Surcharged generator or not?

[perplex]

You say anything, it's not a discovery ...

Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE, are buying mainly ARMS You don't have to be an "expert" to find out, all it takes is a little curiosity. The rest is hack ... (see Tesla they drop)

And especially a little humility when I read that

Which shows that they are probably even more ignorant in politics than in physics, which is saying a lot ...

and that

The disqualification of his interlocutor is a dubious process

The hospital that does not care about charity ...

[Ahmed]

Quote taken out of context and tendentious interpretation ...
I invoked ignorance on a particular point, which does not mean that I called my interlocutor ignorant integral!

[eclectron]

- intimidation of certain lobbies or states that silence, or even permanently, some finders.

To see case by case, but I have more often seen self-proclaimed inventors blinded by their ego.

I concede it willingly, as I said one of the difficulties is to find the flower on a pile of manure.
No irrefutable evidence, we navigate in troubled water, but I have strong presumptions that states put a layer
manure to smother the flowers (misinformation to discredit)
Nature being the strongest, I am hopeful that the pile of manure will be lined with flowers.

[Ahmed]

If we leave aside the question of the possibility of "free energy", which I would like to understand, since this quest motivates you so much, why would it be a good thing? Isn't there already enough energy to transform the planet into an unlivable place?

[izentrop]

I have strong presumptions that states put back a layer
manure to smother the flowers (misinformation to discredit)

Manure and misinformation comes most often from the far right and the rejection of rational thought. http://www.philocours.com/new/corriges/ ... aison.html

[eclectron]

since this quest motivates you so much, how would it be a good thing?
Is not there already enough energy enough to turn the planet into an unbearable place?

As if I did not know your depressive speech * ....
* Obsessive fear of error, of being wrong, of the paralysis of action, prefers to taclter entrenched behind the local consensus or of the time. research any information reinforcing this mental polarization, rejects any information questioning your mental polarization. So much for the objectivity that you show us.

Free energy would be a panacea, solving both global warming and the inevitable decline of the fossil fuels on which we depend, and would evacuate the danger of nuclear energy (waste and accidents) since it has become useless.
I anticipate a little your depressive purr: With a clean and abundant energy, many problems disappear.
The demography calms itself as soon as the standard of living and education rise which goes hand in hand with abundant energy.
In short, I say a thorn less thanks to the free energy (clean and abundant) and you will say one more, since we will enjoy this abundance to destroy everything. Unless you evolved?

[eclectron]

I have strong presumptions that states put back a layer
manure to smother the flowers (misinformation to discredit)

Manure and misinformation comes most often from the far right and the rejection of rational thought. http://www.philocours.com/new/corriges/ ... aison.html

There is no monopoly in this area. (without pun intended)

[Ahmed]

Depression now!
As for the consensus, it is indeed that of action for action, of the "first of the ropes", of the headlong rush of this era which shoots up energy and seeks by all means to obtain new doses: it is in the continuity of this model that you are located!
I fear that I have not evolved to the point of being satisfied with this simplistic reasoning which, however, tries (this is the positive point) to find a way to rectify the situation. Unfortunately, if I follow your logic, it is only satisfactory in appearance, because on the one hand this "free energy" has all the chances of remaining a pure fantasy and on the other hand, more seriously, the consequences you vises are part of magical thinking: suddenly, all contradictions disappear ...
If the wonderful sequel that you call your vows is obviously invisible (since located in the future), we all already know the consequences present. It is a trick of the system to make us believe that by increasing the causes, we could reduce the consequences ... But that's one of the oxymorons that govern us ...

[eclectron]

As for the consensus, it is indeed that of action for action, of the "first of the ropes", of the headlong rush of this era which shoots up energy and seeks by all means to obtain new doses: it is in the continuity of this model that you are located!

I see that nuance is not something you like.
It is not because the energy would be clean and abundant that the same idiots must be repeated ad vitam æternam, whose growth is "obligatory" (linked to the monetary creation) and not necessarily desired by a population having reached a level of satisfactory life.
It seems to me that man has a say in the society he builds (in theory! )
This is not saying "we are all screwed so we do nothing and all the better if everything collapses".
Good for what, it will explain it to me.
It is simply criminal to do nothing if you have the vision and the ability to act.

