Well, I watched it and even took notes. A very mixed bag. The gasoline-vapor carburetor approaches were never analyzed with respect to power output, which apparently was a weak point. You can always improve your mileage if you travel at a low speed. And good luck if you have to step on the gas and there is no prompt response. You can make an airplane that can fly around the world...but the only problem is that you have trouble taking off or landing. Today, we have pollution control requirements on the combustion chemistry, which are an obstacle. But we have computer-controlled fuel injection and turbocharging, and also hybrid gas-electric systems. Hybrid systems were popularized in the 1960s. I used to read the articles. This account seems to focus on inventions that failed to continue, but omits the inventions that came along and were successful.
I have never heard of anyone denying the "zero point energy" notion. The appearance and disappearance of virtual particles is the explanation for the Casimir Force observed experimentally. But the principle of the quantum vacuum is that particles appear (energy production) and disappear (energy reduction) for the length of time that an energy error can exist from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But how to get a flow of energy? It appears that no one knows. I am suspicious of successes based on voltage measurement. Nothing easier than to develop thousands of volts from petting your cat. The ones that dealt with watts were more interesting. But what am I to make of all the sob stories he related? Are they real? Name me a poison that causes a brain aneurysm. My grandmother died of a brain aneurysm, and she was not inventing ZPE technology. Tesla's Wardenclyffe establishment has nothing to do with ZPE; he was attempting to beat Marconi to the attainment of long-distance message transmission (and failed). Moreover, it is not credible to think that Tesla would have had any insight on ZPE, considering he denied everything concerning quantum physics.
I recall a story about some fellow who invented a perpetual-motion electric motor based on magnetic rotors, but his popularity seemed to wither and go away. What seems to be the common element among these kinds of machines is that there is no theory of operation, and a complete mystery as to how the inventor came up with his idea. A current example is Andrea Rossi and his Energy Catalyzer ("E-Cat"), which he tries to market---but never wants anyone to look beneath the skirt. We at Boeing looked into his offering, but could never conclude that it was solid, on account of his shifty behavior. My analysis was that he could have developed a technique for turning radioactivity on or off (or fast or slow). Intriguing, but he was his own worst enemy.
All the discussion about T. Townsend Brown and his devices as being "anti-gravity" is ignorant hokum. What he was doing was experimenting with the "ion wind" effect that the Sharper Image catalog popularized in an "air cleaning" device. I had one. You turn it on and a tuft of copper fuzz would produce a breeze of air toward your face. If you make the emitter large enough and the rest of the equipment light enough, it can lift itself up. He does not mention the work done by Alexander de Seversky in developing this "ionocraft," which was once a featured article for a 1964 issue of Popular Mechanics. Never came to pass. Thrust/weight ratio was not high enough. That is another aspect of these wonder inventions: they almost always develop down sides. None of our aircraft use "anti-gravity" technology. I once heard people claiming the B-2 bomber used anti-gravity technology, which was complete nonsense, considering its whole principle (flying wing) was absolutely open to view.
i agree, of course, that "green energy" is a complete fraud and hoax. This has been known essentially since the 1970s.
I have had inventions suppressed for reasons of national security. In one case, I was able to slip by with a rewrite on the feasible use for the invention (I had proposed it as a means of passively detecting stealthy aircraft). In another case (a categorical solution to the problem of visible contrails) was simply squelched---which I thought was ridiculous, since any Iranian grad student could have arrived at the same insight. But they were based on very commonly known principles of physics and chemistry, so it is hard to say they were suppressed for all time. And not every invention is patented, so I do approve of the narrator's advice at the end to simply publish anonymously. Did Elon Musk patent the landing scheme for his booster rockets? Would it matter, considering he is the leader of the pack, anyway?
And this is the flaw in the suppressed technology mythology. There are a LOT of inventions that are happening all the time, many with direct application to military systems or energy production. How do you explain the ones that are not suppressed? So, this is all interesting, but when there is no explanation, there is no possibility of pursuit. I will say this: declassification of withheld patents should be an element of Trump's intention to have transparency of government.
