Figuring out some way to finance research is almost as great a problem as
finding a solution to a working energy device <g>. I've sometimes thought
of rounding up various interested parties and presenting them with a
research plan that askes for regular contributions for specific goals. I've
always chickened out on this approach for the same reasons you outline,
mainly that people are a bit like the weather when it comes to extended
commitment. I could think of nothing worse than finding myself in a
position of having outstanding bills and a bunch of contributors opting
out. That would be BAD.
Perhaps another approach would be to have a specific proposed project, lets
use the Clem engine as an example. Construct a realistic budget and works
schedule including the particulars of the researchers involved. Present
this to interested parties and invite them to partake in the realisation of
this project through an open contribution system based on what they feel
they can contribute. The contributions target must be met BERORE work
begins. Is it possible that this form of donation system could work?
Personally, I don't know as I have never tried it. I can say though, that
my hundred bucks would be in for a Clem project simply because it is a
project that I would like to personally investigate. Only paying $100 would
be very cheap for me, compared to taking the full burden of such a project
on. The information return, whatever the outcome, would represent real
value for money.
The more I think about ongoing research, the more I believe that we need to
come up with a way of lifting our game. As most agree, time marches on and
I too would like to see a solution before leaving this world. I'd also like
to point out Jerry, although it's probably nothing new, that you are in the
perfect position to investigate possible avenues to fund such a project.
You have the exposure, you have the audience, you have the will. Would
there be any real problems in conducting an experiment of a different kind
- such as finding out just how much real interest there is out there in
collectively funding a specific project? Nobody need send any money at this
stage - just an indication of their intent would provide a quick indication
of the viability of such an approach. Could this be made to work? I'll
commit $100 to a Clem engine reproduction right now - I'd spend that much
over the next 6 months on crap information anyway, partaking in something
of SUBSTANCE has a certain appeal. I wonder how many others feel the same way?
By the way, making a fixed contribution to such an endeavor seems besides
the point. I'm personaly not all that interested in 'equality', I know what
I can afford and I'd gladly share equal footing with someone who can afford
less, but would like to contribute none the less. I'd also feel the same
way towards someone who could afford more <g>. At the end of such a project
nobody should expect anything more than the resulting information. It is
the resulting information that represents the real value - not the machine.
Regards, Bill.
At 13:10 16/08/98 -0500, Jerry W. Decker wrote:
>Hi Bill et al!
>
>You wrote;
>> It is highly possible there is something to vortex fluid
>> movement and the potential to create a system that self runs.
>> A self running system, whatever the design, will be the hallmark
>> of a true working 'free energy' device.
>
>Yes, there were discussions a few months back on Bill Beaty's vortex
>list about 'negative viscosity' which is the mechanical analogue to the
>electrical one of 'negative resistance'. It is the principle that forms
>and sustains self-running tornados and hurricanes and I firmly believe
>it can be duplicated on a smaller scale for the output of free energy.
>
>Clem (and others including Schauberger's Zokwendle) all appeared to have
>created a vortex with this self-sustaining property.
>
>Over the years and in many files there are references to some point of
>anomaly (my term) which once achieved allows a rotating mass to run with
>almost no energy input. The effect is that it takes energy to force
>matter or energy to a given point, requiring less and less until it
>reaches resonance, if you persist beyond resonance, the matter or energy
>being so moved or stimulated begins to pull on its own.
>
>Keely's push, pull or balance illustrates this. I always envisioned it
>as an X where you force the mass or energy down to the 'point of
>anomaly/bloch wall' and then slightly past to get it to suck and run on
>its own, this is where you need a governor to prevent the device from
>destroying itself...
>
>You also wrote;
>> Perhaps we collectively present such a fragmented image that such
>> people run scared? Or maybe I just don't mix with the 'right'
>> people <g>.
>
>Probably a combination of both. I don't move in such circles, being
>your basic redneck...<g>...and not patient with people whose eyes don't
>light up when they talk or who have no interest in science at the very
>least...<g>....
>
>You also wrote;
>> Jerry, IMHO what is needed is a wealthy backer who is looking
>> to offload some spare change on some serious research. Speaking
>> for myself, I feel the chances of successfully producing a
>> working energy device are reasonably viable, given the resources.
>
>I've never met one 'wealthy backer' who had any intention of backing
>anything that wouldn't either gain them more money or some kind of total
>control over a project. If there are any of them out there who want to
>catalyze some major changes, then by all means, contact me, Bill, or
>whoever you might think offers the best chance.
