and I would say that our group, the Disclosure Project, working with SEAS - and the disclosureproject.org people can look at what we're doing with this and also seaspower.com, our website. But what we have found is that there are about 3 dozen inventors who have devices in mature stages, or less ripe stages of development, and we think that with probably around 10 million dollars in research and development funds, that at least a dozen of those could be brought to commercial viability within a year or two. Unfortunately, they do need that kind of support and that's something we're looking at doing.

SG: And the next thing that we're doing, by the way, which we think is complementary to this and we're going to have information on this on our web site soon, and in fact I would say this is the first time I've ever called for this publicly is on this show tonight, is that we are going to do with the energy issue what we did with the UFO issue, and we are calling for exactly what you sort of brought up earlier, people who have been in either laboratories, corporations, government entities, or who are civilians with high credibility and high scientific credibility who have been either present during the suppression of these energy technologies or have seen them intercepted and cast aside or put into a black box, and who are willing to come forward and be identified. Now, we do know some people, some scientists, who have been involved in those projects, but they're terrified to come forward.

SG: What we're suggesting is that, let's get about a dozen of them who are highly credentialed who have been at the patent office, who have been in with an intelligence agency or corporation and have suppressed, for example, an 80 mile per gallon carburator, or who have suppressed a zero-point energy device, and who may have documentation to back this up or corroborating colleagues to back it up, and we will do next year, in the middle of this election cycle, a disclosure event, Disclosure Two, that will present to the world the fact that we do have a solution to the oil and biosphere and environmental problems, and that we have assembled people who are ready to testify and will testify quite independently again, here in Washington at the National Press Club, that in fact this has happened over the last fifty or sixty years. So, anyone who is like that and meets that criteria I just outlined can write to me personally at disclosureproject.org and we will get back in touch with them.

SG: However, I will tell you - you know, Art, I'm very careful. We're not going go forward with anything like this until we have multiple corroborating people who are highly credentialed, and highly credible, who are ready to put that information out to the public. The reason we think this has to happen very soon is because the public is being terribly mislead about not only why the world is run the way it is, but what has to be done to correct it. You know, we're looking at a 30-some billion dollar energy bill coming out of the Senate that doesn't address any of these issues, and with a fraction of a percent of that, this whole problem could be solved. So the public needs to know that there are seriously positive solutions to these energy problems that have been ruthlessly suppressed not out of national security but in point of fact, out of a ruthless sort of greed and a lust for power.

AB: Well, when you brought people forward, Doctor, credible people, and did the disclosure you did do, that wall did not come crashing down, or at least it hasn't yet, now --

SG: We never expected... See, that's a misinterpretation. That was never the intention that it would all crash down at once. This is a process. You know this thing has been building for not 50 or 60 years, Art. It's been building, the secrecy has been building for nearly 100 years.

AB: Well, alright, this is a second wall we're talking about, if you were to -

SG: It's a brick in the same wall. You see, this -- let me correct you here. This is part of the foundation of the secret apparatus and this is one of the chief cornerstones. The raison d'etre - the reason, the very purpose for much of the secrecy surrounding the UFO issue - isn't because, you know, they're here to eat us for lunch. If they'd wanted to eat us for lunch we'd be eaten already. It's because the energy and propulsion systems that explain the phenomenon of a UFO would make obsolete the need for oil and fossil fuels and these other very primitive, almost atavistic, technologies that we're using...it's like cavemen stuff.

AB: Well then, Doctor, explain then how you can disclose one without disclosing the other?

SG: No, the whole point is that you disclose both of them and one will bring the other one out, but the thing that right now is going to have the greatest traction and relevancy to a public terrorized in the aftermath of 9-11 and who are appalled at what's going on now in the Middle East and what's probably going to be going on in the coming few months. I won't say more than that, but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better. And I think that they're going to want to see that there is a solution to the purpose - to the reason why - many of these things have occurred. You know, many people forget that Osama bin Laden was an ally of the United States when we were in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, or helping him fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It wasn't until we encamped in the Middle East trying to protect oil over there in the first Gulf war and the lead up to the first Gulf war that people in that part of the world became so furious with the West. And this is not to excuse the barbaric and horrific acts of the terrorists or of 9-11. It is, however, to shed some light on the background of this. You know, Art, I have just been invited --

AB: But, but, Doctor! Uh - one second. If we're having wars, we've had wars about oil, we're having a war about oil now. We're shedding American blood for oil so, how are you ever going to release information that says that blood was shed for nothing because we already secretly had the answer to the whole damn problem and it didn't have to happen. The war didn't have to happen. The oil doesn't have to keep coming and American boys don't have to shed their blood (and women) over in Iraq or anywhere else for oil because we really don't need it. How is that ever going to come out?

SG: It has to come out, and the longer we wait, the more painful these sacrifices will be, and I predict 9-11 will look like a picnic if we don't get our act together and fix this fundamental problem of very wrong-headed secrecy that has lead to an out of control, spiraling out of control, situation on this planet. And I think that the public already thinks this. You know, you don't have to go to a conspiracy theorist to have people understand that there are powerful cartels that have maintained the status quo and that there probably have been solutions to the energy issue and the environmental issue that have been kept out of the public domain because you're dealing with a five trillion dollar a year part of the global economy. So I think that this is not something that people are going to have a hard time understanding. I think, in fact, there can be another flip side of this. Part of it is the horror that you expressed which will be one reaction, but there is another reaction and that will be "Well, thank God there's a solution!" to this.

AB: That's not a trivial reaction. That reaction would bring down governments, tear nations to shreds. Politically, socially a disaster.

SG: It could if they don't handle it right. This is the other point. If there continues to be a resistance to letting this information come out -- you know, I had an executive producer from one of the big 3 news networks who was going to do an enormous expose on what we had found with the Disclosure project and about a year ago when we were working on this with him, he came to me and said, you know, I cannot do this piece. And this is an extremely mainstream, powerful news figure.

AB: Time is very short. Why couldn't he do it?

SG: He said, "They won't let me" and I said "Who are 'they'?" and he said, "Well, you know who 'they' are" and he smiled and I said,"Yes, of course, I know who they are." But the fact is that the public is going to have to relentlessly continue to do this, and there's some good news here. I've just been invited to do a 5,000 word guest article for one of the world's most prestigious foreign affairs journals.

AB: You know what, we're going to have to end the interview on good news.

SG: That's good news.

AB: So, Dr. Greer, thank you for being here!

SG: Thank you.

AB: Hot stuff! Good night my friend!

SG: Good night.

En el post anterior he pegado erróneamente otra entrevista al Dr. Greer. La que pretendía pegar es la que habla del "artilugio" preparado para salir al mercado en 6 meses 1 año. Como es muy larga podeis encontrarla en www.seaspower.com.
Saludos,

la cosa la veo muy interesante de debatir. He tecleado en google: Gene Mallove, y hay muchos links a su nombre, especialmente sobre su muerte. En el primer link editan una carta de Mallove dirigida al mundo que fué escrita 24 horas antes de su muerte.
Magoniaexpres como tu hablas inglés y sabes mucho más que yo de temas de enrgía y ciéntificos, porfa mira esas webs (también hay un escrito de uno de los Kennedy sobre Mallove y su trabajo) y dinos que te parece. Creo incluso muy interesante debatir el tipo de energías que defiende Mallove e investigar su trabajo, yo no tengo capacidad para eso, así que me fiaría de vuestros comentarios.
Quizá ya sabeis de él, pero es asombroso lo que denuncia y defiende y estamos hablando de un científico con larga experiencia y reconocido prestigio.
Saludos,

He seguido estos temas de cerca.

Ante todo, creo que es mejor no llamar estas energías "alternativas" ya que se
podrían confundir con energías como la solar o eólicas.

A falta de un nombre mejor yo las llamaría energías "heterodoxas" por eso de
violar los principios de la física (hortodoxa) conocida en la actualidad.

Respecto de que es eso de la fusión fría.

La fusión atómica se basa en juntar átomos más ligeros creando átomos más
pesados pero cuya suma es inferior a los átomos originales, liberándose la
diferencia de material como radiación electromagnética. Los átomos más ligeros
de la tabla periódica pueden fusionarse y liberar energía. Los más pesados
ocurre lo contrário. Pueden romperse y los átomos resultantes resultan menos
pesados que la suma original.
Creo recordar que el punto "neutro" está en el elemento de hierro o cerca.

La fisión es relativamente simple. Sin embargo la fusión requiere temperaturas
altísimas ( o eso indican las ecuaciones que se usan en la actualidad) para
que tenga lugar. De ahí la dificultad en lograr la tan perseguida fusión.

El hidrógeno tiene 2 isótopos estables. El hidrógeno normal también llamado
protio (núcleo con 1 protón) y el deuterio (núcleo con 1 protón y 1 neutrón).
Aunque el hidrógeno normal es mucho más abundante, el deuterio también existe
en la naturaleza y puede aislarse sin excesiva dificultad.

La fusión de deuterio resulta mucho más fácil que la fusión de
protio.

La fusión fría llegó ante ciertos experimentos (no reconocidos oficialmente)
que mostraban resultados sorprendentes.

En un recipiente con agua con unos cátodos de paladio, al pasar corriente
eléctrica, se produce hidrólisis y se produce hidrógeno así como calor
en la proporción esperada. Reacción química, nada nuevo que no sepamos.
El caso es que si el agua es reemplazada por agua pesada (agua que en vez
de tener hidrógeno protio o la proporción habitual, contiene deuterio en mayor
medida), se produce ¡un excedente energético!, así como subproductos de una fusión nuclear. Restos de helio y tritio.

Esto fué descubierto por 2 científicos Fleischmann y Pons y en década de los
80. Se anunció a bombo y platillo, pero luego los resultados no consiguieron
reproducirse en los primeros intentos. Además los resultados contradecían los
conocimientos actuales y se determinó que sus conclusiones fueron erróneas
debido a imperfecciones en el experimento.

La fusión fría fue áltamente criticada y desterrada a la pseudociencia.

Sin embargo, sigue habiendo rumores de numerosos experimentos exitosos así como
técnicas que dicen aumentar la proporción de excedente de calor con ciertas
técnicas (como la sonofusión, que usan ondas sonodas de ciertas frecuencias
en resonancia asegurando que aumentan dicho exceso energético).

De hecho, posteé aquí mismo una noticia de que en Departamento de Energía de
los EEUU ha puesto este año a revisar otra vez la viabilidad de la fusión fría.
(Esto es públicamente reconocido, incluso salió en el New York Times la
noticia)

Se supone que a principios del 2005 se harán públicas las conclusiones, aunque
si son negativas seguro que el tema seguirá trayendo cola.

Un buen enlace sobre la fusión fría
¡enlace erróneo!

Bueno, tengo que aclarar que mi nivel de inglés es macarrónico, y por lo tanto no puedo traducir en serio textos con palabras científicas o un poco raras. Pero en esta web hay otra gente que traduce bien... :)
Por cierto, hoy en otra parte me han preguntado algo sobre las energías alternativas, heterodoxas o como se les quiera llamar. Parece que comienza en serio la fiebre por encontrarlas...

---

"Sólo tengo desprecio hacia el mortal que se anima
con esperanzas vacías".
Sófocles. ('Ayax')

Sobre energias magicas que violan los principios de la Termodinamica, no dire nada,, ya que pertenece la campo de la FE y por tanto no se puede rebatir con argumentos cientificos.

Solo un comentario: la comunidad cientifica considera que la fusion fria no es posible.
Nunca se ha revisado este concepto.
La controversia a la que se refiere loadlin, es a la posibilidad de lograr la fusion mediante sonoluminiscencia.
Pero esta fusion NO seria fria, sino caliente.
Este metodo hace vibrar pequeñas burbujas de gas en un liquido, de manera que estas se compriman muy rapidamente alcanzando altisimas temperaturas, en la que tendria lugar la fusion(en caliente). El sistema se encuentra a baja temperatura, pero en lugares puntuales, y durante nos instantes puntuales se alcanzan altas temperatuas.

La descripcion mas acertada es " Capturar una estrella en una vaso de agua"

El problema de esto es que se demostro teoricamente que las temperatura maxima alcanzable por este metodo eran varios ordenes inferior a la minima necesaria para lograr la fusion.

