Without going into all sorts of economics, it is possible for great ideas go unfunded, in theory as well as reality. The pharmaceutical industry is famous for funding studies in their profit interest and denouncing those that show some natural substance is as good or better. You end up with a situation where a researcher's reputation and future funding prospects are limited, should they go that way, as well as there not being funding for the alternative remedy to begin with. It's readily available and has little profit potential. Where's the motivation or profit to develop free energy from water unless you control all the water? Any 'free energy' device would have near zero profit potential (the free part ;) . Not only that, most industries seek stability in the methods that have proven profits, defending against those things that would disturb the model or paradigm they profit from today.=20 Then there is the profit model itself. The industry relies on and understands recurring revenue from material sales - oil. It doesn't make engines, it doesn't own water. Controlling water supplies would be tough to implement, if at all, and making water engines does not use the same revenue generation model as making gasoline from oil - a disposable, expensive commodity. If you don't understand, go show this to the VC or investors funding your company. They will understand. ;) Freely available resources, non-constrained resources, "make as much as you want" are all phrases that no investor wants to hear. They want 'barriers to entry', exclusivity, recurring revenue, etc. As far as Fat Cats, 'they' too are profiting from a stable model. No one who is making a nice profit today wants to change things around tomorrow! The Mafia was (is) very successful at limiting "competition" to something that maximizes profit for their operation, even though the methods aren't necessarily moral or legal. If you can say with a straight face that large sums of money have no effect on very large corporate executives and that they always play fair and by the 'rules', then there is a bigger problem here. Just look at the mortgage industry in the US for one example. I was at a meeting long ago where a small town mayor was bragging about his expansion of city hall and other city complexes, and how it was just 'helpful' that the 2 businesses that didn't want to sell to the city 'happened' to burn down. No fault of his, with a smile. In this case, he had enough chutzpah to joke about it as a way to avoid serious suspicion. What really happened? Who knows... He had a goal, a big ego, lots of money was involved, and something stood in his way. "Stuff happens" as they say... And this was small potatoes compared to what a water engine would do to big oil. Another example comes from a class project at Harvard biz school a few decades ago. One student group chose to enter the concrete market in a certain large metro area of New England ;) . The current market had high profits and the materials could be brought in for much less, as well as reducing supply constraints. A perfect plan and opportunity. However, the prof pointed out that it wouldn't work because the concrete market at the time was 'run' by organized crime, and gave numerous examples of attempts to do that ruined by 'accident'. The lesson: there's more to a market than pure academic theory and the business 'environment' isn't always perfect. ;) Again, I'm not saying any of this purported technology or science has merit, but I am saying that IF something was there, it isn't just an automatic path to riches and stardom, and that depending on who one approached, real risks may be involved. Any device that could do this would be non-obvious, with a somewhat long path to success. As one can see from the discussion, the first industry it's assumed would be interested is oil. Not the best choice though. Automobile or engine makers might be a better choice. One would have to look at the total impact to them first though. Factor in greed, which would motivate the average inventor to hold on to a single prototype and not share as long as possible, opens him/her up to a window of high risk, where a single destructive event could wipe out years of work, the only model, and perhaps funds. The bottom line is that the world isn't entirely open source / creative commons oriented yet.=20 Technology revolutions usually take down the current top dog(s) and replace them with the innovator. If there's a lot of resources and questionable morality on the side you're going to take down, watch your step and plan carefully... Not everyone on the planet will be your friend - some big jobs will be lost, and you could have some pretty well motivated enemies! It's been my experience that as people make more and more money, their fear of the unemployment line lifestyle grows as well. On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 12:25 +1200, IVP wrote:=20 > My question is why haven't they capitalised on this, either financially o= r > socially ? Saying they can't because those Fat Cats on Wall St or the oil > companies don't want You to know is just bogus >=20 > Overunity / perpetual energy would be the greatest discovery ever and > the inventor would have the gratitude of the whole planet for evermore >=20 > Think what you could achieve with free unpolluting energy >=20 > For one thing you could make as much synthetic petrol as you like. Ka- > ching for the oil companies. Why on earth would you keep drilling and > making a mess in faraway lands ? Why keep building coal-powered > power stations ? Why persist with inefficient solar systems ? Why ..... >=20 > That is not my response to the physics. That is my response to those > who say they've done it >=20 > Joe --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .