What does all of this say about our Society, that we turn our backs on those who can really make a difference to this World and we offer no or very little support to encourage them to succeed?

As a housing system the dome can have numerous drawbacks and problems:

The shape of a dome house makes it difficult to conform to code requirements for placement of sewer vents and chimneys. Off-the-shelf building materials (e.g., plywood, strand board) normally come in rectangular shapes; there can be considerably more scrap, left from cutting rectangles down to triangles, than with a conventional building approach, thus driving costs up. Fire escapes are problematic; codes require them for larger structures, and they are expensive. Windows conforming to code can cost anywhere from five to fifteen times as much as windows in conventional houses. Professional electrical wiring costs more because of increased labor time. However, even owner-wired situations are costly, because more of certain materials are required for dome construction.

Air stratification and moisture distribution within a dome are unusual, and these conditions tend to quickly degrade wooden framing or interior paneling. Privacy is difficult to guarantee because a dome is difficult to partition satisfactorily. Sounds, smells, and even reflected light tend to be conveyed through the entire structure.

As with any sloping shape, the dome produces wall areas that can be difficult to use and leaves some peripheral floor area with restricted use due to lack of headroom. This can leave a volume that may require heating – representing a cost in energy – but that cannot be lived in. Circular plan shapes lack the simple modularity provided by rectangles. Furnishers and fitters usually design with flat surfaces in mind, and so placing a standard sofa (for example) results in a half-moon behind the sofa being wasted. This is best overcome by purpose-built fittings, though it adds to cost.

Dome builders using cut-board sheathing materials find it hard to seal domes against rain, because of their many seams; as well, these seams may be stressed because ordinary solar heat flexes the entire structure each day as the sun moves across the sky.

The most effective waterproofing method with a wooden dome is to shingle the dome. One-piece reinforced concrete or plastic domes are also in use, and some domes have been constructed from plastic or waxed cardboard triangles that are overlapped in such a way as to shed water. Buckminster Fuller's former student J. Baldwin states that there is no reason for a properly designed, well-constructed dome to leak, and that some designs cannot leak (Bucky Works: Buckminster Fuller's Ideas for Today). However, Lloyd Kahn, after writing two books on the subject (Domebook 1 and Domebook 2), became disillusioned with domes. He calls domes "smart but not wise" [2], and has collected many of the criticisms given above.

What does all of this say about our Society, that we turn our backs on those who can really make a difference to this World and we offer no or very little support to encourage them to succeed?

perpetual energy and other promising inventions

Inventors have tried to devise machines that work by themselves, and move without applied effort. The basic idea is to move a weight horizontally away from an axis, which requires much less effort than lifting the weight. The weight is then allowed to fall. At its lowest point, it is moved back closer to the axis, where an equal weight farther from the axis can lift it back up without external effort. Many means of doing this were proposed, and models built, but they all refused stubbornly to work. Some of us can see clearly that the falling of the weight can do a certain amount of work, but an equal amount of work must be spent to raise the weight to its original level, so the best we can do is break even. Inventors are led astray by the introduction of lever arms and torques, which do not change the situation. The principle of conservation of energy is so deeply engrained these days that it provides an irresistible refutation of any device that produces work with no other change in the universe. For most people, even scientists, it is accepted uncritically, like something said loudly three times before breakfast. However, the common observation that mechanical energy does seem to disappear without trace nourished the hope that perhaps the opposite also occurred. We can get energy from temperature differences, which is as close to perpetual motion as the universe comes. It is, in fact, the inverse to the disappearance of mechanical energy by friction. Oddly, it depends on the fact that matter is molecular, but that is another story!

Now that mechanics is so well known, perpetual motion is looked for in less well understood effects, involving electricity, magnetism or gravity, or fuels from water, and such like. The Dean Drive of a few decades ago was a vibrating device that was supposed to jump up more than it jumped down, so that it could propel a rocket without any external effect. The United States Patent Office will issue you a patent for perpetual motion. An early decision to throw out all such claims prima facie was reversed when a disappointed inventor shot a patent officer. Perpetual movers tend to be unbalanced, and it isn't worth human life.

