PREFACE This investigation is intended as a stepping stone to methods significantly addressing the Climate Change issue. We wish to partner with the R & D division of a major manufacturer, regularly using Bourdon tubes, based on three scientific facts they currently accept. A supporting letter from Dr. Gorber, past President of SENES Consultants (energy scientists), regarding an associated patented invention (link to patent offices page 12.214), concludes with: “I believe that Mr. Strain's invention will advance the scientific community's understanding of thermodynamics relating to pressurized fluids and energy to a new level. If fully developed the invention has the potential to reduce energy and as a result a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, thus assisting in the battle against climate change.” Practical application must be finalized. To survive together, we must work together. The three accepted facts are: 1) Pascal’s Principal (page 12.216) is valid respecting fluid pressure in a contained volume. 2) The volume of a Bourdon tube does not change on being pressurized. (Industry experts contacted accept this fact or state they have no data on the matter.) 3) The tip of a Bourdon tube exerts a force at its tip as it travels through a distance. The three facts combine into a concept challenging physical laws. When the potential working capability of a Bourdon tube with a lesser range exerts its force on the non-compressible surface of a second Bourdon tube, with a higher range, the work output of the second bourdon tube is greater than the work output of the first Bourdon tube. (illustrated page 12.225) The concluding fact is Work input ˂ Work output. (Winput ˂ Woutput) I urge you to consider the basis for accepting the physical laws established in the 1800's. If the claim is made that anything is unachievable, those making such claims must have all knowledge regarding the subject; past, present and future. There are two recently patented inventions directed at challenging these laws. (Patent office links page 12.214). I’m quite confident the men from the 1800’s did not time travel and refute inventions that challenge their claims. Multiple engineers/scientists/professors have assessed the inventions, which contest the opinion from the 1800’s, but their current challenges contained nothing more than statements of blind faith in the “Laws” or a no contest position. None refuted the mechanical design, control circuitry or logic in the reports given to them. Quoting Einstein: “ A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” If the scientific community does not adjust to thinking creatively and support their opinions with actual science, humanity is headed for disaster. 12.211
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODY1ODQy