Esta es la carta que Gene Mallove escribió al mundo, 24 horas antes de ser asesinado:Emerging Technologies in Product Release Mode

Home Translate PageOpen Sourced
- Ed Gray Motor
- Ion Source Beam...
- Telesis MagMot
- Stirling Engine
- Magnetic Motors
- Super Carburetor
OS Wiki (more)"Open Source"coming soon
- Electromagnetic
- Solid State Gen.
- Cold Fusion
- Fuel Cell
- Brown's/Rhodes Gas
- Plasma
- Thermal Transm.
- Sound Transm.
- Water Purification
- Waste to EnergyDepartments
- News | Wiki
- Events
- Encyclopedia
- Store
- Showcase
- Library
- Academy
- Internships
- Philanthropy
- PACAbout Us
- Latest | Wiki
- Newsletter
- Seeking Funding
- Business Plan
- Openings
- Priorities
- OutlinePersonnel / Contact
Eugene Mallove's Open Letter to the World

Dr. Eugene Mallove

Richard Hoagland received Gene Mallove's "Open Letter to the World" less than 24 hours before Dr. Mallove was brutally killed on May 14, 2004. Set goal for $500k/year for R&D into new energy technologies.TITLE: Universal Appeal for Support for New Energy Science and TechnologyPreface
by Richard C. Hoagland of Enterprise Mission
May 18, 2004"Our last conversation took place literally less than 24 hours before Gene’s sudden death. In that phone call, he reminded me that he’s just e-mailed me an “open letter” for posting here at Enterprise, outlining the results of and reasons for his last 15 years in the field of new energy research. Those 15 years, I might add, came at considerable personal sacrifice and economic cost to Gene and his own family. But, it was because of that family - and all the other families, all around the world, who desperately need and deserve the technologies for which he ultimately gave his life -- that Gene bore that cost with considerable patience, if not élan."Thus, it is Gene’s own words -- his unwavering vision of a world that can finally work for all of us, if these fundamental energy discoveries he fought so hard to realize are allowed to come to pass - that make a far more fitting eulogy than I could ever write."This, then, is the Gene Mallove that I knew ... a colleague and friend whom I, along with all his other friends and colleagues who had the privilege to know him as I did, shall forever miss."Stay tuned, my friend: your final epitaph is not yet written ...."Sources:
- Conspiracy Planet; Aug. 30, 2004 [p1]
- Enterprise Mission; May 18, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Clarification
Subject: re: Mallove's Last WordsSterling:Please note, and correct where appropriate, that the Open Letter you reference by Gene Mallove was NOT given [first] to Hoagland just hours before Gene's death. It was written months before and placed on the Infinite Energy Website for a time. Gene sent it initially to hundreds of colleagues and, I believe, used it at later dates as an information tool to others, including Hoagland.Thanks.Christy Frazier
General Manager
New Energy FoundationOpen Letter from Dr. Eugene Mallove
New Energy Foundation, Inc.
(A nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation)
P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 Fax: 603-485-4710
www.infinite-energy.comUniversal Appeal for Support
for New Energy Science and Technology by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE WORLD who have open-minded curiosity, good will, good judgment, and imagination. To Scientists and Engineers, Philanthropists, Environmentalists, Energy Developers, High Technology Investors, Healthcare Professionals, Journalists, Artists, Writers, Business People, Entertainers, and Political Leaders. Whether you are Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Anarchist, and whether you may be Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, or some other category of spirituality, this message is directed to all people of good will like you …Dear Friend:Here are some thoughts by wise thinkers—background for this urgent appeal for your consideration and support of research and development of radically new forms of energy. These are energy sources that have the potential to turn the present world order upside down and bring about a bright new day for civilization:“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way. “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.Richard P. Feynman (1963), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1965)The progress of physics is unsystematic…The result is that physics sometimes passes on to new territory before sufficiently consolidating territory already entered; it assumes sometimes too easily that results are secure and bases further advance on them, thereby laying itself open to further possible retreat. This is easy to understand in a subject in which development of the great fundamental concepts is often slow; a new generation appears before the concept has been really salted down, and assumes in the uncritical enthusiasm of youth that everything taught in school is gospel truth and forgets the doubts and tentative gropings of the great founders in its eagerness to make applications of the concepts and pass on to the next triumph…But each new young physicist…is in danger of forgetting all the past rumination and present uncertainty, and of starting with an uncritical acceptance of the concepts in the stage of development in which he finds them.Percy W. Bridgman (1961), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1946)American Nobel Laureate in Physics (1988) Leon M. Lederman is no proponent of research into radical forms of new energy; one might accurately call him a “pathological skeptic” based on at least one opinion he has voiced (see The God Particle, 1993, p.122). Nonetheless, he somehow senses that a physics revolution may be upon us. He said recently, “You can smell discovery in the air…The sense of imminent revolution is very strong.” (New York Times, November 11, 2003, p.D12). He is much more accurate than he can imagine, but not at all for reasons that he would readily accept! Perhaps he may be thinking of esoteric academic physics subjects such “string theory” or “cosmic dark energy,” but certainly not practical technologies based on radical new physics. Having the intellectual problems identified by physics Nobel Laureate P. W. Bridgman in the quotation above, Lederman has not been looking at a large body of research that will indeed revolutionize the foundations of physics and give us command of fantastic new forms of energy. Too bad for Lederman; and too bad for us all that he has not been paying attention. We could use the support of people like Lederman…if they would only come to their senses, that is, examine open-mindedly the validity of experimental data that challenges their cherished theories.In an article in Science, November 1, 2002, eighteen experts reported that they examined all the conventionally understood alternatives to fossil fuels and found them all to have “severe deficiencies” in their ability to deal with environmental problems while also being adequate to growing planetary energy needs. Physics Professor Martin Hoffert, leader of that research group, told the press that the United States would have to undertake an urgent energy research crash program, like the Manhattan atomic bomb project or the Apollo lunar missions. According to the New York Times (November 4, 2003, D1), Hoffert stated that we would need “Maybe six or seven of them [massive projects] operating simultaneously…We should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the next 10 to 15 years.” Well, I have news for these experts: The solutions to our energy problems are very close at hand, and they do require initial research and funding, but not the billions of dollars that such Establishment “experts” are accustomed to from government largesse. Rather, all that is needed perhaps are only several tens of millions of dollars to create robust prototype electric power generators based on new energy physics discoveries that have already been made. That is what this Appeal for Support is all about: to raise consciousness and funding for these radical alternative new energy sources.Question: Do you believe that it is possible that modern science has overlooked or ignored major scientific discoveries, which—if developed into technologies— would revolutionize almost every aspect of civilization? It has!I will not catalogue the many horrors and troubles of this world that could be reduced or eliminated with an abundant, safe, and clean, radically new form of energy, if it were to be embodied in widely used technologies. You know these troubles already. But I do want to tell you about a significant path toward solving many of these problems, which we can all begin to take now, but about which you may have heard very little. You may have thought that no such path could exist. Let me assure you that it does and that thousands of researchers are already on it. They have traveled this unbeaten path to a new era for far too long without adequate support. I should know, I happen to be one of them. Yes, we have not reached our goals, but thanks to meticulous scientific research, huge sacrifices, and tireless work against great opposition, these objectives are now much closer to being realized. The basic scientific direction of the path forward has already been mapped out. We need your support to go further on the path and reach our common destination: A world of abundant, clean, and safe energy from sources that have no centralized geopolitical control.Please attend to this appeal. I am most certainly not asking you to accept my claims at face value. But you must read, consider, study or review the compendious referenced material, investigate it, and then, I hope, you will be moved to take action. If you still have questions about these claims that need answering, I and my colleagues are available to answer them with facts, not hand-waving.Who am I to ask anything of you on behalf of others, whether your attention for these brief moments, or for your financial and moral support? I am a scientist and an engineer with two engineering degrees from MIT (1969, 1970) and a doctorate from the Harvard University School of Public Health (1975). I have worked all my adult life as a dedicated scientist, despite my engineer’s stripes. I have always sought to learn how the cosmos really works, and I find this process to be an exciting, difficult, and unending adventure, despite those who so erroneously claim that we are approaching “The End of Science” or a “Final Theory of Everything.” Apart from my work in government-funded research at MIT and Harvard and later in corporate settings, I have also broadened my horizons by writing about science as an author and a journalist. Articles by me and about me have appeared in such venues as MIT Technology Review, The Washington Post Sunday “Outlook” section, the New York Times, Popular Science, Analog, TWA Ambassador in-flight magazine, Wired, and New Hampshire Magazine. I have appeared on many national radio programs, and for a time in the mid-1980s I was proud to have been a regular science and technology broadcaster for The Voice of America.I am telling you something about me, not to elevate myself, but to convey to you something of my experience, sincerity, and integrity. I have written three acclaimed science books for the general public: The Quickening Universe: Cosmic Evolution and Human Destiny (1987, St. Martin’s Press), The Starflight Handbook: A Pioneer’s Guide to Interstellar Travel (1989, John Wiley & Sons, with co-author Dr. Gregory Matloff), and Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (1991, John Wiley & Sons). The late Nobel Laureate in physics (1965) Julian Schwinger endorsed my book Fire from Ice with these words: “Eugene Mallove has produced a sorely needed, accessible overview of the cold fusion muddle. By sweeping away stubbornly held preconceptions, he bares the truth implicit in a provocative variety of experiments.” (He shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Richard P. Feynman and Sin Itiro Tomanaga.) I am most proud of this latter book, because it began a jarring quest that led to finding out not only dramatic new truths about new accessible forms of energy in nature, but more important for me and you, the following most astonishing truth about modern “official” science: Official science is not really intent on truly expanding scientific knowledge, in particular when some very, very fundamental scientific dogmas and theories are put at risk.Here is how one famous nuclear science professor at my alma mater MIT reacted to my request to him in 1991 to study the summary reports from two pioneering Ph.D. scientists, who had compiled seminal reviews about frontier experiments in low-energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a. “cold fusion”). One of the reviewing scientists was 34-year veteran researcher at our Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the other was a leader of research at India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC):“I have had fifty years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not!…I will not look at any more evidence! It’s all junk!” —MIT Prof. Herman Feshbach, May 1991, on the telephone to Dr. MalloveI hope you recognize that the late Professor Feshbach’s most unfortunate and ill-considered reaction was fundamentally unscientific. It reminds me of the Church leaders at the time of Galileo, who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the Moon or at Jupiter, because they “knew” that nothing new could be seen! Yes, many modern scientists are filled with catastrophic hubris; they have become in many ways mere “technicians of science,” and guardians of what amounts to a pernicious “Holy Writ.” Don’t bother me with the experimental evidence, my theory can tell me what is possible and what is not!If by chance you are one of those who believe that “all is well in the house of science” and that “official science” can be counted on to behave itself and always seek the truth—even in matters of central, overarching importance to the well-being of humankind—you are sorely mistaken, and I could prove that to you with compendious documentation. (If you want to read what happened at just one institution, MIT, when a paradigm shift threatened established hot fusion research programs and “vested intellectual interests” such as those Prof. Feshbach so vehemently defended, read my 55-page report about this monumental tragedy at www.infinite-energy.com.) But as a first step, you should reflect on the broader history of science, which is so fraught with revolutionary leaps and paradigm shifts. These have often been made against great opposition—with revolutionary data staring an older, unaccepting generation of scientists right in the face! Read this Appeal carefully and then reconsider your opinion about who is telling the truth and who is defending falsehood about revolutionary new prospects for science and civilization.For almost nine years I have been the editor of Infinite Energy, the magazine of new energy science and technology. Though it is now small in circulation, Infinite Energy is received worldwide in some forty countries. And, Infinite Energy is distributed to newsstands across the United States and Canada. My friend and colleague, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, has supported with words and resources some of our efforts on behalf of new energy. The research that Infinite Energy covers suggests that there are at least three major categories of radically new sources of energy that civilization is on the verge of being able to tap and reduce to practical technologies. These are the completely new forms of energy for which this Appeal for Support is being issued. New Energy is the term that we apply to new sources of energy that are currently not recognized as feasible by the “scientific establishment,” but for which overwhelming and compelling evidence exists, we suggest, in at least these major categories:Category 1. New hydrogen physics (a.k.a. “cold fusion,” more generally Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions or LENR, “hydrino” physics, and other water-based energy sources. Copious technical and other information about this research may be found on these two diverse websites: www.lenr-canr.org and www.blacklightpower.com as well as our own site, www.infinite-energy.com. The upshot of this energy-from-water field is that within ordinary water there is a heretofore unimaginably large energy reservoir that may be as great as 300 gallons of gasoline energy equivalent within each gallon of plain water! This energy would be non-polluting, would have no hazardous radiation, and would, in effect, have a zero fuel cost. Only one cubic kilometer of ocean water would provide energy equivalent to all the known oil reserves on Earth. In responding to a special plea by Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the White House requested from me a technically-based Memorandum on this topic in February 2000. This 8,500-word Memorandum, “The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age,” was submitted to the Clinton Administration and later to the Bush Administration. It is now posted on www.infinite-energy.com. It asks for a review of the substantial evidence—in particular the copious evidence developed over the past 14 years in U.S. Federal laboratories—for this category of anomalous new physics energy. Unfortunately, apart from polite “Thank You” notes, no discernable action has been taken by either administration. The 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10) was held near and at MIT in August 2003. Actual public demonstrations of excess energy production in electrolytic cells occurred at MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Wall Street Journal science journalist Sharon Begley attended ICCF10 and wrote a fine column in the September 5, 2003 issue of WSJ, “Cold Fusion Isn’t Dead, It’s Withering From Scientific Neglect.” Among other surprising technical developments at ICCF10 was the presentation by a well-funded Israeli corporation, Energetics Technologies, which appears to have made enormous strides in overcoming some of the problems with the low-energy nuclear reactions phenomenon. Isn’t it time that the experimental data from this significant field of scientific work is reviewed by an unbiased panel, unlike the rush-to-judgment hostile group in 1989, which inexcusably botched that investigation? Why aren’t the many politicians who have been informed about this taking action? Are they perhaps fearful of the all-to-common “sneer review” from the Scientific Establishment?Category 2. Vacuum energy, Zero Point Energy or “ZPE” for short, aether energy, or space energy. These are descriptions of vast energy sources from the vacuum state. Information about this most radical and paradigm-shattering physics and technology research can be found on websites: www.aetherometry.com, www.energyscience.co.uk, and www.aethera.org. In the mid-1990s, Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in the Toronto area obtained three US patents on an astonishing technological device, the so-called Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGDTM) reactor. In its several embodiments, it already produces kilowatt-level electrical, thermal, and mechanical output power. A Quicktime video of one such device, working in 2003, may be viewed at www.aetherometry.com/cat-abrimedia.html. Successful testing of the PAGD by outside parties, including Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Ontario Hydro, regrettably did not lead to commercial arrangements to further the development of this scientific wonder, which has been meticulously documented in the three United States-granted Correa patents. (Uri Soudak, former Chief Technology Officer of IAI, is still involved with the project here in the U.S.) The Correas and Dr. Harold Aspden, IBM’s former chief of patent operations in Europe (from 1963 to 1983), have provided convincing theoretical explanations, based on concrete experiments with a variety of fundamental phenomena, all of which illuminate how this unsuspected vacuum state energy can be extracted by the PAGD reactor. The advent (possibly in only 2-3 years) of self-sustaining electrical power-generating units in the multi-kilowatt power range appears to be only a matter of gathering a relatively small amount of engineering/scientific development funding, in the low several tens of million dollars range.Category 3. Environmental energy, i.e. energy from sensible thermal energy (in particular, energy of molecular motion), through significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Proceedings of an important scientific conference dealing with this subject gives great insight into this work: Quantum Limits to the Second Law: First International Conference on Quantum Limits to the Second Law (San Diego, CA, July 28-31, 2002), Professor Daniel P. Sheehan, Editor, American Institute of Physics, Conference Proceedings, #643, 2002. A strong consensus of a significant number of the scientist attendees, as reported by the author, is that it will be possible to make utilitarian machines that convert the thermal energy in the environment to useful work, without a lower temperature reservoir to dump waste heat. This would be in direct contravention of the supposedly sacrosanct Second Law of Thermodynamics. These devices would be nearly perfect “free energy” machines. Accurate simulations of such devices have been carried out and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. Some of the authors predict that such prototype devices could be reduced to small prototype units within five years.The foregoing brief descriptions of the three categories of New Energy identified so far is only the tip of the iceberg of the verifiable and testable information that is available on these energy sources. It is amenable to critical and precise scientific review. Of course, if the Scientific Establishment trusts only in its textbook theories and if disbelieving people of good will who have the means to move this work forward choose “not to look through the telescope,” the consequences will be that these wondrous technologies will not be developed as rapidly as they could have been otherwise—or they may not be developed at all! This has been and will be a monumental tragedy for virtually every category of human experience, all of which would be transformed by these now apparently “unwanted” discoveries.I could write much more in this memorandum about the corrupt machinations within the supposedly well-ordered and ethical house of science, actions that have kept the information that Infinite Energy publishes from where it should be: prominently considered in such publications as Science and Nature. Don’t worry, many, many peer-reviewed technical publications have indeed courageously published pioneering technical papers about new energy, but the prominent mainstream publications that set the boundaries of the public scientific discourse—journals such as Science and Nature—reject without review any and all papers that challenge the foundational paradigms of physics, chemistry, and biology. You may find that difficult to believe, as I would have a mere fifteen years ago when I wrote Fire from Ice, but it is a sad and demonstrable truth. Let us not dwell on that, however, but rather move forward together with an end-run around this grotesque, anti-scientific obstruction.Infinite Energy Magazine has been published bi-monthly since March 1995 and I have been its Editor-in-Chief and Publisher since that time. It is a technical magazine with editorial outreach to the general public as well. Many of its articles are very accessible to laypeople and non-specialists. You may download for free some 117 pages of representative sample articles, which we have gathered together for you at www.infinite-energy.com. Other key articles are posted for free downloading on our website on a continuing basis. To maintain the highest editorial standards, Infinite Energy is written and edited by scientists, engineers, and expert journalists. It is aimed at pioneering scientists, engineers, business people, environmentalists, philanthropists, and investors who are concerned about an exciting R&D area that we believe will change the world dramatically.New Energy Foundation, Inc. (NEF) is an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) public charity corporation, based in New Hampshire; it has a five-member board of respected citizens. (Prior to July 2003, Infinite Energy had operated under a for-profit corporation.) NEF also has a research grant-awarding function, which was initiated in 2003. NEF dispenses to outside researchers and developers carefully targeted research and development funding grants from its reserves of charitable contributions. These funds are beginning to grow, but are nowhere near the level they need to be.The current subscription price and newsstand price of Infinite Energy provides less than 30% of what it costs to carry on a publication of this quality at the frontiers of knowledge—and for which no significant advertising base yet exists. And this frontier knowledge is neglected (and not infrequently mocked) by most of the scientific and media establishments. Therefore, charitable contributions are needed to carry on this important information networking function. Here is the other basic motivation for NEF: It has been far too difficult (so far) to persuade venture capital to invest in new energy technology that is not quite ready yet for “prime time,” so the vicious Catch 22 (“We won't invest because it is not successful already.”) must be broken. We appeal to the humanitarian and charitable instincts of those in a position to invest charitably in and/or to spread the word about the most fundamental aspect of our future: The triumph of truth over falsehood on the frontiers of science—in which the new energy field, in our view, will be the first paradigm-shattering example.What we have today in the fiery menace of hydrocarbon fuels and its associated geopolitical nightmare is very ugly indeed. There is almost no area of human activity that would not be dramatically affected by the advent of new energy technology—especially matters of war or peace and health and the environment. Therefore, if your review of the referenced material convinces you that this is a reality and not “pathological science,” as the unrepentant critics—who have not studied the scientific findings objectively or at all—would have you believe, we hope that you will view your tax-deductible support of the New Energy Foundation as a significant investment in your future, for your loved ones and for civilization at large. Just try to imagine our world twenty or fifty years hence without the advent of a dramatic source of new energy such as low-energy nuclear reactions, aether energy (or Zero Point Energy/space energy/vacuum energy, if you prefer), or some other very powerful new physics energy source. It is not a pleasant picture.What about solar power, wind power, or hydrogen fuel cells, you ask? Those are fine, and Infinite Energy devotes some smaller space to writing about these. But a future of abundant, clean energy has almost no chance of emerging from the well-intentioned, beneficial, but extremely limited world of wind-power, photovoltaics, hydropower, and other conventional renewables. And the so-called controlled hot fusion tokamak reactor program, which is lavishly funded with billions of dollars by governments to the exclusion of workable new energy science and technology, will never bring about an era of clean abundant energy from the heavy hydrogen in water. Conventional hydrogen fuel cells, which are widely discussed by the news media today, rely on the conventionally understood energy from hydrogen when it combines with oxygen to form water. This is thousands to millions of times less powerful per gram of hydrogen than already demonstrated new energy sources! Furthermore, the hydrogen for conventional fuel cells must come from some other energy source that must be used to break down abundant water to get hydrogen fuel (if we reject the other hydrogen source: hydrocarbon fuel). But in all conventional hydrogen fuel processes using water as the starting material, this requires more energy than one gets back when the hydrogen is consumed. So ordinary “hydrogen power” is a misnomer at best—it is no solution at all to the world’s real energy needs. Hydrogen, conventionally employed, is an energy storage medium period. New Energy Foundation supports radically new forms of energy, not the relatively weak examples of alternative energy within conventional renewables. We acknowledge, of course, that there are now no robust new energy devices on the market—not yet. But when adequate, well-targeted research funding is applied, a revolution in energy technology will occur that will dwarf the personal computer revolution in intensity. It will have much in common with that revolution too, since power sources will be highly distributed. The very troublesome and erratic power grid is doomed to obsolescence.At this time, New Energy Foundation is in need of financial support from a broader community than heretofore. NEF disseminates information about potentially world-changing technologies—about the science, technology, patents, investment, and politics thereof; we measure and investigate new claims about new energy devices to determine whether they are sound. This latter can be tough, because there is no question that there is much bogus “free energy noise” that obscures the good research. Most important, we are now processing grant applications by scientists and inventors from around the world, so that the most promising work—now highly under-funded, due to the very heretical nature of this work—gets the financial support that it so much deserves. We are very demanding about these grants; we insist that the research must be headed in the direction of developing publishable scientific results and/or actual commercially useful technologies that operate on new scientific energy principlesPlease help us today, either with your financial contribution—of any size—or by passing along this letter and our message to those who may be better able to help NEF. Whatever you or they can afford, no matter how small an amount, will be deeply appreciated—and will be acknowledged in the pages of Infinite Energy (unless you or others tell us that anonymity is requested). Some day we will live in a world in which the discoveries of New Energy science will be taken for granted. No one will be able to deny the devices, processes, and science, whose validation we are struggling so hard to achieve. In some sense, we will then have succeeded in our mission and thus will have “put ourselves out of business.” Those scientific publications and general media, which should have been dealing fairly with this topic all along, will then be forced to write about it and recant past inexcusable excessive skepticism. Billions of dollars in R&D money will then flow from corporations and individuals, as should have been happening already based on what scientists have already discovered! The huge funding for infrastructure conversion to New Energy will flow naturally from private sources, as it has in the rise of the personal computer and Internet industry. Nothing would make me happier than to have that day come. But until then, we very much need increased financial support.We would like to reach soon our target of at least $500,000 per year in approved research funding for New Energy. That may not seem like a lot of money to do significant research, but let me assure you that even this amount—wisely distributed to the best researchers—could soon begin to have a dramatic catalytic effect. New energy researchers are accustomed to low budgets and are fantastically creative, unlike the wasteful government energy research programs that have demonstrably failed already. It will not be easy to obtain even this level of modest research funding—and, of course, several millions of dollars per year would accomplish much more, but the sooner well-targeted funding reaches under-funded researchers, the more likely we are to accelerate the inevitable New Energy Revolution. Yes, we understand that there is room in parallel for corporate start-ups, and we definitely encourage that to take place. But some of the charitable grant money can help the struggling inventors and scientists to do sufficient research, so that their work can be of greater interest to corporate start-up models.I think you would agree with me that in these often very dark times the world would benefit immensely from a realistic hope—followed by on-market technology—that a new era of abundant, clean energy resources will be dawning. Please do your best to help us make that happen. Study the hard-won information that we have brought to your attention, if you do not yet accept what I have tried to convey to you. When you have become convinced, if you are not already, please act! You may donate charitably to the efforts of New Energy researchers at www.infinite-energy.com. Please also help us to bring this critical issue to others who may be able to help. Why not satisfy your curiosity and also help New Energy Foundation by subscribing to Infinite Energy. Thank you in advance for joining with us now or in the very near future.Sincerely,
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine

See also
Eugene Mallove -- In Memorium Page posted by Sterling D. Allan Aug. 30, 2004
Last updated August 30, 2004 Mountain




Web PureEnergySystems






News (RSS) • Open Sourcing • Latest • Our Site Host Service • Privacy Statement • About • ContactPESWiki Departments:
Top10 • Latest • News • Events • Open Sourcing Tech • Directory • PowerPedia • Academy • PeerPedia • Store • Classifieds • Library • PAC • Gamewww.pureenergysystems.com
PES Network, Inc.
Copyright © 2003, 2004

Esta postura tuya es muy común, pero en mi opinión, incorrecta.
En el universo hay límites. Pero cuando enunciamos una "ley" nunca estaremos seguros al 100% que esta sea correcta. La única manera de comprobarlo sería comprobar todos los casos posibles. Si estos son infinitos, ¿como concluir que es correcto?

En efecto, las ciencias, para progresar, deben tomar ciertos principios como verdaderos. Un principio, una vez suficientemente probado, y mientras no haya experiencia repetible que lo contradiga, podrá mantenerse como verdadero.

Pero que soberbia si creemos estar seguros al 100% de algo.

Bien pudiera ser la segunda ley de la termodinámica universal e inviolable. En dicho caso, todos los esfuerzos de aquellos que buscan su error, su posible "rodeo" estarían perdiendo el tiempo.
Pero... ¿ y si nos equivocamos ? ¿Y si hay casos en que esta "ley" no se cumple?

Hay quien piensa que podemos hacerlo todo. Que podemos saltarnos las leyes de la Naturaleza.
Pero no, no podemos saltárnolas. Si existen, ni el mayor de nuestros esfuerzos podrá evitarlas. Las enunciadas leyes de la termodinámica, la velocidad de la luz, etc. etc.
Pero igualmente, hay quien cree imposible de violar algo que el cree universal. Pero no se da cuenta de cuantas veces nos hemos equivocado.
Muchos científicos solo saben seguir el camino de otros. Pero no tienen en cuenta que sus predecesores bien podrían haberse equivocado, o simplemente, no haber probado los casos suficientes.
La segunda ley de la termodinámica nos ha acompañado ya mucho tiempo... difícilmente será errónea.
Pero la visión de Newton del universo perduró bastante tiempo y tampoco se puede decir que fuera errónea, sino más bien incompleta.
¿Acaso no podría ocurrir con esto lo mismo?
Y otro tanto con la fusión fría o cualquier otro sistema de "energías libres".



Lamentablemente, la comunidad científica actual (al igual que muchas veces en el pasado), sufre de soberbia y egocentrismo. Cualquier investigador, por serio que pudiera ser, si investiga una violación de un principio suficientemente arraigado en nuestras creencias, es directamente relegado al mundo de la pseudociencia.
Científico es el que estudia la maturaleza por el método científico.
Tan pseudocientífico es el que se saca energías "de la manga" como el que sentencia que tal o cual cosa es imposible en base a la ley tal o cual sin ni siquiera echar una ojeada al experimento.

Si un buen científico se topa con algo que viola una ley conocida, su deber es buscar el caso más simple de violación de la ley, asegurarse de poder reproducir el resultado, y comunicarlo para buscar la revisión de otros científicos así como su reproducción desde grupos independientes.

En vez de eso, hoy en día, el científico es criticado y si insiste en su empeño, relegado con los chalados y timadores (que abundan mucho más que los primeros)



Lo se. Se dice que miles de grados en las microburbujas (lejos de los millones). Sin embargo no falta quien dice que en sus resultados hay excedente de energía. Así pues estaríamos en un caso de "fusión fría"... o "fusión templada" si lo prefieres.

Al igual que en el caso de la fusión fría, el problema está que los modelos teóricos y los resultados prácticos no cuadran. Para colmo, o todo se deben errores de medición (parece que debe haber muchos errores por la cantidad de gente que afirma obtener los resultados) o faltan "datos" en la ecuación (pues aún muchos más son los que dicen intentar reproducir los experimentos sin éxito).



¿Y si las ecuaciones son erróneas o incompletas?

Perdonar por los links con tanta cosas innecesarias que envío que los hacen innecesariamente largos. No se hacerlo de otra forma.
Os agradezco un montón vuestras esplicaciones técnicas, pero no es eso lo que os preguntaba. Todas esas y muchas más están en las web de Gene Mallove y en su revista: Infinity energy, también con web. Para una mente como la mía que no sabe de ciencias solo puedo entender las conclusiones prácticas de cualquier invento, normalmente en este mundo tan enrevesado yo hago mis cálculos de verdad/mentira por la lógica de los acontencimientos y sus consecuencias en la vida real y prosáica del mundo, también me influye mucho la confianza que me dan ciertas fuentes aunque siempre desconfío de casi todo y busco contrapartida aunque sea una locura, a cualquier "verdad" que yo haya admitido. Después separo el grano de la paja.
Bien, yo os digo que el Dr. Steven Greer anuncia en una entrevista radiofónica que tienen un invento de energía sin límites y digamos "cuasi gratuita" (entrevista en dicienmbre 2003) que podrán mostrar (prototipo) al mundo en 3-8 meses y a partir de ahí comercializarlo. En la entrevista rebosa seguridad y optimismo y a la pregunta de si habían sido "molestados" dice que no ,que todo su equipo está trabajando intensamente y en calma en el proyecto. Uno de los colaboradores principales del Dr. Greer es Gene Mallove conocido por sus teorías de cold fisión, acreditado científico y editor de la revista Infinity Energy.
En Mayo 2004 (para cuando se supone que más o menos tienen que mostrar al mundo el prototipo del invento) el Dr. Gene Mallove es asesinado y el Dr. Greer escribe un artículo donde dice que su equipo está paralizado por el terror de las amenazas recibidas, para nada menciona el prototipo ni a un inversor que tenían que según dice en la entrevista de diciembre 2003 había quedado atónito antes las pruebas realizadas, además en esa entrevista dice que anuncia con anterioridad al mundo antes de tener el prototipo preparado para su comecialización, para curarse en salud.
He leído del Dr. Mallove que una de sus fuentes de energía infinita es el hidrógeno extraido del agua. Dice que un km3 de agua del mar sería igual a todas las reservas mundiales del planeta de petróleo. Es conocedor de todas las teorías o exactitudes de la obtención de hidrógeno por lo métodos conocidos por todos y aquí largamentes discutidos y que lo hace inviable, pero él se refiere a otro método de obtención de hidrógeno de coste cero. Ahí yo me pierdo. Pero voy a daros un dato que creo muy impotante.
No recuerdo el año, apuesto por el 96, pero pudo ser quizá el 97, en toda la prensa nacional española y especialmente en la local Valenciana, grandes titulares ocuparon las páginas de nuestro periódicos sobre el descubrimiento en la Universidad de Valencia sobre la obtención de hidrógeno con coste cero y además todas sus aplicaciones, se decía que un simple vaso de agua podría dar toda la energía necesaria a un bloque de 40 familias. Daban el nombre de los componentes del equipo que habían descubierto esta panacea. Esto duró unos tres días, y después desapareció todo como por arte de magia, sin dar la mínima explicación. Podrían por ejemplo haber dicho que los datos no eran correctos y que había alguna confusión en algún lado, pero no :silencio absoluto. Daba la sensación que uno había soñado esa noticia.
Posteriormente y hablando un día con un íntimo de un profesor de la Universidad de Valencia, me dijo que todo el equipo de investigación de ese tema había sido dispersado y envíado a diferentes lugares y alguna cabeza había sido cortada de raiz, es decir había perdido su trabajo. Naturalmente no se si es fiable esa historia, pero si os puedo decir que esa misma persona que me dijo eso, (no pertenece en nómina a la universidad), deshizo en piezas ante mis ojos un "invento" que según él y basado en ondas electromagnéticas desmantelaba cualquier tipò de máquina, es decir destornillaba todo lo atornillable de una máquina en segundos y convertía en piezas la máquina. El había pensado que eso dirigido a los tanques de combate sería fenomenal porque no mataría y quedaría el tanque totalmente inservible. Pero después de que un amigo de altas esferas se pusiera en contacto con Santa Bárbara, decidió no seguir adelante y yo con él fuimos tirando por Valencia pieza por pieza en mil sitios. Hace tiempo que le he perdido la pista a este señor que era de mi tierra, Extremadura, he hicimos muy buena amistad, solo que yo me he cambiado de domicilio dos veces y él también, digo esto porque me hubiera encantado discutir el cenit del petróleo con él porque sabía bajar a mi intelecto para explicarme de forma muy simple cosas muy complicadas.

