Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

[DSpencer]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

ANY competent industrial artisan should be able to take the basic premis and working with that and the published patent specifications; produce a working model.

Are you sure about that? Your claim implies that
A) There exists a sound premise and published specifications and
B) A Working model is even possible

The information below suggests that neither are true. BTW, aren't you an "industrial artisan" of some kind? Why don't you produce a working model?

An application in 2008 to patent the device internationally had received an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization^[28] from the European Patent Office, noting that the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with "generally accepted laws of physics and established theories."^[29] The patent application was published on 15 October 2009

[Chris Coles]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Are you sure about that? Your claim implies that
A) There exists a sound premise and published specifications and
B) A Working model is even possible

The information below suggests that neither are true. BTW, aren't you an "industrial artisan" of some kind? Why don't you produce a working model?

First of all, it is my contention that we face severe difficulties caused by global warming. (No, I am not trying to divert this thread), but I make the point because, if that is so, then we have no option but to look at each and every idea, and more besides, that just might, MIGHT; provide an answer to our future long term energy supplies.

Secondly, I am in the final stages of writing about some of my own ideas for energy research.

The problem we "Inventive Industrial Artisans" face is a deeply embedded idea that the only new thinking worth considering; stems only from existing academic sources. A few of you out there will know full well that there is a very wide debate about the lack of new thinking caused by deeply embedded interests in academia; that refuse to accept ANY new thinking.

So, when one looks at the probability of actually LOOKING at such things in reality; there is just the one stumbling block; the only source of funding stems from government; and government is deeply held under the control of the embedded academia that refuses to look at new thinking. You cannot get past existing embedded interests to get support.

You get immediately classed as a "NUTTER". No one will review your work, no funding possible.

Yes, I am, as you say, an industrial artisan. I must add, with a very strong commitment to new thinking and, dare I say it here on iTulip; some credibility as a thinker. But so far as potential funding being available; there is none! Period!

What I have done, particularly over the last five years, is concentrate upon getting across my new thinking regarding how we capitalise new small business start-ups. To that end, yes, for some of you, I have driven you to distraction with my constant references to The Capital Spillway Trust. Regardless, as I see it, the underlying problem is that we do not have a well thought out set of rules for such private institutional investment; that we do not have any "Funds" involved is such funding on free enterprise terms.

I have long term plans to create a Gravity and Energy research institute. I long ago wrote:

“You cannot gain access to new thinking without stepping outside of existing convention. But science today tends to reject the unconventional regardless of its merits. We need a new form of research institute that will stretch out to take input from unconventional thinkers. In the past, it was the pioneering work of the innovators of our early industrial society, for example the iron and steel makers rich imaginations that laid the foundations for the industrial revolution. Much later, science followed in their footsteps to better explain the new alloys already discovered by those pioneers. We have to recognise the value of free thinking and create at least one research institution that will emulate the original pioneers of the past centuries. There are always unconventional thinkers; we have to bring them into a structured institute that will allow them to thrive and succeed.


This is one of my own personal aiming points, to create such an institute to harbour and encourage those in our communities that are capable of original thought, but lie outside of the existing framework. I believe that if carefully thought through and properly funded on a long term basis, there will be much to gain from such an exercise. In the longer term, it should become possible to establish several such independent research institutes in other countries to attract their own original thinkers.”


I have a location in mind for the first to be established here in the UK. Indeed, I have tried to get it donated by the owner, but he wants hard cash which I do not have to hand at this moment.


By far the majority of the savings of the entire Western economy, are entrained within the “markets” without ANY mechanism to re-invest the capital where it is needed; right down at the grass roots where such new thinking emerges. Instead, everyone expects “Government” to do that when they cannot even repay the monies they have already borrowed.

The resulting intellectual dead end is where we all are with this thread here on iTulip

[DSpencer]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

It's ironic that you are so interested in unconventional and original thinking and yet you remain stuck in a rut. Still believing that every possible discussion somehow leads back to an idea that you have. Still complaining about the lack of funding on a site whose members are collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars and who are actively funding technology companies. We're in an intellectual dead end because you jerked the wheel and steered us into one.

