Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter



Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:05 am.

  • 2 errors 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

IT Blue Print for New Energy Congress

'Programming Requirements for NEC Technology Review Process'

Note up to date

An outline of the programming needs for New Energy Congress for the review of Congress:Top 100 Technologies -- RD, receiving of technology review requests, screening those, and then honing in on a few technologies in detail, and then generating a report twice a year.



The primary activity and function of the congress will be to review technology claims and identified promising technologies that deserve attention. We will want to enter technology by technology and enable the reviewers to quickly give their input on technologies about which they are knowledgeable. We will need to be able to screen out those technologies that do not rise to the level of warranting the Congress body's attention, while not overlooking worth while technologies.

The idea is to make this as user-friendly as possible for the reviewers, who will generally be very busy people, with basic computer skills.


Procedures I, II, and IV below can be done through other means already available to us, and do not need to be tailored so much as procedure III. Procedure III, therefore, should be the emphasis at first. Once we have that going, we can work on the other three, in this sequence:

#Procedure I

#Procedure II

#Procedure IV

We can come up with some easy temporary patches for I, II, and IV.

Procedure I is a simple form function. Easy. I (Sterling) can even do that.

Procedure II can be done through a simple document listing, manually moving things up and down on a list.

Procedure IV can be a combination of a report from III and a summary document.


The Congress is presently in a process of defining what it is and who it will compose. The schedule for that process is presently into the middle of December. With the holidays, that basically gives us a January 2, 2006 deadline for having something operation for I, II. That is when the Congress will be ready to commence the process of screening technologies to be reviewed. That process should probably take at least a month before the congress begins honing in on technologies, though they may want to start focusing on one or two obvious ones right away. So we're looking at a mid-January 2006 deadline for something operational for Procedure III.

As stated above, a rough and temporarily suitable version of Procedures I and II can be done quite simply.

With something temporary to hold us for our first review season, ending in the Spring of 2006, we have basically until the Spring of 2005 to be working on an upgrade to then install.


Key reference document: Congress:Technology Criteria

These various processes can be augmented by RSS, email and other notification methods. The database will also allow sorted viewing options.

Process I – Receiving Technology Information

The idea here is to allow people (anyone) to submit technologies to be reviewed. This can either be by the inventor or by a second or third party (including Congress members). We'll want to make it easy for them to submit the basic info, but also make it possible for them to provide more in-depth information if they are willing, in increments, and in areas in which they are conversant.

We'll want to run a quick comparative check on the basic info to see if the technology has already been submitted. If a probable match is found, the person can say, "yes, it is the same," or "no, this is different."

If the technology is the same as one already in the database, they can then go to that page to update or improve the information that is presently collected. We'll want anyone to be able to update or edit content (with option of limiting this to registered users), and we'll want to be able to be notified of updates, compare versions, and revert to previous versions if necessary.

Each technology should have essentially two NEC web components: form-based info and a feature page. The latter can be done through a wiki-like program, such as PESWiki. That feature page, which is also publicly editable,

Some private technologies will only be known by code names to the public, or even to the Congress, so the comparative function will not be evoked in that case (in other words, if there is already a private technology in the database that matches what is being submitted anew, the person submitting the info will continue as if there is not already such a technology, and the admin can later merge the information).

Many technology listings will be a hybrid of public and private information. (e.g. some contact information might be private, as well as personnel information, or business plan info).

Some of the programming capabilities will be as follows:

Standard form with blank fields to enter (e.g. name of inventor, name of tech, description, urls), drop-down menus from which to choose, multiple selection capability, yes/no, amounts, comments.

A "un/select all" column with a check box next to each entry to indicate whether the information in that row is public or private (default set to public). Only logged-in NEC members, and others that the Congress allows in, will be able to view "private" information. For example, the inventor is likely to be given access to the "private" section of the listing regarding his/her technology.

Attachment capability. (Could be uploaded to site and then linked by url from the submission form). For videos, photos, data, business plans, etc.

Secure server for all submissions, inasmuch as some information is likely to be "private" or "confidential".

Info should be editable by NEC admin.

Process II – Screening/Ranking Submissions

The idea here is to narrow a wide selection of technologies down to a more manageable number that the Congress can focus in on and review in depth (Process III). This can be done through a combination of programming, and public (logged-in) input. The public should be engaged in voting for technologies that are submitted, along with the Congress members.

Only logged-in users will be able to vote. "Friend's of the Congress", (a proposed designation for a user that achieves a certain level of trust), will have more weight in each vote they cast (e.g. 3x). NEC members will have an even heavier weight (e.g. 5x). A person's weight can increase or decrease, depending on their personal ranking through activities on the site in relation to their peers.

The person originally submitting the technology will have opportunity to rank the technology initially, but others thereafter will be able to lodge a "vote" which will then be tabulated and updated immediately.

There will be two levels of voting: basic, and advanced. The basic will list the technology, a brief description, and give a 0-5 star rating. The advanced level will comprise the following components:

Each technology will be judged according to a set of (~10) criteria. Each criteria will have a scoring range from 0 to 10. See: Congress:Technology Criteria

A person will be able to give their confidence level for each criteria vote. If their confidence level is 5 out of 10, for example, on a given criteria, then their vote counts 50% on that criteria. See: Congress:Technology Criteria

The various criteria will each have certain weights in relation to other criteria. Some criteria will weigh the same, but some might weigh more or less than another. For example, having several working prototypes will not weigh as much as whether or not the technology is "clean."

A person can log-in to their particular ballot, and modify their votes at any time.

As a technology rises according to these votes, it then becomes a candidate for in-depth review by the Congress.

Limiting Each Member to e.g. 20 votes/T20 or above

When we get our voting system computerized, with an individualized control panel, each member will only be able to vote two technologies as T2, an additional three for a total of five as T5, etc. While there may be vacancies, the system will not allow more than the T number for technologies voted that high or better. Each control panel will show that member his/her vote sequence, and will allow him/her to let others to see that personal T100 listing.

If a member goes to vote something T20, for example, and he already has 20 items T20 or better, then he will be prompted to move something down -- similar to the Netflix queue function.

Process III – Reviewing Technologies in Depth

This process will use some of the same functionality as above (the voting system). For example, the Congress will use the same voting system as of Process II. There are some differences.

At this point, any private information, to which the public has not been privy, can come to bear. The Congress might decide that the private information imposes enough information to render the public votes on the matter to be groundless, and may go to a Congress-only mode in its tabulation. Or the Congress might reduce the weight of the public vote by 50%.

The Congress might choose to run independent testing of the technology, either themselves, or via a third party. In most cases, the results of this should be made public, but not all.

The inventor or group responsible for the technology should be allowed an opportunity to view the Congress' findings and supply a written response, which would be included in the report.

Process IV – Reporting

There will be various levels of the report made available.


A non-detailed report will most likely be made available to the public on a continually-updated basis.


There will be paid subscribers who will receive special versions of the report, such as the full-detail report. They will also receive the ongoing report on a more timely basis, e.g. a week or month before the non-paying public receives it.


Hans said: “If you want all the features you list on this spec page, you will need a custom job written from scratch".

My question in response is, “What features would we need to drop from the list in order to go with something that we could merely modify to work for our purposes? while a more robust version is being developed?"

Possible Tools

The demochoice voting software might work for very simple matters. Yahoo!Groups polls serves that purpose to a certain extent.

The phpsurveyor could come in handy for some things.