Mylow_bar-magnet-motor_May4_09_500Not many people can handle the truth especially if it challenges their belief systems. Many of us who journey the world in search of breakthrough energy technologies see many success stories. Unfortunately there are a lot of casualties as well. How do you tell someone they spent the last 20 years working on a technology in vain and that they got it wrong?

     Many breakthroughs are coming through mainstream science, industry and even the military. The evidence is seen in the declining capital and operating costs of many alternative technologies like solar. Parallel to this is the engineering advancements with batteries, electric vehicles, wind, tidal and wave technology.

    There is a small band of companies,  inventors and researchers pursuing the dream of developing a self sustaining, cheap and environmentally friendly energy technology. For many it’s a passion and often, they are motivated to improve humanity and the planet.

    At Revolution-Green we pay tribute to these legitimate experimenters and will be publishing stories about their success, failures and journey. The experimenters featured weekly like Russ Gries are shining examples of  what to do and how to conduct yourself.

    Sadly, when it comes to success rates and statistics, there is a high casualty rate of failed projects for a variety of reasons:

    1. They do not have the skill set to evaluate or measure the performance of their technology
    2. They have based it on false calculations or wrong assumptions
    3. They are deluded
    4. They are a scam.
    5. They do not have the resources
    6. Great idea but not pan out

    Fortunately very few actually turn out to be deluded or scams, and the majority of failures are a result of “great idea but did not pan out.”  In the end it gets down to some fundamentals of science.

    I work with a very simple set of rules when evaluating energy technology and ask the following questions:

    1. Where does the energy come from?
    2. What is the input vs output of energy?
    3. Where is the data?
    4. How the data is acquired (methodologies)?
    5. Can it be self generating?

    Sounds simple, but in reality it often requires a lot of specialized testing and technical expertise (I enlist others). One of the big red flags is how co-operative the parties making the claims are to testing.

    Being able to replicate what is claimed, and if possible, have the data peer reviewed is important. Relying on faith alone does not cut it. All the wishing, good intentions and cheering will not make something work. Casting aside the critics and those asking rational questions normally ends up in grief.

    Where investment is involved or credibility is falling short; if the claim is not supported by sound data and testing methodologies, then the waters can become murky. However this does not mean someone with a great idea that needs funding to test their theory out should not be supported, they just need to be sure all the risks are explained.


    My strong advice to inventors and researchers:

    1. Seek advice when you do not understand
    2. Research the success and failures of others in the area
    3. Check out your testing methodology and instrumentation accuracy. Something as simple as an out of cal power head can create an illusion of success.
    4. Look at all the data you are seeing , not just that which agrees with your theory
    5. Ask those you hope to present the technology to what they will be requiring for validation
    6. Know when to walk away
    7. Do not surround yourself with fanatics and true believers, critics better serve you
    8. Above all have fun and enjoy the journey

    The break through energy  industry  seeks recognition, funding and mainstream acceptance. However, unless they come to some understanding that the rest of society requires proof, process and critical evaluation, then it will always be viewed as the weird, wonderful and wacky. If you want their respect then you play by their rules.

    Having a high failure rate is not the issue, making claims that are not backed by scientific methodology is.

    For instance, in the LENR field, there are over 100 individuals, institutions, and companies researching LENR. They are slowly being accepted and stirring up the interest and support this research deserves. Yet the focus being reported is centered on one man’s exploits, and his refusal to allow independent and sound testing methodologies to be used to support his claims.  This makes it hard for everyone to gain legitimacy.

    Finally, the most damage is done by irresponsible journalism declaring time after time that technologies are real when they have not passed independent evaluation.  This is the cry wolf syndrome that makes it difficult for legitimate claims to be taken seriously. All claims and stories should be reported, that is not the issue. Expressing an opinion on if it is real or not is also not an issue. Declaring it is real and suppressing opinion to the contrary  is an issue.





    As always, keep it green!

    Brought to you by the Revolution-Green Admin Team. 


    Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :