Here is an interesting thread of what would be the most important
topics to work on with regard to energy.
I think Vortex Power is more appropriate than Whirl power, sounds like
a carnival ride...<g>...
How about?
1) Aether/ZPE manipulation
concentration, diffusion, redirection of ambient
aether flows
2) Cold Fusion
chemical or differential matter generated heat
3) Vortex Power
energy derived from vortexial action
4) Radiant energy
tapping ambient or incoming wave energy in the
form of light, heat, radio, cosmic or other waves
5) Earth energy
tapping into natural electrical energy from the
earth or its atmosphere
---Bill Wallace wrote:
>
> Some choices so far:
>
> Aether concentration and capture
> Cold Fusion
> Whirl Power
>
> >I think possibly a more important issue is the definition of
"serious." I
> >think one or more of the following characteristics, and maybe
others, would
> >qualify an investigator as serious:
>
> I wonder where great inventions or science has come from in the past
> milennia?
> What is the ratio of established disciplines release of world
changing ideas
> or technology as compared to say the shadetree folks?
>
>
> > (a) A degree in energy related fields, especially a PHD.
>
> Did the PHD's of the yesterday invent a flying plane?
>
> > (b) A primary source of income is in the field,
> > e.g. edits an energy related publication, teaches, etc.
>
> I will agree with that one, wealth and success has seemed to be a
great
> motivator in the past.
>
> > (c) Publishes articles, esp. in peer reviewed literature.
>
> Not necessary.
>
> > (d) Actively performing experiments or doing quantitaive theory
> > in an energy related field.
>
> Yes, little gets done if no fingers are lifted.
>
> > (e) Able and willing to discuss energy related theories
> > and experiments in a formal quantitative or symbolic manner
>
> Another I agree with.
>
> >I think I am serious. However, I am a rank amateur, picking this
stuff up
> >as I go. I have no degree. I am grateful the more serious have
tolerated
> >me here these years. My math and physics skills a few years ago
were about
> >zip, but have improved with work. You learn by *doing.*
>
> Very true.
>
> >I think the primary focus here on vortex has been and should
continue to be
> >on experiments, or ideas or theories with a good prospect of
producing near
> >term experiments.
>
> I agree, it seems to me in the past when breakthroughs were made the
> competitive spirit was the driving force, but if we are all looking
at 50
> different things then it is hard. And specific goals are much easier
to
> reach or conclude unreachable, I believe the freenrg list has decided
> efforts in the clem engine would be a good use of resources, why not
> something similar here?
>
> >My interests have ranged from experimental investigations of
> >electrochemical energy production to non-conservative non-Maxwellian
> >electromagnetic force laws. Like many others on the list, I have
many more
> >experiments with negative results than I have posted here.
>
>
> Where do you think the newest breakthroughs lie, or where we need
them the
> most?
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com