PesWiki.com

Menu

Talk:Directory:Xtreme Science Foundation and the XS-NRG Prize

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:27 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Xtreme Science Foundation and the XS-NRG Prize

Image:Xsfxsnrgprize95x95 byKevn.jpg
Latest: Directory:Organizations / Directory:Prizes >Directory:Xtreme Science Foundation and the XS-NRG Prize - A new foundation is proposed that would both evaluate extreme technology claims and offer an annual no-strings-attached prize to the best extreme energy technology. (PESWiki Oct 6, 2008)

Comments

Executive Summary input

On Oct. 6, 2008, New Energy Congress founder, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan wrote:

Hi Vlad,

I saw your "Executive Summary" posted yesterday at:

http://www.zpenergy.com:80/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3058

Congratulations on taking this step.

I have a few comments and questions.

First, some questions.

You talk about a $1 to $10 million award for the XS-NRG Prize. One might assume in the context of its first mention that at least $1 million is already available but reading further down it seems that this is still all just an idea, and that little or no money has been raised for the prize. How much is in the kitty now?

Second question: how far along are you in establishing some kind of guiding body for this initiative?

I would like to recommend that you open up the website and just make part of the http://XtremeScienceFoundation.org website password protected. It seems to me that with announcing this initiative that there should also be some kind of web presence where people can go to read more, sing up, donate, or otherwise get involved.

In your account you say that the XSF will "Contribute to leveling the playing field for every inventor (today, maverick inventors struggle outside the mainstream of funding and acknowledgment) by providing everybody with the right to an honest, objective scientific validation of their claims". While this sounds noble and fair, it doesn't come across as being practical. That phraseology needs some kind of a caveat.

We at PES/NEC are constantly being approached about new ideas, nearly daily. There is no way we could possibly test every single one of these. That would be a waste of money, resources, time. There must be a screening process -- which is what the NEC is doing. About 1-2 times a month, we encounter an exotic technology claim that seems legit, and we then hone into a process of validating as prerequisite to assisting yet so far we have not yet found anything legitimate.

EDITING:

Here are a few wording suggestions or things I noticed that you might want to rephrase or fix:

Contradiction in wording: "Its only mission is to carry out independent, objective, unbiased and widely accepted scientific validation of "private research" in the field of new energy technologies (for now) -- research that the present scientific community and media would otherwise consider an unacceptable departure from the conventional thinking. It will also award the Xcess-Energy Prize (XS-NRG) according to well defined winning criteria."

This wording needs clarification: "An agreed upon small prorated percentage from the accumulated prize funds will be transferred to the XSF’s operating fund and be used to cover all expenses incurred with the validation process." You might give a ballpark percentage so people have some kind of idea of the level of overhead that will be involved -- something that is expected of any initiative.

What do you mean by: "Essentially, all contributors should be paid from the future accumulated operating funds, so everyone on the team is motivated to see the foundation succeed (since operating funds are % of the $ accumulated in the escrow “prize” account)."

Overall, my general impression of the XSF initiative is as follows. I see two objectives you are tackling: 1) validate, 2) award. It seems to me that the New Energy Congress is already established and doing a pretty good job of validating, within our limited budget. I don't know of any other public (open) body that is doing what we are doing in that regard. Rather than reinvent that portion of the initiative, you ought to use the NEC to perform that function, and focus on the second thing: collecting prize money and granting the prize. And even there, it seems to me that that second portion is something that the New Energy Congress could also administer.

It's within our mission scope and talent base, if it is plausible.

Before you get too critical of the NEC, bear in mind that there are a log of things that happen off-list that you don't know about. A lot of the vetting and screening and support initiatives happen privately, both by myself and by other NEC members.

In today's economically tight climate, I don't think you're going to have much success pulling in donations for a prize like this. If people are going to contribute something, they'll probably contribute to Greer's initiative which has more of a reputation for this kind of work and body of well-known support.

Rather than shoot for a million or more dollars for this prize, we could make it a prize for whatever has been accumulated, awarded it once a year.

The NEC is already in the business of vetting and ranking technologies. It would be a natural fit for us to recognize each year one technology that in our best estimation is the best "XS-NRG" modality.

We could even give the award without monetary backing if none is available, just for the sake of giving recognition to those who deserve it.

This would help us stay abreast of those cutting-edge technologies which aren't far enough along to warrant inclusion in the Top 100, but which are nevertheless revolutionary and potentially promising. And it would help them get the attention they deserve, to hopefully attract the funding, business expertise, and other things needed to help move them forward.

Vlad's Response to Sterling

On Oct. 9, 2008, New Energy Congress member, and operator of ZPEnergy.com, Vlad of ZPEnergy.com wrote:

My comments in Italics:

Hi Vlad,

...

Congratulations on taking this step.

Thank you. I had to do it since waiting for the NEM/NEC to join & help was no longer an option.

...You talk about a $1 to $10 millionaward for the XS-NRG Prize. One might assume in the context of its first mention that at least $1 million is already available but reading further down it seems that this is still all just an idea, and that little or no money has been raised for the prize. How much is in the kitty now?