I'm afraid I have not evolved to the point of being satisfied with this simplistic reasoning

You will have to prove your words, my friend.
Prove that with clean and abundant energy, we run even faster towards a collapse, with irrefutable arguments, as you like.

however, it strives (this is the good thing) to find a way to redress the situation. Unfortunately, if I follow your logic, it is only satisfying in appearance

This judgment only binds you, proves it.

because on the one hand this "free energy" has all the chances of remaining a pure fantasy

Argument irrelevant since, you put yourself in the case, hypothetical certainly, its existence.
To come then to use this argument to justify your position is simply inadmissible.

and on the other hand, more seriously, the consequences you are aiming for come from magical thinking: suddenly, all the contradictions disappear ...

Absolutely not, remain these problems:
- resources in the broad sense,
- food,
- potable water,
- pollution
- preservation of natural ecosystems
- demography (the time that the standard of living and education rise).
Your vision is very simplistic as you like to say for others.
I did say that clean and abundant energy would remove ONE thorn of the foot, not all thorns.
So much remains to be removed and since you are so quick to give lessons, since you know, show what you are able to do, made for the other thorns.
It's so much easier to say, "What's the point, we're all screwed up?"
That with people like you, supporters of this defeatist speech, paralyzed to act by fear, you will be right.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, it's called.

we all know the consequences already.

yes and to come, if no parameters change: the collapse of the world population and ecosystems. A big poo!

It is a trick of the system to make us believe that by increasing the causes, we could reduce the consequences ...

Vision once again distorted by your pessimistic or depressive mental polarization, you will tell me!
Take a country like France, turn all dirty energies and replace them with clean and abundant energy.
We can be self sufficient in all but a few minerals (and then - and then when energy is abundant, recycling is no longer a problem).
Demographics are stable, except for a few populations to educate / empower.
In short, France could be a real paradise, like many countries.
There are many areas of progress in sustainability, including agriculture, the cycle of human waste, etc. .....
With a clean and abundant energy the game is far from won but it is more comfortable to continue playing (smart and not stupid, of course).

In conclusion if the energy becomes clean and abundant, I would say change your scratched disk, we go to mp3 HQ.

On the other hand if this free energy, clean and abundant does not exist where does not appear in time, it is the 2 feet on the brake that it is necessary.
"Clean and sustainable" nuclear power (its molten and thorium, not uranium and pressurized water) can play this role of clean and sustainable energy, for a time of the order of a millennium.
it does not take the way and the deadline of a contraction on the energies gets closer ...

[Ahmed]

Where did you see that I advocate not doing anything above all? What we must refrain from doing is to continue to change our environment faster than it is possible to adapt to it.
As your remarks can be grouped together, I will avoid practicing "sausage" as much as possible.
You write:

It is not because the energy would be clean and abundant that the same idiots must be repeated ad vitam æternam, whose growth is "obligatory" (linked to monetary creation) and not necessarily desired by a population having reached a level of satisfactory life.

As for "the population having reached a satisfactory standard of living", we are already on the slope of decline (the ascending phase being completed).

If you provide the means to continue, why would that change? This necessarily supposes a force of a different nature (impulse coming "from below"), whose existence is more and more restricted, which could resurface if the dominant ones no longer manage to maintain the illusion (which, contrario, would be easy with an abundant energy, whatever the source (hence the interest for "renewable")).
Further:

It seems to me that man has a say in the society he builds (in theory! )

Indeed, it is indeed a political question (and a technical trick is useless on this side there), but "it's the man who makes the story, but not the one he believes"(K. Marx). This is an important nuance since institutions, mainly technico-economic, turn against their creators and enslave them to their modalities. Any system tends to persevere in its being and by modifying the human psyche in its favor can no longer be destroyed except by the exhaustion of its own potentialities or / and the accumulation of its contradictions, that is to say that there are determinisms which are an obstacle to true emancipation.

On the rest, I agree (roughly) that it would be possible to profoundly change things in a way conducive to a better life: the ingredients exist, only opposes a sidereal political vacuum, replaced by the media spectacle ... It is only on this last point that I am pessimistic, or rather realistic.