>
>In the past, I've tried on a couple of occasions to get people to
>understand that if everyone chipped in $10 bucks a month with 100 people
>that would be $1000, with 500 people that would be $5000 per month.
>
>That money would rent us a garage type building, outfit it with drill
>press, lathe, 2 scopes, meters, variable power supplies, etc, pay the
>bills for phone & utilities, rent and maybe insurance....we have people
>here who would gladly volunteer their time to work on specific projects
>in such a facility to DO SOMETHING.
>
>It would be even better if we could PAY some of these people full time
>to work there, but initially it would be totally volunteer with all
>funds going to supplies and sustaining the facility.
>
>The idea was to first get people to commit to a regular donation for a
>solid year, whether a one time payment or a once a month payment, this
>would guarantee we wouldn't open and have to close because people flaked
>out. I like the one time shot, that way, its PAID for the year.
>
>Then we document our efforts both in video and text, posting it freely
>on the KeelyNet website. When something comes of it that works, we would
>use the shareware format to allow republishing the info in its entirety
>in hopes people will appreciate it and send in donations to further
>increase our working funds. http://www.keelynet.com/share.htm
>
>Well, so far, people just don't seem to 'get it', as to what is intended
>or what WILL HAPPEN as a result. Part of it is the conspiracy, 'you
>will be shut down' warnings, we are willing to take the chance and thats
>why we will post EVERYTHING so all can know what is going on and what
>has been found or has not worked.
>
>Because of the lack of general participation by people, I can't tell if
>its a trust issue or that they are just cheap. In my meetings early on
>with 'risk venture' investors or in explaining such things to 'moneyed'
>people, they fob the whole thing off, saying, 'Well, if there is
>anything to this, it will certainly find its way to the marketplace and
>I'll just buy it then.' Truth, I've heard it on several occasions from
>different people. They haven't a clue.
>
>So, free energy, gravity control and even rejuvenation (all of which
>correlate), surely someone out there with bucks can comprehend what this
>would mean to society and life in general. I guess some of us either
>live in a dream world or are seeking a reality that others cannot even
>imagine. Just so.
>
>This list currently has 142 members. Consider if just 100 people here
>paid $100 for a full year that would total $10,000 per year which comes
>to $833.33 per month.
>
>I estimate renting a small building will run from $600.00 to $1200.00
>per month. Phone, utilities, etc. would be around $300.00 per month.
>Outfitting would be initial one time cost of about $5,000 to $10,000
>depending on how detailed. So, per year, using a monthly rent of
>$800.00 it would be $9600.00 plus $3600.00 comes to about $13,200.00
>that is relatively fixed yearly, plus the additions of equipment and
>parts it would be about $20,000.00 for the first year and close to that
>for every year after since you have to have supplies and parts to build
>these things. This isn't much real money for a business and remember
>its all volunteer at this point with nothing available for salaries.
>
>So, I have a large backyard and figured another approach that would
>reduce the yearly costs. This idea was to build a workshop in my
>backyard for about $12,000 and there wouldn't be any rent then, this
>includes concrete floor and some outfitting. This could be done through
>a loan and paid off monthly or a one time shot which I figure would pay
>for itself in 15 months if you consider $800.00 per month for rent of a
>small building. Once the initial cost was paid for it would run on
>about $10,000 per year for parts and projects, depending on a LOT of
>scavenging...<G>..
>
>Initial equipment and other outfitting would come to about $8,000 though
>I could reduce that by using some of my own equipment and I'm sure
>others would be happy to loan some of their equipment to reduce even
>that.
>
>Monthly bills for power, water, phone etc can be additions to my home
>bills so that would knock out setup and monthly payments for that, which
>I figure would save about $13,000.00 per year.
>
>The building would be open to local participants and others could make
>an appointment to visit the workshop for a 'tour' or to help out if they
>were so inclined.
>
>Just dreaming, I don't see this happening with any kind of group
>approach, too many who either don't get it, don't trust me, or are
>wanting all the answers on a silver platter at no cost to them. I know,
>I tried the approach twice and nothing came of it.
>
>So, I'm looking to other approaches but time is eating away at us all.
>Going to have to make some kind of move while I am still young enough to
>do some good. I'd hate to die without EVER having seen a real
>self-sustained overunity device or to fly using a gravity belt...I dream
>this stuff all the time, so it keeps me wired and thinking along those
>lines. One more year almost down the tubes.
>--
> Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187
>
>