Me he dado cuenta que el cenit está en la calle, digamos que es casi popular ya, pero lo que la gente ignora es sus consecuencias y tambien esperan la varita mágica de algo que resuelva el problema.
Otra cosa llamativa es que en los medios alternativos americanos, visito casi a diario:what really happened, Propaganda Matrix, Alex Jones-Prison planet, From the Wilderness, y algunos más de vez en cuando, no se habla para nada del cenit, en cambio hay una guerra abierta contra el sionismo hasta el extremo de que incluso se critica a Michael Moore (tenemos un cuento de él en la primera página de esta web) y lo despellejan por no denunciar las implicaciones de el Mosad en el 11-S en la peli Farenheith 911, le acusan de que su asesor es judío y hermano de no se que prominente cargo oficial en el Pentágono.
Ha comenzado a rodar la idea de que el cenit es una fabulación para disimular los verdaderos propósitos de la invasión de Irak y las que seguirán para construir el Gran Israel, como denuncian las construción de pipe-lines para llevar el crudo de Irak hasta Israel.
En fín esta bién saber todo y de todo, después se puede cribar pero yo estoy siempre atenta porque de este mundo cada día me creo menos.
Saludos,

Siguiendo en el tema.. este artículo.. de la BBC..

Laws of physics 'may change'

Se habla del discubrimiento de que un factor constante.. no era constante.. lo que implica mucho..

Loadlin dice cosas interesantes sobre todo cuando el cientifico solo sigue los pasos de sus antecedores y no probar y comprobar si loq ue esta establecido como "hecho" realmente es así..

lo digo porque en la ciencia de la geología pasa lo mismo.. existenten muchisimos incognitas que la gente general piensan como hechos.. unos ejemplos..

la epoca glacial.. realmente no se sabe con certeza como aparece y desaparece.

el origen del petróleo.. que he puesto en este foro.

el origen de la inclinación de la tierra.

si realmente la corteza interior es líquido.. solo se sabe con certeza que no es solido.

el origen de las formaciones montañosas.. se necesita mucha energia para subirlas.. la teoria de las placas tal y como mueven.. no la da.. (eso es para discutir!! pero Einstein apoya otra teoria ver.. aquí

etc etc..

y no nos olvidemos la polemica sobre la construcción de estas bellas obras!!



Según los egiptologos ha sido durante los veranos en un periodo de 25 años para la grande. (equivalente de 5 años en construcción a 24 horas al día.. comparada con la construcción de una mezquita nueva en el Cairo que ha tardado 12 años a 24 horas al día, eso me dijieron los guías)!.. lo unico cierto aqui es la construcción de la mezquita.. si lo aplicas al reves.. el gran piramide necesitaria aproximadamente 75 años para construir, lo cual lo dudo en comparación de los tiempos de construcción de muchos edificios grandes en la Edad Media en Europa.

bueno en fin.. lo mejor es tener datos.. que se puede contrastrar, que se puede demonstrar y repetir... y eso es lo que hacemos muchos aqui.. ver todos los puntos de vista con los datos que se aportan y que cada uno haga su propia conclusión..

Si realmente existen estas energias "heterodoxos" como dice San Tomás.. hasta que no lo veo no me lo creo....

aún asi.. mantengo un mente abierto ante la posibilidad que la haya..

---

El chollo se acaba y ver que hacemos...

Ave, Yirda:

Con referencia a lo que has escrito sobre la Uni de Valencia, algo de eso me suena ya que vivo cerca de Valencia. El problema es que no tenemos datos fiables, al menos por mi parte, más que lo que apareció en una breve nota de prensa, que, dada mi desconfianza visceral hacia los "media" puedo interpretar con fuera de contexto la información que facilitaban.
No soy un especialista en física, pero juzgo, o prejuzgo, exagerado pensar que el hidrógeno contenido en un vaso de agua sea la panacea para una civilización que se va al garete a ojos vista.El tema es bastante complejo por lo que sabemos y se ha debatido, no ya en el foro, sino entre especialistas de la materia de todo el mundo.En realidad pienso que nadie, incluidoas las más altas instancias de los Estados tiene conciencia que esto se acaba. Para creerse tal cosa hay que ser un perfecto heterodoxo...
En cierto modo a mí también se me puede considerar "conspiranóico", pero dentro de unos límites. Las personas humanas estamos bastante piradas y los dirigentes me temo que bastante más, razón por la que hago mía la frase de la entrada del infierno de Dante: "LASCIATE OGNI SPERANZA..."
Entre unos y otros nos están tomando el pelo Más o menos tenemos casi todos los datos para hacer una prospectiva razonable del inmediato futuro. Personalmente agradecería a todos los foreros preocupados por ese incierto futturo me facilitasen la información disponible sobre:
-Posibles zonas climáticas futuras.
-Posibles cultivos futuros en función de los datos climáticos anteriores.
Lo demás ya es una cuestión de habilidades personales.
Un cordial saludo.