Exotic Free Energy Ooga Booga
Out here in the fringe, we could have more impact if we increased our
scientific rigor, paying attention to such things as multiple experiments to
validate one data point, showing error bars; replication of a device and its
results; proper use of significant digits; using standard formatting in
Pure Energy Systems News
"Ooga Booga", is about how intelligent scientists think we are out
here in the fringe of science, searching for exotic ways of harnessing the
wheelwork of nature. We might as well be cave-men, rambling about our caves. The
term "crackpot" that they label our stuff with is not a compliment.
Yet my experience in hanging around with people "outside the box" is
that these people are anything but stupid -- for the most part. To the contrary,
they are usually brilliant.
The problem is that we do not speak the same language or use the same tried and
true "scientific method" that scientists are used to. So when we talk,
all they hear is "ooga booga," with an occasional grunt for an
To a certain extent, I can understand why we out here in the "fringe"
of science rebel against mainstream science, who get all uppity in their dogmas
of what is or is not "possible." Most true breakthroughs down through
history have "broken" with the mainstream paradigm and have proven it
to be wrong on some key point -- or has invited it to move beyond its
not-as-exact to a more-exact version of the truth.
A Bit About Me
Years ago, I spend around three years in a university setting collecting, analyzing, and reporting data: one year as a senior undergraduate, and two years as a graduate student working toward a Ph.D.
in BioElectroChemistry (which program I ended up leaving in order to pursue religio-political studies and helping people prepare for the end of the world).
I mentioned that so you know that I know what scientific data and reports look like as well as the philosophy behind it.
So when I say that I've not seen scientific rigor in the exotic free energy community, you know that I have a frame of reference by which to determine that.
Speak Their Language
If we want the scientific community to take these new technologies seriously, we need to present the data supporting these technologies in a way that they can relate to.
The scientific community has a hard time relating to the rough and tumble way of doing things that is common in the exotic free energy community.
The thing is, it wouldn't take a lot to change our ways so that the scientific community will be more inclined to pay attention.
One of the pillar principles of the scientific method is repeatability of results. Results from just one run of the test is not likely to convince anyone. There are too many things that might have inadvertently contributed to the results. How much would you value a poll if only one person were asked the poll questions? While you've got the experiment set up, you might as well run it at least five times at that setting, and record the results you get each time. That way you can determine the level of accuracy of your measurements and the level of repeatability of the results.
Error bars show the level of repeatability and accuracy of measurement between multiple experiments of the same kind.
You drive a stretch of road (e.g. 50 miles), and you calculate that your miles/gallon to have been 34.6. (All to often, that is the extent of the data we get in the exotic free energy world: one number for one test.) Then you drive that same stretch of road, with all the same settings as far as you know, and this time you calculate mpg to be 35.1. Just those two numbers show you that something in your protocol is not that accurate. Then you test again, and this time you get 33.9. You test again, and you get 35.3 mpg.
After ten tests, you take an average or mean, and the average comes to 34.9 mpg. That number is much more believable and accurate than any one test. Also, along with that number you also give the margin of error. 34.9 +/- 1.0 for ten tests. This tells the person reading the report that 1) you did ten tests, 2) your average was 34.9 mpg, 3) your data varied by as much as 1.0 above or below that. This is the kind of information a scientist expects to see, along with a description of how you took the data, what parameters you were testing, and what you were doing to the vehicle in comparison to normal or "control".
If you report a 3% improvement in mileage, and your deviation is 3%, you might as well have reported that your results were null. But more importantly, in the area of fuel improvement, if you're only getting 3% improvement in mileage, whatever it is probably isn't worth it.
Another pillar of the scientific method, for very good reasons, is that an effect needs to be
reproducible, not only within the same device, but by building a replica of that device that does the same thing. It's even more impressive if a separate person can follow your instructions and successfully build a replica that does what your device does. Your credibility will increase many-fold once this milestone has been achieved.
Don't Cannibalize Your Only Device
What often happens in the exotic free energy world is that an inventor will achieve a great result, and rather than replicate his device, he will cannibalize it to build the next "improvement" percolating in his head. While that might save some money, it does nothing for credibility, because now all you have is a story, and maybe a few witnesses, and hopefully a video and some photos. But all too often, the exotic free
energy inventor omits those pieces of evidence, either out of paranoia, greed, or slop, none of which are good reasons.
Even if you are trying to stay "under the radar," which is arguably a good strategy until you're more mature in your development, not fully documenting your accomplishment before dismantling a working prototype is one of the worst and very common offenses to your own objectives of successfully moving the technology forward.
There are many ways to conceal working devices, photos, videos, witness statements, etc.
You should be replicating, not cannibalizing, which is one of the most egregious
"own worst enemy" sins of the industry.
Significant Figures / Digits
One error I see quite often is that people give far too many significant figures in a number. It's like asking a kid: "How far is your walk to school?" If he says 1.247731 miles, you know he's pretty smart and is just joking with you, because there is no way he has instruments accurate enough to measure it to 1/1000000 th of a mile. There are around 1609 meters in a mile, so his number is within a
millimeter level of accuracy, which level of accuracy is totally unnecessary for the question posed. If, on the other hand, you were talking to someone from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), you might expect an answer like this, with maybe even several more orders of magnitude of accuracy, since they have the ability (and usually the reasons) to measure that accurately.
Atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado.
I grew up with a dad who is an atomic clock physicist with NIST in Boulder (he "retired" in '92),
whereby they can now measure time to 17 significant figures. He uses the analogy that it takes approximately 8
minutes for light to go from the sun to the earth; and in one second, light could go around the earth 7 times. The accuracy with which they can measure time equates to the time it takes light to go 1/100th the width of a human hair. Now that is accuracy!
Time is the most accurate measurement known to man. This is why you as a civilian can use GPS to resolve your position on the planet to around a meter by comparing the propagation time of signals coming at the speed of light from different satellites. Imagine the level of accuracy available to the military. Decades ago, my dad would say: "This is how you can send a missile down the smokestack of the Kremlin."
So that is one extreme end of the spectrum.
In doing rough laboratory experiments dealing with energy, usually we're talking about two to four significant figures. When you're talking about pulling energy from the wheelwork of nature, we're really not concerned whether the output is 3 kW or exactly 3,215.535599325 Watts. Any number larger than zero is awesome.
The problem in credibility arises when people pull out their calculators and start adding, subtracting, dividing or multiplying. The calculator is not trained to know what your significant figures are, so if you have 8 positions of display on your calculator, it's going to give you 8 digits.
So if you drive 13.2 miles on 0.34 gallons, you're calculator is going to say you got 38.82352941176471... mpg. Obviously, you are not dealing with atomic clock level of accuracy, so you just round up to the significant figure, which will be 38.8 mpg, and giving three significant digits would be stretching it. Just 39 mpg would probably be closer to a fair representation of the limit of the level of accuracy you're dealing with.
If you report 38.823529 mpg, people are going to know that you don't know about significant figures (unless you show them that level of accuracy; in which case they're going to wonder why you need that level of accuracy), and they're not going to take your results very seriously, wondering what else you don't know.
Elements of a Full Data Report
One thing you HARDLY EVER see in the exotic free energy world is a report of data that conforms to conventional scientific paper formats that are generally accepted and expected in the scientific community. This is one of the reasons why they don't "understand" the data that is given to them. It isn't packaged the way they are accustomed to.
Scientists have established the following format for "scientific papers. The reasons for this go far beyond dogma or convention. It makes sense to follow this format. A complete paper is divided into sections, in this order...
Authors and their Institutions
Materials and Methods
Although this format is not cast in stone, most scientific journals use it or some variation thereof.
You can easily find documents that provide a brief description and purposes of each of these sections of a paper by doing a search for "scientific paper format data". The link above provides a good synopsis.
The introduction gives you the "why", the materials and methods specifies the "how". It needs to be clear and complete enough that a peer could reproduce the results by following those instructions. The results gives the "what", and the discussion describes the "so what".
Probably one reason you don't see reports like this in the exotic free energy world is that such a report essentially amounts to an open source document, telling people how to
successfully build the device. Most inventors are not ready for that level of disclosure. They usually want patent protection or to use the proprietary info method of claiming and maintaining ownership of their idea.
But there are researchers and inventors out there who are willing to share this kind of information.
For those of you who have good devices, about which you could write such a complete report, I invite you to submit it to our site for publication. Alternatively or additionally, you could submit it to
Infinite Energy magazine, which is one of the most academically-inclined publications in the exotic free energy world.
How would you like to be the first person in the world to create such a paper about an exotic free energy device or method that will power a house?
Power of Intuition
While the scientific method has its place, I do know that there are exceptions to the rule; and this happens more often outside the box than inside the box.
Nowhere in the scientific method is there a provision for receiving downloads of information from divine sources as the primary guide for implementing new approaches. The scientific method is very left-brained and methodical, trial and error; whereas the
intuitive method is potentially much more productive as it taps into a higher power that is far more wise, and which has already worked out a solution, so all you are doing is acting as an antenna to download that information and build it on Earth.
Nikola Tesla worked in such a manner. He would get a vision of an idea, would work it out completely in his mind, then build it, and it would work as he envisioned. This almost makes the scientific method ridiculous in comparison. And from a scientists' point of view, such an approach might even be thought of as "That's cheating" -- as if looking at the teacher's answer key to fill in your test; except in this case, it's reading off of God's Cliff Notes, and it's not "cheating", it's a gift from God and should be used if you've got it.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if this isn't one reason why Tesla wasn't as well received as he should have been, given the magnitude of his contributions. He is barely mentioned in the textbooks. He wasn't following the
scientific method as it is usually practiced. Hence, he was a scientific heretic. He was tapped into something much better and far more productive.
So it's no wonder that the exotic free energy community that holds Tesla in highest esteem as the primary hero figure, would be received in similar manner as Tesla.
Still, I would argue that it may be possible to at least use some of the same language as the scientists so that more of them will pay attention and help implement these new breakthroughs now
I hope I've made a clear case for the value and potential impact of increasing the level of scientific rigor out in the fringes where we hang out, so that scientists might be more inclined to take these things seriously, as they should.
# # #
What You Can Do
- See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy
- Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
- Click to Tweet: http://clicktotweet.com/d23H8
- Donate to PES Network
to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
- Subscribe to our newsletter
to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy
- Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of