There's an unfathomable amount of money ready to fund a real, practical cold fusion device. If we throw all of it away on junk science, there won't be any left when we need it.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

It's ironic that you are so interested in unconventional and original thinking and yet you remain stuck in a rut. Still believing that every possible discussion somehow leads back to an idea that you have. Still complaining about the lack of funding on a site whose members are collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars and who are actively funding technology companies. We're in an intellectual dead end because you jerked the wheel and steered us into one.

There's an unfathomable amount of money ready to fund a real, practical cold fusion device. If we throw all of it away on junk science, there won't be any left when we need it.

First of all I am not complaining about any aspect of my use of the iTulip web site or its membership. You may not know it, but here in the UK it would be an illegal act to try and seek such funding by posting a request of such on this site..

Secondly, many years ago, I came to the conclusion that the problem is one of a lack of institutional support; that I believe that such funding has to come from a very large fund, rather than individuals. Why?

Many individuals claim to be interested in such investment; and then add the same rider that you have, above.

"If we throw all of it away on junk science, there won't be any left when we need it."

ALL individuals with funds are, in my humble opinion, rightly so, deeply suspicious of any new investment they do not fully understand. They need to be fully steeped in all of the technology, know the individual personally, perhaps for many years, even decades. understand every aspect of what is being proposed. Then they have to have the money not invested into anything currently gaining a good income and then, of perhaps the greatest importance; they have to WANT to get involved with it. When you add that all together, you get an almost impossible situation that simply does not work.

A VERY good example is the current unemployment figures for the entire Western economy. Many tens of millions without a job. Why? Because there is no one prepared to fund the capitalisation of the new, very small businesses they must have to enable the jobs to be created. Those desperate unemployment figures, better than anything I can write here, tell the story of what happens when, in today's world of finance, an individual asks for someone else to fund their new idea for what will be a new job creating idea.

It simply is not happening. Millions of us get the self same story...... there is lots of money, you only need to ask the right person; but not me at this moment in time........ sic! That is not to deride any such reaction in any way; it is a perfectly natural aspect of the need to ensure an individual does not lose their very often hard won fortune. They have every right to take that line.

It was exactly the same experience that originally drove me to sit down and write, way back in 1992, the 170 page bound book of Due Diligence in attempting to raise the funds I need to pay the patent fees on two European patent applications. Which in turn, led to my creating the whole idea of The Capital Spillway Trust in 1994. Two decades ago.

If one individual places a large part of their own money into any such project, they stand to lose it all. As I see it, have always seen it; that simply does not work. Yes, there will always be examples where it does or did, sometimes magnificently so. But in general, the statistics tell the better story; it is not a viable way forward for the majority and without such funding; the entire economy has stalled.

If, instead, you take the general savings of, say, ten million people, and that savings institution makes the same investment; the risk is reduced by the factor of ten million. A $2,000,000 investment turns from a direct risk of losing every penny for the individual to a risk of losing $0.20 cents for every one of the savers.

And, on that basis, it is quite impossible to lose it all, as many such investments will win out. yes, you come back to the failures. My answer is why I believe all such investment should be made as equity capital, rather than loan. For when you do that, the invested money stays in circulation within the local communities where it was spent and thus raises local prosperity.

To round up; your comment was quite correct and your reaction to my comments are perfectly normal from any successful individual.

We have tens of millions of people without a job.

We have no institutional mechanism whatever, to fund new off the wall thinking. The only mechanism is through government departments that neither have any real interest in new thinking; nor any real funding available, even for those conventional scientists already on their books; let alone for all of us off the wall thinkers with new ideas.

Next time you read about one of the very big funds boasting of their huge fund; ask yourself where they invest it. You will discover that they are NOT permitted to invest it where I am and where the other millions like me live.

THAT is the real problem; the lack of institutional funds directed towards new investment.

Me; I am just a symptom of the underlying problem.