Well, I watched it and even took notes. A very mixed bag. The gasoline-vapor carburetor approaches were never analyzed with respect to power output, which apparently was a weak point. You can always improve your mileage if you travel at a low speed. And good luck if you have to step on the gas and there is no prompt response. You can make an airplane that can fly around the world...but the only problem is that you have trouble taking off or landing. Today, we have pollution control requirements on the combustion chemistry, which are an obstacle. But we have computer-controlled fuel injection and turbocharging, and also hybrid gas-electric systems. Hybrid systems were popularized in the 1960s. I used to read the articles. This account seems to focus on inventions that failed to continue, but omits the inventions that came along and were successful.
I have never heard of anyone denying the "zero point energy" notion. The appearance and disappearance of virtual particles is the explanation for the Casimir Force observed experimentally. But the principle of the quantum vacuum is that particles appear (energy production) and disappear (energy reduction) for the length of time that an energy error can exist from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But how to get a flow of energy? It appears that no one knows. I am suspicious of successes based on voltage measurement. Nothing easier than to develop thousands of volts from petting your cat. The ones that dealt with watts were more interesting. But what am I to make of all the sob stories he related? Are they real? Name me a poison that causes a brain aneurysm. My grandmother died of a brain aneurysm, and she was not inventing ZPE technology. Tesla's Wardenclyffe establishment has nothing to do with ZPE; he was attempting to beat Marconi to the attainment of long-distance message transmission (and failed). Moreover, it is not credible to think that Tesla would have had any insight on ZPE, considering he denied everything concerning quantum physics.
I recall a story about some fellow who invented a perpetual-motion electric motor based on magnetic rotors, but his popularity seemed to wither and go away. What seems to be the common element among these kinds of machines is that there is no theory of operation, and a complete mystery as to how the inventor came up with his idea. A current example is Andrea Rossi and his Energy Catalyzer ("E-Cat"), which he tries to market---but never wants anyone to look beneath the skirt. We at Boeing looked into his offering, but could never conclude that it was solid, on account of his shifty behavior. My analysis was that he could have developed a technique for turning radioactivity on or off (or fast or slow). Intriguing, but he was his own worst enemy.
All the discussion about T. Townsend Brown and his devices as being "anti-gravity" is ignorant hokum. What he was doing was experimenting with the "ion wind" effect that the Sharper Image catalog popularized in an "air cleaning" device. I had one. You turn it on and a tuft of copper fuzz would produce a breeze of air toward your face. If you make the emitter large enough and the rest of the equipment light enough, it can lift itself up. He does not mention the work done by Alexander de Seversky in developing this "ionocraft," which was once a featured article for a 1964 issue of Popular Mechanics. Never came to pass. Thrust/weight ratio was not high enough. That is another aspect of these wonder inventions: they almost always develop down sides. None of our aircraft use "anti-gravity" technology. I once heard people claiming the B-2 bomber used anti-gravity technology, which was complete nonsense, considering its whole principle (flying wing) was absolutely open to view.
i agree, of course, that "green energy" is a complete fraud and hoax. This has been known essentially since the 1970s.
I have had inventions suppressed for reasons of national security. In one case, I was able to slip by with a rewrite on the feasible use for the invention (I had proposed it as a means of passively detecting stealthy aircraft). In another case (a categorical solution to the problem of visible contrails) was simply squelched---which I thought was ridiculous, since any Iranian grad student could have arrived at the same insight. But they were based on very commonly known principles of physics and chemistry, so it is hard to say they were suppressed for all time. And not every invention is patented, so I do approve of the narrator's advice at the end to simply publish anonymously. Did Elon Musk patent the landing scheme for his booster rockets? Would it matter, considering he is the leader of the pack, anyway?
And this is the flaw in the suppressed technology mythology. There are a LOT of inventions that are happening all the time, many with direct application to military systems or energy production. How do you explain the ones that are not suppressed? So, this is all interesting, but when there is no explanation, there is no possibility of pursuit. I will say this: declassification of withheld patents should be an element of Trump's intention to have transparency of government.