Congress:Technology Review Protocol

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:13 pm.

  • One error has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

New Energy Congress

Image:NewEnergyCongressShieldBanner95x95 byKevn.jpg

New Energy Congress


New Energy Congress in the News



Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies

Congress:Top 100 Technologies -- RD (Main20)

Congress:Top 100:Complete List

Directory:Best Exotic Clean Energy Technologies


Congress:Technology Criteria

New Energy Congress: Validation Service







Congress:What Membership Entails


Congress:Bylaws (rd)

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]

Category:New Energy Congress

Technology Review Protocol

MEMO: This document is not up-to-date and does not reflect the present activities of the New Energy Congress.

New Energy Congress protocol for reviewing technologies.



follow "New Energy Congress"

not be bogged down by one person (away, biased, busy)

should be seen by at least two people in initial triage

marked clearly as to whether it is public or private info

Individual Technologies

(Initially submitted by Ken Rauen, Oct. 1, 2005 (NEC-TechRev))

With the very large number of entries expected to be reviewed, a triage method is necessary.

Information Requested for Submissions

We suggest that those who submit an entry provide the following information:

1) Name of the inventor or inventor group or associated company.

2) Name of the invention.

3) Disclosure of any possible encumbrances or controversies to prior art. Include any known names or contact information).

4) Contact information for the inventor or group (e.g. the inventor's representative).

5) State if a working device or devices exist, and if it or they are available for inspection and testing.

6) Describe any demonstrations with facts only, to the most detailed degree possible, without any guesswork or speculation.

7) Provide the best explanation possible within conventional scientific thought and if that is not possible, to state whatever fragmented facts are understandable within conventional science or state that there is no conventional description or explanation.

8) Any special considerations such as requirements for NDA for additional information, and request that certain pieces of information not be made public.

As relevant, please also include:

Photographs (hard copy or electronic)



Sample device

Website links

Project sites relevant to the technology

Listing of coverage by news organizations

The Language of Science

In reviewing technologies, with emphasis on Free Energy Congress (IV. Research and Development (working prototype exists)), we need to speak a common language. The

language of conventional science gives us a basis for understanding,

even though the ultimate understanding may be outside conventional

science. If our descriptions are non-scientific, we are deluding

ourselves, as the scientific method is the only method available

today to grasp the truth behind the observations, to get beyond

subjective reality to objective reality. Only facts will serve us

opinions will not take us to the truth. Truth is not determined by

popular opinion or by strength of conviction. It is self-evident

once the facts are available for examination.

Round One

The reviewers will examine the written evidence provided for

Evaluation Round One. The result will be either

1) dismiss the entry as unsubstantial,

2) ask for more details or clarifications, or

3) accept the entry as plausible. Though it is difficult to obtain,

consensus of the review committee is suggested for each

determination. If not, then mere majority can prevail.

Round Two

Plausible entries then enter Evaluation Round Two. Theoretical

explanations are examined in the fullest detail possible with

provided information and within Review Board capabilities to look for

any errors that could flaw the whole concept. It might be possible

to explain a new source of energy by accepted science. Demonstrable

devices will be scheduled for inspection and/or measurement with

whatever resources the Congress or the inventor has available.

Demonstrations must either be

1) self-sustaining for at least ten

minutes without diminishing output, or

2) measured with

conventionally accepted measurement techniques (such as instantaneous

voltage times current for electrical power measurement) for at least

ten minutes without diminishing output, AND

3) ten times longer run

time to generate more energy than it took to start the device.

Any entry that passes the theoretical or practical tests of Round Two will be labeled a viable new/clean energy source. 'Any entry that passes the practical tests of Round Two will likely be swept quickly towards commercialization.' That is the ultimate goal and purpose of FEC -- facilitating this process.

Comment by Ron Frazier : Overunity devices, if we ever see one, present a special challenge for testing. Ken's ideas are good but may need tweaking. A device may be overunity and not be capable of self sustaining because of technical problems or system losses. Not only that, machines which use pulsed energy, like Joe Newman's machine, are notorious for being hard to measure. Also, 10 minutes free running and 10 times start up power may not be enough. The history of energy machines is full of charlatans who used compressed air tanks, hidden belts, batteries, flywheels, and other gimmicks to make their machines appear to work for long periods. So, we must eliminate the possibility of any hidden energy storage device or secret power connection. The system under test must be isolated from the environment except for specific documented interfaces. If it's supposed to be self sustaining, you may have to run it several times longer than the best known energy storage device could keep it going given the size and weight. [...] I suggest using testing methods which actually do something meaningful with the energy when possible. (Full comment at NEC-TechRev Oct. 1, 2005)

Round Three

Devices that fail the demonstrations of Round Two can enter

Evaluation Round Three if there appear to be only technical barriers

to complete demonstration. This will be a contextual evaluation,

totally dependent upon the unique circumstances seen. This can be

new science that needs new technology or just better, conventional

technology to make a successful demonstration. Assistance will be

sought to overcome problems apparently due to materials and processes.

Semianual Process

This process will be repeated twice a year, resulting in a published report.

#Collect a list of plausible technologies. Must at least have one verified working prototype.

#Through email and phone discussions, filter list down to a manageable size based on criteria.

#Hold a retreat in which the technologies can be discussed and weighed.

#Prepare a report of the results of the retreat.

#Pass the report draft by those who attended the retreat for corrections.

#Collect response from the named company/inventor to include with the report.

#Prepare the text of the report (e.g. typesetting, layout).

#Approve final draft.

#Disburse the report.

Related - checklist for green building certification - ETV - Environmental Technology Verification program - Example verification report for a tunable laser spectrometer. (59 pages, quite detailed).