The first time the $1 to $10 mill is mentioned it is also qualified by: "is the goal" (I said nothing about anything being in the kitty now). Given the type of revolutionary devices XSF is targeting for validation, I do not think a less that $1 mill prize is fair and enough of an incentive for any inventor of such a multi $bilion worth technology to come forward. But, considering that there are no other strings attached to the prize and the inventor can take advantage of his invention as (s)he sees fit, capping the prize to $10 mill looks reasonable enough to me.

Second question: how far along are you in establishing some kind of guiding body for this initiative?

Sterling, this is the first time I posted my XSF/XS-NRG Prize proposal to the public. As you know, more detailed info was sent to the New Energy Movement (NEM) and the New Energy Congress (NEC) more than a year ago. After the NEC (or should I say you) rejected it, this exec summary was sent to NEM (at their request) when discussions with a potential sponsor were (I was told) going on. I haven't heard from anybody since, and I consider I'm under no obligation to continue to wait. I have clearly mentioned to both these organizations that I do not have the time and the necessary resources to run with it, so my next step will be to go public. That's where I am now. The SXF membership and the "guiding body" positions are all open. Those interested will contact me for the time being until we open the SXF site to the public.

I would like to recommend that you open up the website and just make part of the http://XtremeScienceFoundation.org [xtremesciencefoundation.org] [xtremesciencefoundation.org]website password protected. It seems to me that with announcing this initiative that there should also be some kind of web presence where people can go to read more, sing up, donate, or otherwise get involved.

Yes of course, that was the original plan and the reason for waiting for the outcome of the NEM discussions with the potential sponsor (would have provided the money for the XtremeScienceFoundation.org website development, at least). Since the site I quickly put together so far is far from what I envisioned it to be, it will stay protected from the general public until I find a profesional web developer to do it properly. This announcement was intended to facilitate finding that person or organization (such as Mambo, etc.) and those interested should respond to this post and/or contact me directly (through http://ZPEnergy.com/Feedback).

In your account you say that the XSF will "Contribute to leveling ... That phraseology needs some kind of a caveat.

What the statement says is that the XSF will not discriminate based on inventor's academic qualifications, origin, gender, religion, etc... it will examine every device submitted for validation solely on its own merits. The best ones (real breakthroughs) will be scheduled for testing. XSF intends to enroll as many qualified members as possible from all over the world (the TASs) to do the initial screening (make it practical, as you say). Same with the university labs and other testing facilities that will agree to work with the XSF to validate these extraordinary claims. Remember, this is a challenge the XSF will throw to them to, essentially, disprove the claims (same as Steorn or CF, with the same massive media exposure). Since we're talking "impossible" technologies here, I see these facilities competing to secure the glory of "putting the cat back in the sac".

We at PES/NECare constantly being approached about new ideas, nearly daily. There is no way we could possibly test every single one of these. That would be a waste of money, resources, time. There must be a screening process -- which is what the NEC is doing.

Sterling, I must parafhrase your potential next VP, Ms. Sarah Palin, and say: Here we go again Sterling! You, of all people, should know better what are the main diferences between the PES/NEC and my proposed XSF. Most of your effort and time (and NEC's, unfortunately) is spent with technological improvements to well known, more or less alternative techs (solar, wind, burning waste, hydro, biofuels, fuel-cells, inverters ... you name it). These are well understood by science and also well supported by gazillions (literally) very qualified groups out there that do that for living (since they're not controversial or revolutionary/disruptive, and good and quick money can be made from the new trend of investing in alternatives these days). Appropriate for you would be to turn your private business (PESN) into such for profit group and invite NEC members to join as your partners/employees, if they want to do that kind of work. Leave the NEC to actively pursue its original mission of seeking the truth about revolutionary energy technologies that, to this day, remain to be (dis)proven and which, according to reliable witnesses, can change our destiny forever. That's what XSF is all about.

About 1-2 times a month, we encounter an exotic technology claim that seems legit, and we then hone into a process of validating as prerequisite to assisting yet so far we have not yet found anything legitimate.

I, as a member of the NEC, don't seem to be aware of what you're referring to. Can you give an example? If this is done privately, it's of no use to anybody ...that's what the XSF will try to do properly.

Here are a few wording suggestions or things I noticed that you might want to rephrase or fix:

Contradiction in wording: "Its only mission is to carry out independent, objective, unbiased and widely accepted scientific validation of "private research" in the field of new energy technologies (for now) -- research that the present scientific community and media would otherwise consider an unacceptable departure from the conventional thinking. It will also award the Xcess-Energy Prize (XS-NRG) according to well defined winning criteria."

Where is the contradiction please? Validation of these claims is the only mission of the XSF. Awarding the prize is a consequence of passing the validation test ...no passing marks, no prize (but the mission will go on).

This wording needs clarification: "An agreed upon small prorated percentage from the accumulated prize funds will be transferred to the XSF’s operating fund and be used to cover all expenses incurred with the validation process." You might give a ballpark percentage so people have some kind of idea of the level of overhead that will be involved -- something that is expected of any initiative.

This will be something for the XSF management comettee to decide, based on the projected foundation's operating costs and the funds acumulated in the prize account. But even for the first cycle, I would cap it to 10%, hoping that a lot of services (advertising, lab testing, maybe banking services, etc.) can be obtained for free or paid in the future, once the prize funds grow larger (we'll try to convince these companies to join the XSF and so, sponsor it directly).

what do you mean by: "Essentially, all contributors should be paid from the future accumulated operating funds, so everyone on the team is motivated to see the foundation succeed (since operating funds are % of the $ accumulated in the escrow “prize” account)."

People keep track of their work and, if and when they succeed and money come in, they get paid retroactively. It is frequently used with small start-ups (especially software) Sort of "pay it forward" with expectation to be paid.

Overall, my general impression of the XSF initiative is as follows. I see two objectives you are tackling: 1) validate, 2) award. It seems to me that the New Energy Congress is already established and doing a pretty good job of validating, within our limited budget. I don't know of any other public (open) body that is doing what we are doing in that regard. Rather than reinvent that portion of the initiative, you ought to use the NEC to perform that function, and focus on the second thing: collecting prize money and granting the prize. And even there, it seems to me that that second portion is something that the New Energy Congress could also administer.

It's within our mission scope and talent base, if it is plausible.

Sterling, you know I proposed to the NEC to rank all exotic (claimed O/U) technologies in our database into a Top 20, so we can start focusing on something. I was ignored. In my XSF proposal, I invited NEC members to join as TASs since this is something that many can do. With all due respect, NEC does not carry the necessary credentials for a scientifically recognized validation. In the 3 years since it was constituted NEC was busy with many other things irrelevant to the XSF mission, and I'm not aware of any validation of at least one of the real important breakthrough devices that we all know about (and their inventor is still alive) that need to be validated as soon as possible. The XSF to work requires large "buy in" by reputable scientist and a totally transparent operation. It must be non profit which PES/NEC is not - a huge handicap in inventor & public acceptance. This is the first time I hear the NEC can administer the funding system I proposed for the XSF/XS-NRG (you may want to read it again). If still yes, I'll be happy to get some help here.

Before you get too critical of the NEC, bear in mind that there are a lot of things that happen off-list that you don't know about. A lot of the vetting and screening and support initiatives happen privately, both by myself and by other NEC members.

I'm sorry, but I'm beyond that. The XSF is not about making money from and for inventors but getting the truth out, protecting the public from scams and hopefully liberating it from any future energy crisis. Everything will be in the open.

In today's economically tight climate, I don't think you're going to have much success pulling in donations for a prize like this. If people are going to contribute something, they'll probably contribute to Greer's initiative which has more of a reputation for this kind of work and body of well-known support.

Read the proposal again. There is an essential difference from any "strings attached" initiative such as Greer's. Where are the results (devices validated) of what Greer did with the previous 2 initiatives? Greed and secrecy will kill any such initiatives, always. People will get it and if the right people will support the XSF, it will succeed. I do not expect you and many others to understand this, since there is no personal gain in the XSF, only the desire to get this important truth out given the potential benefits for science and humanity.

Rather than shoot for a million or more dollars for this prize, we could make it a prize for whatever has been accumulated, awarded it once a year.

(see above)

The NEC is already in the business of vetting and ranking technologies. It would be a natural fit for us to recognize each year one technology that in our best estimation is the best "XS-NRG" modality.

Makes sense ...good idea. Again, XSF is not about better solar, more efficient wind turbines, etc. (they are very useful, don't get me wrong, but I think they're well taken care of already). Breakthroughs is what the XSF and the XS-NRG Prize are after.

We could even give the award without monetary backing if none is available, just for the sake of giving recognition to those who deserve it.

(A noble thought, why not?)

This would help us stay abreast of those cutting-edge technologies which aren't far enough along to warrant inclusion in the Top 100, but which are nevertheless revolutionary and potentially promising. And it would help them get the attention they deserve, to hopefully attract the funding, business expertise, and other things needed to help move them forward.

Sterling, I understand you, and you're doing a good thing ... it is just that I want an energy revolution now, since I believe it has already happened, but it is still hidden by vested interests, dogmatic thinking, ego, greed and apathy. Our priorities are different, but one time I thought they were the same. If the XSF dies before birth everybody looses ... but if it becomes what I envision it to be in time, it will indeed help humans go beyond what they think to be possible.

Sterling's Response to Vlad

On Oct. 9, 2008, New Energy Congress founder, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan wrote:

Hi Vlad,

The XS-NRG prize as you envision it requires a director tackling it full-time in order for it to accomplish what you envision. If you don't step into that role, then I am doubtful that the vision will materialize. It is not likely that someone else who didn't come up with the idea will grab your idea and run with it as you envision. The kind of leader who will make a success of this is likely to be one who comes up with his own ideas, and will be busy pursuing just that.

It seems a bit hypocritical to me that you point your finger at the NEC or NEM for dropping the ball in not seeing this through. You are the one with the vision, you should carry it out and not be critical of others if they don't do it.

Sure, you have a nice day job that gives you satisfaction and a good pay. But if you truly believe in this vision as it seems you do, and are driven by it, you ought to put your actions behind it and carry it out yourself. Quite your day job and bring this about.

If you're not willing to do that, then cut slack for others if they don't step up either.

There are watered down version of your vision that could be accomplished by just a little extra effort on your part without requiring you to quit your day job. For example, the "Top 20 Exotics" list you suggested the NEC tackle could easily be initiated by you. PESWiki is an editable site. Just create the url, and build the page, pulling from the NEC's Top 100 list, and add a section "Promising, but not T100 yet" to include those exotics that are not yet in the T100. That would take about an hour. I participate on your site, how about you participate at PESWiki. You've posted to the site just twice, though the site has been up for four+ years. http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vlad

I recommend the page name: http://peswiki.com/index.php/T100:Top_20_Exotic_Energy_Technologies

You complain that neither the NEC nor the NEM have taken up your banner, yet you've not been around to offer encouragement and to make the wheel squeak, to give it the attention it deserves.

