This has nothing to do with [EE]. If you find it necessary to discuss organized crime, conspiracy theories, etc, ALWAYS change to tag to [OT] I have ZERO tolerance for non-[EE] stuff on [EE] when I find it boring, and little tolerance for it otherwise. Old-timers need to set a good example when it comes to topic tags. Bob On Sat, 14 May 2011 23:29 -0400, "Dr Skip" wrote: > 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? >=20 > 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 >=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. ;) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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... >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. ;) >=20 > 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. >=20 > The bottom line is that the world isn't entirely open source / creative > commons oriented yet.=20 >=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. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 12:25 +1200, IVP wrote:=20 > > My question is why haven't they capitalised on this, either financially= or > > socially ? Saying they can't because those Fat Cats on Wall St or the o= il > > 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 > --=20 > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >=20 --=20 http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .