New Article on Free Energy with Stefan Interview!

[jibbguy]

Today a new article appeared as a headliner at the "Op-Ed News" political blog site: "Free Energy and the Open Source Energy Movement". Here's the link:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Free-Energy-and-the-Open-S-by-jibbguy-080623-466.html

Many thanks to our Admin, Hartiberlin / Stefan Hartmann for the very cogent interview!

"Op-Ed News" is read by approx. 250,000 persons weekly and is one of the largest political blog sites in the U.S. .. Read by dozens of U.S. Congresspeople, hundreds of Congressional staff, and by many other major players in the political world.

Feel free to register there and comment. Also, "Digg" -ing the article will help it gain wider viewing across the 'web ("Digg" button at top of article).

OEN is a great source for news that you won't get from the U.S. mainstream media; and all political views are welcome there.   

[mbramble]

Quote from above linked article:

jibbguy: Please give us your opinions on the Open Source Energy movement and the role of the Internet: What do you think the Open Source Energy movement is accomplishing?

Stefan Hartmann:  Well, it is the same as with the Open Source Software development and the Linux system. The more people freely work with it, the more will be done, that will be the benefit for all people of the world to share and help each other.

It's definitely not the same as working on Linux -- except there are a lot of people involved working together over the Internet.  But, working in the Linux kernel, you don't just pop in and start giving your ideas on every part of the kernel that you think should be changed.  You join the development team and then you work on small pieces (maybe several small pieces but independently and not just willy-nilly all over the place) of the kernel code (memory management, cpu support, etc.) and you work within the framework of that group.  There are higher level 'moderators' who keep everything on the right track and work out arguments and then an overall project leader who keeps track of all the changes and has final say on when something is ready for a new kernel release.

Here, everyone (let's just talk about the on demand hho generator forum as an example) is off working on their own tangent.  Everyone is 'recreating' (if a working (as advertised) unit has indeed already been created) the 'wheel'.  From the posts I have read from 'believers', this is sound technology, it's just a matter of getting it working correctly.  So, why don't you take some tips from the open source community and organize a "project" -- example, an "on-demand HHO generator that provides an increase in fuel economy by X%".  You could set aside a sticky topic in the correct forum and then let people join the project.  Only members of the project could post in that topic.  Someone could be designated the 'lead' who keeps track of the entire project.  Sub-groups of the project would be created to handle specific parts of the overall project -- 1 group works strictly on the cell (deciding on a particular set of plans (after agreeing on which would be the best starting point) (these folks, if not geographically co-located (which would be great if they were) would each use the exact same plans to build the exact same cell to compare results).  1 group could work on safety issues, 1 on putting together a top-notch set of plans to be provided once the unit was proven, 1 could work on contacting media outlets (whenever there were some real results to report); 1 could be the project 'secretary' and be fed updates from each group each day/week/etc., to post the progress to the forum project topic, 1 group to identify sources for parts, etc., 1 to research what other types of adjustments might have to be made on vehicles and how to go about making them, etc.

This does not preclude non-project members from continuing on their own track and posting in whatever other threads they want in the forum.  They could also, by keeping up with the 'sticky' project thread, use the information provided to build right along with, but independently from, the project.  If someone came up with a better design for any part of the project they could then submit it to the project lead for acceptance or denial into the project.  If accepted, then it would replace whatever part of the project it replaces and group members would begin working on the new plan instead.  Obviously you would want to have a lot of discussion and agreement in the beginning so that this didn't happen too often -- that you work long and hard on a cell only for someone else to come up with a different idea to replace what has been worked on.

There are still differences here from the software community.  The biggest is that you are working on hardware that can't just be e-mailed to all members to test.  That's why it would be useful if at least some of the members of a sub-group were geographically co-located so they could physically work together.  Otherwise, every member of the 'cell sub-group' would need to build the same cell to make sure they all got the same results and agreed that the final product should be accepted by the project.  Probably wouldn't want more than a few members in this kind of sub-group just for that reason.

Once there is a working model, it should then be installed in at least one vehicle (more would be preferable) for extensive, well documented, testing to include pre-update MPG's, performance (whatever you might test for that), post-update MPG's, photos of the install, etc.

[Goat]

@ Stefan & jibbguy & All

Thanks! 

Great points raised and answered in the "Op-Ed News" article. 

There's a lot of positives that could come out of more exposure like this in many more media(s), every day, in order to get the point across to people and politicians that enough is enough and now is the time to release old and new technology to step forward toward COP>1  !!! 

We're already doing it!  So what's the hold up? 

Where's the MEG/TPU/ET AL....On a Wall Mart shelve somewhere?  It's 2008 and people are eating mud to survive

In the mean time, where's all them capacitors again, and where's the Tesla switch....LOL...

Regards,
Paul

[Sprocket]

Yep, very good article.  However imo, the MEG comes across in the article as a "good-to-go" piece of tech - which is clearly not the case!   Even Bearden himself admits building one is fraught will all kind of 'tuning' problems.  Most simply can't get it to work...  Whereas, the infamous TPU comes across as a "maybe/maybe-not" gizmo, even though judging by the number of TPU-related threads here, most think it is far more viable...

[jibbguy]

The second article in the series published today here, it has sections on Moray, Rotoverter, and an interview with **~Imhotep~**  on his Bedini brushless motor rep:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8079

OEN told me they put it on the less prestigious "Diary" area this time instead of under "Sciences"  because i refuse to use my real name (and they recently made that rule). Well, if i published it under "Dick Cheney" it might be confusing for some lol

But anyway the "Digg" function is properly working on it this time so please take a moment to "Digg" it at the top of the page, it will help the movement's exposure and so be seen by more people... And thats the point