Your hands off approach is as much to blame as anything for the lack of movement on your initiative. An email to one of the NEC discussion lists occasionally would be good to keep the issue before us and spur action on it.

As for us keeping some developments off the radar, that is from honoring the wishes of the person who has approached us with the technology. If someone comes to you with a technology seeking help, and asks that you not publish information about it, are you just going to ignore them and publish it anyway? I don't think so. And due to the paranoid mindset that pervades the extreme energy technology field, you can see why many prefer no public mention of their technology.

You berate the NEC for not yet validating a working exotic technology despite being in existence for three years. I don't know of anyone organization who has, including you and your network at ZPEnergy.com, nor Stefan over at OverUnity.com, though we all dabble in a lot of very interesting effects that hold out great promise, and we also foster some pretty stories of claims to exotic technology, but which evade validation.

I take that back, there is an organization under NEC Advisor, Chris Patton's guidance, which has apparently validated Timothy Thrapp's technology, but the downside there is that Timothy's terms of engagement are so ridiculous that no reasonable person with money or business expertise will play. So in terms of "validation", Thrapp fails the "politics of science" criteria, making his technology essentially of no practical use.

We've encountered that one a bunch of times, from a bunch of greedy, crazy, or paranoid inventors. They seem to have working stuff, but their personalities drive all reasonable offers of help away. Dennis Lee, Joseph Newman, Mike Brady, and even possibly Carl Tilley all seem to have good technology, but their modus operandi is a show stopper. That is the primary achilles heel of exotic energy -- exotic personalities. If we could find a way around that one, then there would be a bunch of great things coming forward. The MIB account for maybe 10% of why these exotics don't make it to market. Interpersonal conflicts -- people that can't get along, inventors with impossible personalities -- comprise 40% of why these exotics don't make it to market.

I wonder if offering a 1 million+ prize to these types would actually help them move past that primary obstacle.

Investors don't invest in just a technology. They look equally carefully at the team. Is the team capable of pulling this off?

If we were to give $1 million to Joseph Newman or John Hutchison, how are we to know that $750,000 of it wouldn't go to Vegas, homes, retreats, and women?

The "no strings attached" provision offered to an exotic personality is nearly a guaranteed flush of money down a toilet.

If a person can't work in a team, he is as good as useless, even if he might have the most brilliant technology ever produced. He becomes his own worst enemy, and might as well not have ever come up with the idea in the first place, other than to tease the planet with the idea and possibly inspire more sane people to come up with something similar, but with the ability to also work as a team to bring it to practical application for the world.

Therefore, I recommend that the awarding of any decent prize in this field must have oversight and conditions, released in tranches based on achievement of milestones. Otherwise it's nearly certain to be blown. I don't see you or anyone being able to raise $1 million to give away with no strings attached. That's not a sustainable approach. Sane people are not likely to throw money into a bottomless pit. If I had $1 million to give away to a deserving technology, I wouldn't do it with no strings attached. I would want that money to go toward the development of the technology, and the sustaining of a moderate lifestyle for the key persons developing it and I would want to be sure that not only did the technology work, but that the team was workable.

- - - -

On Oct. 9, 2008, New Energy Congress advisor, Directory:James Dunn wrote regarding the above:

"Well stated."

If anyone is going to develop this, it needs to be Vlad

On Oct. 9, 2008, New Energy Congress advisor, Directory:Chris Patton wrote:

You nailed it Sterling.

Its pretty simple...

If Vlad has that much confidence in his idea he should go out and find a sponsor for his prize. It's not a new idea or even an original idea since there are "X-prizes" out there already... its a shiny new name for a well worn concept.

Welcome to the real world of packaging and hard work where you have to solicit people with your "amazing" idea and show them how their portfolio will benefit from whatever technology drops down the pipeline. You either have to go Philanthropist or Investor and let me tell you something...you'll need a pretty extensive/expensive plan for either one. These don't package themselves.

We may have one overseas called the "Quantum Green Prize" that I've been pushing for a year. I've taken this idea through the television studio route and its a tough package to sell without a built in sponsor. I'll let you know if it hits but I wouldn't get too excited.

As I see the NEC's duty as being accurate information dissemination I fail to see how it falls onto our collective heads offer prizes or cash for anything.

Vlad you have an fine idea...don't expect anyone but you to carry through on it.

Good Luck!

From one who is developing emerging XS-NRG technology

On October 08, 2008, Von Ives wrote:

Hello Vlad:

I am glad to see some initiative in the direction you indicate. S. Allan has some valid points on that also.

I am one of the who-knows-how-many in the hinterlands researching and working on new 'outside-the-box'

energy generation technologies. As in my case, there must be at least several that 'are-works-in-progress'

that are not yet to the 'prototype' developement stage. But these have at least partial, if not yet complete, tangible physical evidence that they potentially can be with appropriate resources of which many

of us are painfully lacking. Many will be reluctant to 'let-the-cat (IP)-out-of-the-bag' before it is pecuniarily

and technically appropriate to do so. Yet they would like access to working theory validation (or not, as the case may be) to further spur developement and justify costs of IP protection.