What does all of this say about our Society, that we turn our backs on those who can really make a difference to this World and we offer no or very little support to encourage them to succeed?

He's created a motor that does not slow down when it produces energy, it speeds up. He's been lambasted for referring it to as a perpetual motion machine (a bit of a misnomer), but he does believe that if perfected it could be used to create vehicles and energy sources that no longer rely on oil.

Last week I visited the Biosphere in Montreal. It's a sphere that now houses a museum dedicated to a modern-day Leonardo Davinci (Bucky they called him), someone who devoted his life to inventing environmentally friendly inventions. He found a way to build incredibly strong dome-shaped houses that were more energy efficient than the ones we currently have and could be built at half the cost. However, he was stopped from manufacturing them because of "obstacles" and building regulations. In fact, overcoming obstacles proved to prevent him from keeping any of his inventions to coming to fruition in the marketplace.

Of course, like all domes, geodesic domes provide an enclosed space free of structural supports. Domes are very strong, actually getting stronger as they get larger. The basic structure can be erected very quickly from lightweight pieces by a small crew. Domes as large as fifty meters have been constructed in the wilderness from rough materials without a crane. The dome is also aerodynamic, so it withstands considerable wind loads, such as those created by hurricanes. Solar heating is possible by placing an arc of windows across the dome: the more heating needed, the wider the arc should be, to encompass more of the year.

Today there are many companies that sell both dome plans and frame material with instructions designed simply enough for owners to build themselves, and many do to make the net cost lower than standard construction homes. Construction techniques have improved based on real world feedback over sixty years and many newer dome homes can resolve nearly all of the disadvantages below that were more true of the early dome homes.

Of all known structures made from linear elements, a geodesic dome has the highest ratio of enclosed volume to weight.

From an engineering perspective, geodesic domes are far superior to traditional right-angle post-and-beam constructions. Traditional constructions are a far less efficient use of materials, are far heavier, are less stable, and rely on gravity to stand up.

However, there are some notable drawbacks to geodesic constructions as well. Although extremely strong, domes react to external stresses in ways that confound traditional engineering.

I once watched a programme on a motor that ran on water, and could have replaced all need for motors that ran on oil. The inventor built it in the 1970s. He was approached by the Oil Companies and offered $1 billion simply for not publishing it. He wanted to help the world, so he refused. Then they threatened his life. Then attacks were made on his life. He was still in hiding, as his life was still threatened.

Consdpiracy Theory ... from someone that allegedly has no respect for any scientific theory .. prove it ...

There was a mythical car that ran JUST on water, it was mooted as long ago as the 50's, and there are a number of stories about it. About how the oil companies have never heard of it. About how 2 reporters went looking for the guy, and the car had mysteriously disappeared. So there has never been any proof. It was supposedly water and some additive but it has NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST!

The Tesla electric car anecdote refers to a supposed invention of Nikola Tesla related by a Peter Savo to one Derek Ahers on Sept. 16, 1967. Savo claimed that Tesla took him to Buffalo, New York in 1931 and showed him the automobile, a modified Pierce Arrow. The stock engine had been removed and replaced with a brushless AC electric motor. The motor was said to have been powered by a “power receiver” consisting of a box measuring about 24” long by 10” wide by 6” high containing 12 radio tubes and connected to a 6-foot long antenna.

The car was said to have been driven for about 50 miles at speeds of up to 90 mph during an 8-day period. This story has received some debate for the fact that the car’s propulsion system is said to have been invented by Tesla. No physical evidence has been produced confirming that the car ever existed.

In light of the fact that Tesla did not have a nephew by the name of Peter Savo, the Tesla electric car story is considered to be a fabrication. A number of web pages exist that serve to perpetuate the tale. [1] Every account of this purported demonstration auto is based upon the 1967 story plus literary embellishment.