Congress:Technology Review Protocol
Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:13 am.
- 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.
NewEnergyCongress.org
• New Energy Congress in the News
Technologies
• Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies
• Congress:Top 100 Technologies -- RD (Main20)
• Congress:Top 100:Complete List
• Directory:Best Exotic Clean Energy Technologies
• Submit
• Congress:Technology Criteria
• New Energy Congress: Validation Service
Membership
• Congress:What Membership Entails
Management
• Congress:Bylaws (rd)
There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]
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.
Protocols
Principles
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)
Videos
Patent(s)
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
https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEEDdocs/LEED-NC_checklist-v2.1.xls - checklist for green building certification
http://www.southface.org/web/earthcraft_house/ech_media/ech_brochure/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/etv/ - ETV - Environmental Technology Verification program
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vr_aerodyne.pdf - Example verification report for a tunable laser spectrometer. (59 pages, quite detailed).
See also
Congress:Technologies to Review
Congress:Technology Criteria - criteria for weighing technology
Congress:Top 100 Energy Technologies:Standard Deviation Abberations in Voting
Congress:Top 100 Technologies -- RD
Congress:What Membership Entails
New Energy Congress in the News
- New Energy Congress main page
There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]