These new technologies just do not suddenly appear on the scene. It requires constant push and pull

to nudge them forward into a status-quo academic-social-political-industrial-economic system that does

not really welcome them, despite the glaring problems of the present system.

In some of these cases (mine included) it has taken a long life-time to aquire the knowledge and wisdom

to conceive and try to create these wonderful ideas. It is a race between remaining life expectancy and

project successful completion that are at odds to each other. Would that youth could do these tasks

while having the stamina and time left available to execute them! But we toil onward as best we can to

at least try to leave this world a better place than we came into it.

Thankx for your efforts.

Response to Sterling re XSF

On Oct. 12, 2008, Vlad of ZPEnergy.com wrote:

My responses in Italics:

Hi Vlad,

The XS-NRG prize as you envision it requires a director tackling it full-time in order for it to accomplish what you envision. If you don't step into that role, then I am doubtful that the vision will materialize.

Sterling, I'm tired of repeating this: I don't step into that role because I am aware of my limits. I am just not capable of pulling this through successfully. There are many people out there much better equipped to succeed than me, once they understand it. I don't have the time and the necessary skills and I'm not going to jeopardize the credibility of the XSF project to satisfy my ego, please understand that. But the idea is good, the only one that I think will work for what we need to do, and I'll continue to convince the world of that. It is known that "the resistance to a new idea increases as the square of its importance." The fact that you are part of the resistance is a huge disappointment to me (but maybe not so much of a surprise).

It is not likely that someone else who didn't come up with the idea will grab your idea and run with it as you envision. The kind of leader who will make a success of this is likely to be one who comes up with his own ideas, and will be busy pursuing just that.

And why not??? Would you want that kind of a "leader" who is only interested in its own ideas to pursue? Is the world made of mostly ego-centric, selfish grandomaniacs unable to recognize and adopt a great idea that is available for free, just because it is not theirs? ... Is this philosophy what you personally subscribe to as well (maybe that's a redundant question)? An idea is like a child it has "biological" parents that sometimes may be forced to put it up for adoption. Fortunately, there are still people out there who don't care that this is somebody's else child, and, especially if the child is healthy and smart, adopt the kid and get busy raising him/her with love, to become successful individuals they can be proud of. Who do you think matters more or should get the credit for the success of that child: the biological parents or the adoptive parents who "run" with him/her full time in life? Only a moron would ignore a good and free idea (especially one that can change history and make him proud of what he left behind), just because it's not his own.

It seems a bit hypocritical to me that you point your finger at the NEC or NEM for dropping the ball in not seeing this through. You are the one with the vision, you should carry it out and not be critical of others if they don't do it.

The NEC/NEM were constituted EXACTLY for this kind of ideas. That is PRECISELY why I joined NEC which was supposed to be a non-profit organization with mainly the same scope as the XSF. It is under your leadership that NEC stirred into a for profit ranking body for interesting, in fashion, alternative energy technologies, like this was something ignored by science and the business community out there. I said OK, maybe Sterling has a point that the NEC must get credibility that way, in order to tackle the "exotic" technology claims that represent real energy breakthroughs humans badly need. One year, then two years had passed and we were further and further from the FE revolution we all dreamed about starting. I, and maybe Todd who left the NEC for the same reason, were the only voices reminding NEC do something about the real important O/U claims that we should be focusing on for urgent validation. But you were busy with grandiose business plans and getting money from dubious people, flirting at one time with the idea of excluding the "exotics" and take a safe route to where the money is: in benign, close to market alternatives. I've made my disagreement known to the NEC a few times and was ignored. Then, a year ago, submitted the XSF proposal hoping that the NEC/NEM will wake up and embrace it in the quest for the truth about revolutionary new-energy technologies that would make all the other ones eventually obsolete. I do not feel it's hypocritical at all to point my finger at NEC and NEM for letting me down after 3 years (and everybody else hoping NEC/NEM will keep the original promise they made to their members and supporters). The vision was not just MINE, it was OURS, remember? I just proposed a better way of accomplishing it TOGETHER, since all the other already tried ways failed miserably. The NEC/NEM were the only groups of people who I thought would jump at the opportunity to try something new (the XSF), since it needed almost nothing but an open mind about the possibility of real FE, time, and certain skills that some people in the NEC/NEM certainly have. To cut this rant short Sterling, from your last sentence above, I think I got my answer: if it's not Sterling's vision, you're on your own guys!

Sure, you have a nice day job that gives you satisfaction and a good pay. But if you truly believe in this vision as it seems you do, and are driven by it, you ought to put your actions behind it and carry it out yourself. Quite your day job and bring this about.

If you're not willing to do that, then cut slack for others if they don't step up either.

(???) I hope this is a joke and not an insult to my intellect.

