OBVIOUS

[FEerguy9]

It is OBVIOUS. (eer)


Eer is obvious.

I have battled with experts for many years about it, and taken deserved lumps
for my lack of math to back it up.

But, eer is just plain obvious. To miss it would be a shame - we NEED it.

We can collect energy from the sun, the wind, waves, tides, etc.

We can STORE that energy - and there is such an unlimited supply of sources,
that losses are not a problem.

We have technology for electric cars, and electricity has long been our way of
distributing energy for other energy needs.


Frank

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

FEerguy9 wrote:

It is OBVIOUS. (eer)

That you have absolutely no concept of reality.


--
We now return you to our normally scheduled programming.

Take a look at this little cutie! ;-)
http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/photos.html

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Fields]

On 11 Jan 2004 08:47:28 GMT, feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote:

It is OBVIOUS. (eer)


Eer is obvious.

I have battled with experts for many years about it, and taken deserved lumps
for my lack of math to back it up.

---
What's interesting is not that your lack of math keeps you from being
able to back it up, but that it keeps you from seeing that it _can't_ be
backed up. At the very least, what you should do is learn enough to
understand the experts' viewpoints.
---

But, eer is just plain obvious. To miss it would be a shame - we NEED it.

---
In actuality, the non-technology you espouse (and I'll refrain from
calling it eer, since that's a made-up garbage term and using it would
tend to legitimize it) would cause energy to be wasted.
---

We can collect energy from the sun, the wind, waves, tides, etc.

We can STORE that energy - and there is such an unlimited supply of sources,
that losses are not a problem.

---
Losses are _always_ a problem, and pooh-pooing them for the sake of
trying to forward your argument is just stupid.
---

We have technology for electric cars, and electricity has long been our way of
distributing energy for other energy needs.

---
Blah, blah, blah.

--
John Fields

 

[Neil]

Ok, you've got a great understanding...and great faith in EER...now get busy
and prove all of the naysayers wrong by building something that will prove
its usefulness. Instead of the many posts chastising the naysayers, put us
all in our place....build a small prototype unit, that will prove your
point. I will be the first to offer up my apologies. Or at least, write up a
decent proposal, or schematic, and post it here. If it holds water.....I,
quite certain the group, as a whole, will help you out in your venture.
Lack of understanding of math has never stopped a true trailblazer from
making his dreams come true. If a pair of bicycle repair men can make a
powered flight, with no practical knowledge of the theory, or mathematics
involved, then a person with your optimism certainly can overcome any deep
lack of understanding of the theory that you have put forth, and put it into
practice.
Such claims, along with the assorted FREE POWER ENGINES have been around
since I was in diapers, but I have yet to see a working prototype, except in
fuzzy pictures on the internet.
I challenge anyone with free power ideas to come forth, with a working
prototype, and slap it down on the desk of a well-known news reporter, on a
major news network, and get all of this nonsense over with in one fell-
swoop.
Kim


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vi23009m0a12ov9ssd6t6ricp0lnncrbdi@4ax.com...

On 11 Jan 2004 08:47:28 GMT, feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote:

It is OBVIOUS. (eer)


Eer is obvious.

I have battled with experts for many years about it, and taken deserved
lumps
for my lack of math to back it up.

---
What's interesting is not that your lack of math keeps you from being
able to back it up, but that it keeps you from seeing that it _can't_ be
backed up. At the very least, what you should do is learn enough to
understand the experts' viewpoints.
---

But, eer is just plain obvious. To miss it would be a shame - we NEED
it.

---
In actuality, the non-technology you espouse (and I'll refrain from
calling it eer, since that's a made-up garbage term and using it would
tend to legitimize it) would cause energy to be wasted.
---

We can collect energy from the sun, the wind, waves, tides, etc.

We can STORE that energy - and there is such an unlimited supply of
sources,
that losses are not a problem.

---
Losses are _always_ a problem, and pooh-pooing them for the sake of
trying to forward your argument is just stupid.
---

We have technology for electric cars, and electricity has long been our
way of
distributing energy for other energy needs.

---
Blah, blah, blah.

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:58:47 -0500, "Neil" <ksleep@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Lack of understanding of math has never stopped a true trailblazer from
making his dreams come true. If a pair of bicycle repair men can make a
powered flight, with no practical knowledge of the theory, or mathematics
involved, then a person with your optimism certainly can overcome any deep
lack of understanding of the theory that you have put forth, and put it into
practice.

The Wright brothers did extensive analysis, modeling, and wind tunnel
experimenting as they designed their Flyer. They knew in advance how
many horsepower per pound their engine would need, and then designed
one that would work. They were methodical and quantitative.

All the easy inventions, the low-hanging fruit, were nabbed a century
ago. Even in Edison's lifetime, his math-free fiddling style became
obsolete. For any non-trivial technology, understanding the math and
science is mandatory.

John

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040111034728.15365.00003057@mb-m03.news.cs.com...

It is OBVIOUS. (eer)

.....as either a scam, an utterly crackpot concept, or something being
proposed by someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking
about, and for some reason refuses to learn even the basics as to
WHY this outlandish notion does not and CANNOT work.

I have battled with experts for many years about it, and taken deserved
lumps
for my lack of math to back it up.

And yet, the fact that ALL the experts who look at this and try to
tell you why it won't work are ignored, and you do not get even the
slightest of clues from the fact that every expert who HAS looked at
the thing has come to exactly the same conclusion - it is impossible. It
does not and cannot work this way. You make a very large number
of very, VERY fundamental errors, and you refuse to see these when
they are pointed out to you.

In short, you are exhibiting all the classic signs of crackpotism, and
merely look more and more foolish each and every time you post
on this subject.


Bob M.