Suggested clarification to TOS

Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by Aleph(0), Jan 5, 2018.

  1. Aleph(0)

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 14, 2015
    So I totally understand when rule says _free energy_ it means _over-unity devices_ which claim more energy output than net energy (which includes energy equivalent of any mass to be converted) input.

    But I think just saying 'discussion of free energy prohibited' can confuse ppl cuz _free_ can just mean cost free to user:cool:! So just for examples of totally mainstream energy sources, after initial investment;

    Direct solar
    (like photovoltaic cells and solar water heaters).
    Indirect solar like fossil fuel and fluid dynamics (so wind and hydroelectric).
    And even just heat pumps.

    All provide some energy free of cost to operator! So sorry to sound like I'm splitting hairs:oops:! But I say present wording can scare ppl with legitimate questions away:(! Tnx!

    Edited by @Aleph(0) to expand text message specific abbreviations.
  2. DickCappels


    Aug 21, 2008
    Note: This is a re-post of a thread that sadly went off-topic. Please keep replies on topic and avoid discussing personalities and writing stles.
    Aleph(0) likes this.
  3. ericgibbs


    Jan 29, 2010
    Hi Aleph(0),
    In the UK during the 1970's, as electricity users, we were told that going nuclear would mean as consumers, electricity would be so cheap, it would be a waste of time sending out power bill's.
    The same is happening now, regarding wind turbines, it so heavily subsidised by the Government, that it costs more to produce the electricity than the consumers are being charged.
    With nuclear, the decommissioning of old power stations and nuclear power station accidents is costing a fortune.

    The Planets fossil fuels are beginning to get more difficult to extract, the damage to the environment of Fracking is one example.

    Having said that, at this time there are no alternatives that can supply the energy demanded by the World's growing population.
    IMO there is no such thing as a free lunch at this time, regarding energy generation.

    Aleph(0) likes this.
  4. Aleph(0)

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 14, 2015
    Ericgibbs Thanks for reading and responding:)! FWIW I meant just purely physical aspects of issue. But I totally understand how politics and economics can change practical picture! So I personally think nuclear power could be practical and acceptable to panicky public if reactors were located in serviceable subterranean vaults below water table! So I know that would phenomenally increase initial cost but I still think it could be viable? Otherwise I say hydroelectric is totally best option but property rights advocates don't like that:eek:!
  5. AlbertHall

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jun 4, 2014
  6. MrChips


    Oct 2, 2009
    shortbus and ericgibbs like this.
  7. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    And off topic we go. ;)
    Aleph(0) likes this.
  8. WBahn


    Mar 31, 2012

    What "present wording" are you talking about?

    The ToS says nothing about "free energy" being a prohibited topic, so just what clarification to the ToS are you recommending?

    The ToS (actually the User Agreement, which is a separate document) prohibits discussion of "Any kind of over-unity devices and systems".

    It sounds like what you are trying to make happen is for members, when responding to threads that delve into this area, to not use the term "free energy" without clarification. Sadly, that is a lost cause -- members will use the terms they want to use and will only clarify them if and when it is apparent to THEM that they need to do so.

    We could put something "(also known as "free-energy" or "perpetual motion machine" in certain contexts)" after the prohibition, but there are probably lots and lots of places that such clarifications could be added so as to cover all the bases of a member base that includes people from a large fraction of all segments of the world's population. At some point, the documents get overcome by their sheer weight.
    Aleph(0) likes this.
  9. Aleph(0)

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Mar 14, 2015
    Wbahn that's just embarrassing! My bad:oops:!

    Wbahn it wasn't even that complicated, It was just me making assumptions and being too lazy to actually read UA:oops:!

    Anyhow huge thanks for reading my post and setting me straight! Also I'm very sorry to have caused all the fuss over a problem that didn't even exist in first place:oops:!