There are watered down version of your vision that could be accomplished by just a little extra effort on your part without requiring you to quit your day job. For example, the "Top 20 Exotics" list you suggested the NEC tackle could easily be initiated by you. PESWiki is an editable site. Just create the url, and build the page, pulling from the NEC's Top 100 list, and add a section "Promising, but not T100 yet" to include those exotics that are not yet in the T100. That would take about an hour. I participate on your site, how about you participate at PESWiki. You've posted to the site just twice, though the site has been up for four+ years. http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vlad

Sterling, I started ZPEnergy.com as a breakthrough-energy news portal, forum, and published research archive, almost eight years ago when you were still involved in Bible studies. To refresh your memory, you contacted me in late 2003 to join your new proposed PES project. After examining your bio published at your old http://www.greaterthings.com/ site and aware of your dispute with Jerry Decker (of http://www.keelynet.com/), since your business model was radically different than mine (all volunteers, everything for free) I decided to wait and see. Since ZPEnergy was never for making money, I didn't considered you as competition on the contrary, your success was my success and vice versa (we agreed to link to each other as well). Knowing that you are a prolific "founder" and may indeed help our FE cause, I told you that you can use anything posted on ZPEnergy on your site, since educating the public on new-energy research was our common goal. Are you asking me now that, what I'm doing at ZPEnergy and put up for everybody to use for free (in my limited spare time I should be spending with my family, after work), to duplicate it again on your site, knowing that you're home all day and also have a webmaster on your payroll??? ... I'm looking forward to shut ZPEnergy down when the XSF site is up and running and PESWiki pages can be used for each submitted device description. Yes, I can easily list 20 exotics, but you're missing the point: I have no personal experience with any of those I know about, and there may be many more interesting ones I'm not aware of at all. My request for the NEC (and not me) to put together the Top 20 exotic list was because many of the NEC members claim they have personal knowledge (experienced and even tested) of many such technologies that could be better candidates for the XSF to validate than those I would put on the list.

I recommend the page name: http://peswiki.com/index.php/T100:Top_20_Exotic_Energy_Technologies

OK, then ask each NEC member to send his list and post it on that page, then let's vote to eliminate all but the most promising 20 ... then debate and vote again to rank the Top 20, so we know who to start contacting and propose them to change the world as we know it. If, and only if (and when) we have a credible candidate willing to undergo scientific testing, we can really go full force with the XSF.

You complain that neither the NEC nor the NEM have taken up your banner, yet you've not been around to offer encouragement and to make the wheel squeak, to give it the attention it deserves.

Your hands off approach is as much to blame as anything for the lack of movement on your initiative. An email to one of the NEC discussion lists occasionally would be good to keep the issue before us and spur action on it.

Sorry Sterling but getting action and resolution on tabled proposals, wasn't that your job as the NEC president? I did post occasionally about this subject on the NEC discussion list but was essentially ignored each time. Don't expect me to beg you or anybody else to do the right thing. You are naive if you think all the opposition to something like the XSF wants to do, is all innocent.

As for us keeping some developments off the radar, that is from honoring the wishes of the person who has approached us with the technology. If someone comes to you with a technology seeking help, and asks that you not publish information about it, are you just going to ignore them and publish it anyway? I don't think so. And due to the paranoid mindset that pervades the extreme energy technology field, you can see why many prefer no public mention of their technology.

This I agree, I wouldn't do that. But the XSF deals with already working (not perfectly, as for "market ready") testable prototypes, and the XSF is designed to take care of all the inventor's worries (protect his/her name if (s)he so wishes, and the IP rights, of course). The point is, we need to get these extraordinary claims in the open. Convince the inventors of real working devices of their role and the protection we offer (to remove their paranoia). Those who, despite these assurances, refuse to validate their claims for no valid reason, than we must warn the public about that, and yes, about possible more or less clever scams. Continuing with the secrecy is maintaining the status quo, which serves nobody.

You berate the NEC for not yet validating a working exotic technology despite being in existence for three years. I don't know of anyone organization who has, including you and your network at ZPEnergy.com, nor Stefan over at OverUnity.com, though we all dabble in a lot of very interesting effects that hold out great promise, and we also foster some pretty stories of claims to exotic technology, but which evade validation.

I take that back, there is an organization under NEC Advisor, Chris Patton's guidance, which has apparently validated Timothy Thrapp's technology, but the downside there is that Timothy's terms of engagement are so ridiculous that no reasonable person with money or business expertise will play. So in terms of "validation", Thrapp fails the "politics of science" criteria, making his technology essentially of no practical use.

Well, that is exactly why I proposed the XSF to operate under certain rules. Nobody validated anything because they did not offer to inventors the terms XSF will offer. Read them again please, and if you still don't understand the difference give me a call and I'll see, in my English as the second language, how I can answer all your questions. If Thrapp is such a smart guy, he can not refuse a pile of money for essentially giving nothing and committing to nothing, just proving to the world and to science that he is right.

We've encountered that one a bunch of times, from a bunch of greedy, crazy, or paranoid inventors. They seem to have working stuff, but their personalities drive all reasonable offers of help away. Dennis Lee, Joseph Newman, Mike Brady, and even possibly Carl Tilley all seem to have good technology, but their modus operandi is a show stopper. That is the primary achilles heel of exotic energy -- exotic personalities. If we could find a way around that one, then there would be a bunch of great things coming forward.

You have that "way" before you in the XSF proposal! Let's try it seriously and I'll eat crow if it doesn't work. Next time when you go to any of these people you feel have genuine technologies, take me with you (as I'm not readily available, schedule this in time please).

The MIB account for maybe 10% of why these exotics don't make it to market. Interpersonal conflicts -- people that can't get along, inventors with impossible personalities -- comprise 40% of why these exotics don't make it to market.

This is not an excuse to do nothing, or go back to how to turn biowaste into diesel, Ettridge wind turbines and the like.

I wonder if offering a 1 million+ prize to these types would actually help them move past that primary obstacle. (Let's find out!)

Investors don't invest in just a technology. They look equally carefully at the team. Is the team capable of pulling this off?

Read the XSF proposal again. It has NOTHING to do with investors at this stage! It is done for waking up the science and getting the truth out (and consequently hope) to all people on Earth. This seems to be so hard to understand for those who mostly dream of making tons of money out of this. If any such device is validated by the XSF and the XS-NRG prize awarded with big tam-tam, I can guarantee you that investors will race each other to get inventor's attention. If you're properly positioned, you may win that race.

If we were to give $1 million to Joseph Newman or John Hutchison, how are we to know that $750,000 of it wouldn't go to Vegas, homes, retreats, and women?

The "no strings attached" provision offered to an exotic personality is nearly a guaranteed flush of money down a toilet.

If a person can't work in a team, he is as good as useless, even if he might have the most brilliant technology ever produced. He becomes his own worst enemy, and might as well not have ever come up with the idea in the first place, other than to tease the planet with the idea and possibly inspire more sane people to come up with something similar, but with the ability to also work as a team to bring it to practical application for the world.

Therefore, I recommend that the awarding of any decent prize in this field must have oversight and conditions, released in tranches based on achievement of milestones. Otherwise it's nearly certain to be blown. I don't see you or anyone being able to raise $1 million to give away with no strings attached. That's not a sustainable approach. Sane people are not likely to throw money into a bottomless pit. If I had $1 million to give away to a deserving technology, I wouldn't do it with no strings attached. I would want that money to go toward the development of the technology, and the sustaining of a moderate lifestyle for the key persons developing it and I would want to be sure that not only did the technology work, but that the team was workable.

Holly smoke!... I lived to read those lines written in the Western world! Listen Sterling, I spent more than half my life in a communist dictatorship. Ceausescu used to "recommend" us not only what we can do with our own meager but hard earned wages, but also what temperature we must have in our bedrooms to stay vigorous, how many calories we must eat to stay healthy, how many kids we must have to meet our duty to the future of the country, etc., to name just a few of his "precious directives", as they were often called. These "directives" were apparently for our own good and protection (and some were probably so) but most of the best people fled the country anyway, some swimming across the Danube river at night ... many were shot or their head smashed in the water ... their bodies often never found. As you probably know, the dictator and his wife ended up executed at the wall after a mock-up trial staged by some of his former yes-men. People love freedom, often more than life. You (we) live in the free world, far from perfect, but for which many sane-honest people are still risking their life to reach, just for the freedom to chose what you do with your property and your life. With your thinking, you're on a dangerous path man. Let people do whatever they want with their money, if they earned/won them honestly. Educate them to know the difference between good and bad choices is all that a free society can do to "constrain" those who do not break the law.

XSF does not divide inventors into "exotic" and "non-exotic" personalities, it just honestly examines their "exotic" claims, if they want to prove their extraordinary technology beyond any reasonable doubt. XSF is after the "naked truth" and not how the inventor got to this point or how (s)he should proceed further. Only the no strings attached will bring them to us. Attaching "the strings" is PESN's (and other for profit org like it) business, since there are billions of $ to be made from bringing such a FE device to the market. I wish you good luck with it ... just don't mingle the XSF scope and modus operandi with PESN's. It is not XSF's business if John Hutchison is a team player or not, gives his money to Paris Hilton for her presidential campaign, or just flash them all down the toilet (there were billions flushed like that through bad decisions, excessive risk taking/gambling by the US government, Wall Street, etc.). If those who donate to the XS-NRG prize want to give a little money just for knowing for sure that ZPE can be tapped for useful power in John's "Crystal converters" and that the "Hutchison Effect" (antigravity) is real, than this is the right thing to do, and it is a small prize to pay (even $10 mil) for the truth that would trigger a significant scientific progress in itself. That's what the XSF is all about.

Vlad

Re to Chris Patton and the NEC re XSF

On Oct. 12, 2008, Vlad of ZPEnergy.com wrote:

On Oct. 9, 2008, New Energy Congress advisor, Chris Patton wrote: (my answers in Italics. Vlad)

You nailed it Sterling.

Its pretty simple...

Chris, it is not simple at all! I wouldn't have asked you (all of you in NEC/NEM) for help if that was the case.

If Vlad has that much confidence in his idea he should go out and find a sponsor for his prize. It's not a new idea or even an original idea since there are "X-prizes" out there already... its a shiny new name for a well worn concept.

"X-prizes" ?... "Aero-award"?... (for Quantum Green Prize couldn't find anything on the net) ... they have very little in common with the XSF/XS-NRG prize concept (oh yes, the name does have a capital X in it ...maybe you find it the same as the XXX-Prize, eh?). Yes, all of them target FE inventors and their devices, but the way XSF do it (and the reason for doing it) and the funding system for the XS-NRG prize are COMPLETELY different!

To say that XSF/XS-NRG prize (as proposed), is not a new/original idea but "a shiny new name for a well worn concept" is either misinformation, if you haven't read at all the XSF proposal, or a deliberate lie if you have (since you don't have to be a genius to understand it).

Welcome to the real world of packaging and hard work where you have to solicit people with your "amazing" idea and show them how their portfolio will benefit from whatever technology drops down the pipeline. You either have to go Philanthropist or Investor and let me tell you something...you'll need a pretty extensive/expensive plan for either one. These don't package themselves.

Except for "hard work" everything else you wrote is IRRELEVANT to the XSF. Not everybody thinks with their "portfolio" Chris (unfortunately many do, since that's why the US is where it is). And you're wrong again scaring people you need "extensive/expensive plans" for a smart idea done in the right way at the right time ... It's Internet age, remember?...check The Million Dollar Homepage" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage) ... voila! It will cost you $5K to do the XSF/XS-NRG Prize page professionally ... you could be famous and make enough money out of it to retire happy since you'll leave a better world behind...but you'll pass, and return to ... whatever more important, portfolio fattening things you're doing.

We may have one overseas called the "Quantum Green Prize" that I've been pushing for a year. I've taken this idea through the television studio route and its a tough package to sell without a built in sponsor. I'll let you know if it hits but I wouldn't get too excited.

As I see the NEC's duty as being accurate information dissemination I fail to see how it falls onto our collective heads offer prizes or cash for anything.

Vlad you have an fine idea...don't expect anyone but you to carry through on it.

Good Luck!

----------------------------------------

Thank you. Good luck to you too.

Gentlemen, I'm getting tired of this. I had my "Murphy's War" and I lost. If the NEC was a "sting operation" from the beginning, and even if it was hijacked after Sterling came up with the idea, I have to take my hat off before those who planned and executed this mission. Trapping a bunch of dedicated people from getting too close to trigger an energy revolution too soon, by getting them stuck in the perfectly legitimate, noble (and lucrative, he, he -) quest for alternative energy, AND making it look that THEY want it, was a brilliant strategy. Those who started like me, and are still like me deep down, must know they have a formidable vested interest force to fight with, and a deep trance to wake up from. "The force" would cleverly use weaknesses present, more or less, in all of us: ego, greed and fear ... and they continue to win since there are very few of us who are immune to the spell -(.

Since this is Canadian Thanksgiving, I want to thank you all for the interesting things I've learned from you, and congratulate you for the good job you're doing for the alternative energy movement. I go back to my family and my real turkey, cause I'm fed-up with yours.

This is my last "occasional" entry here. Sterling, please remove me from the NEC membership effective immediately.

Vlad

Sterling's Response to Vlad

On Oct. 12, 2008, New Energy Congress founder, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan wrote:

Vlad,

Never, ever, at any time have I suggested or even hinted that PES/NEC should walk away from exotics and only spend time with more conventional technologies. Maverick is what I'm about. That is our specialty.

Just because I think having conditions to prize money is a good idea doesn't mean that I'm suggesting that we micromanage every penny spent. Freedom is also what I'm about. It's rooted in my soul. It's what I spend all my time promoting before I got into free energy. But even freedom needs constraint lest it lead to licentiousness. A kite will not fly without a string to anchor it.

When we founded the NEC, whether it would be non-profit or for-profit was left as an open ended question and I should add that it is still open ended, though leaning against non-profit.

When I suggested that you might participate more in the content at PESWiki, I certainly had no intention whatsoever of suggesting that you should migrate the content at ZPEnergy.com over to PESWiki. I think ZPEnergy serves a great purpose and should always remain a separate venue. But just as I participate at ZPEnergy from time to time, it would be nice if you participated more at PESWiki. That's what I was saying.

Don't berate us because we don't do things exactly as you think we should. Variety is the spice of life.

When you talk about the vision of the XSF prize, you speak very much as if it is your baby. Your choice of words conveys that sense of ownership. I don't fault you there I just point out that this could be contributing to why others have not stepped forward to take over leadership of that project as you wish. You are perceived as the leader of the idea, and there isn't a perception of room for someone else to step in unless they hold a carbon copy vision in order to take it over. I just don't think it's going to happen unless you do it, or unless you back off in your phraseology.

You need to consider the possibility that the reason no 24/7, portable free energy technology has yet emerged is not because the NEC/PES/SEAS/ZPEnergy and other organizations are inept, but because the world is not ready for it yet. What would the world do with that kind of technology today? Blow each other up using inexpensive drone planes that could travel anywhere on earth, guided by GPS, to drop payload? Or spy on each other using similar technology?

Perhaps a meltdown of the present, corrupt society is needed first, and the emergence of a more enlightened society, before such technology can come forward.

Also, one of the reasons we at PES/NEC also address more conventional renewable energy sources is because there aren't enough exotics to keep us busy. So far, every time we take the time to check one out, it ends up either being bogus, or a scam, or the inventor is impossible to work with. The earth needs solutions, and we'll take what we can get. Our purpose is to identify and facilitate the best options, whatever they be, whether exotic or conventional.

That said, I think it's good to take a number of approaches. It increases the chances that one or more of them will work to bring an exotic technology to the world. I think your XSF idea is a good one, and indeed we at PES/NEC are already doing a lot of what you propose there.

I'm sorry to see you resign from the NEC. It seems to me that you are acting nearly as irrationally as many of the inventors we've encountered, who are high in IQ, but low in EQ -- the 40% of the reason exotic technologies haven't made it to market yet -- the exotic personalities that are so hard to get along with.

Comments