I hope your technology is not exploiting zero point vacuum energy to it's absolute zero point. If you could do that it could trigger a chain reaction that would obliterate the whole universe in a wave of destruction spreading out unstoppably at the speed of light from your device. Even if you build safeguards into it others could perhaps modify it into such a doomsday beast, and some idiot would be bound to try.
It operates at room temperature but I have considered introducing cold temperatures (not Absolute Zero) and a vacuum. I've never seen anyone achieve absolute zero in temperature as it requires a escalating amount of energy to attain that. There could be new discoveries I haven't seen with respect to AZ but I haven't gone down that road yet. Colder temperatures are valuable because it introduces super conductivity to the equation and that is essential as energy increases. For example, if I were to use copper to extract the energy then as the current increases the heat in the copper increases and will eventually melt - this would essentially turn off the extraction.
There are lots of options and science that can be used for siphoning off the energy but at present I'm keeping it at lower levels and confining it to smaller applications (motors, houses, small industrial).
My feeling is that there is no point in holding back if you have discovered something that would revolutionise the world's energy supply (but without destroying all of space and time of course). If it's something that can be demonstrated in your garage then others will be close to the same discovery as you, and at least some of those others will have far less scruples than you about the social consequences. If this is at the core of what you are asking then:
What other people have done is speculation. Anything is possible.
It's a poker game. If someone else has discovered it, and I expect the MIC has, then there is no incentive for them to release it to the public. The energy created can be utilized to monopolize every industry because the cost to operate would
always be lower than their competition. They could start with the industries that increase cash flow and then move into other industries with higher operating cost. The only reason to introduce it to the public would be if someone else introduced it and even then it's only if your competition (who showed their hand) is performing better than you.
If the MIC is already using it in junction with AI, and we know the pentagon has already started down the path of AI, then the development times will be decreasing exponentially.
Who has access to this technology is speculative on my part but the pentagon is denying or evading questions. Of course the MIC can do whatever it wants in the private sector and the government can maintain plausible deniability.
But you are expecting your intervention would lead to the removal of what you consider to be the evil people from world leadership. An unlimited free energy device won't do this by itself - as others have said, any technology can be used by humans for both good and evil. I can imagine some folks would be more capable of exploiting it than others and would become an alternate set of possibly evil leaders. Even worse, it could well be that you would release a technology that could be set up in a garage which could be practically unlimited in the energy it accesses - that would be like nuclear reactions being possible in someone's living room, and all the nutters out there would maybe try to create megaton energy explosions with it, or release something like the fiendfyre in Harry Potter.
The problem I have with the wicked is that they have being preventing this type of technology from being available to everyone. They want to maintain the status quo because it benefits them. Why allow it get out when they can tell you no, take your shit, and then get rid of you so that it never surfaces again.
I don't believe this type of energy source would "remove" evil people from world leadership, but I do believe the introduction of this technology to everyone would level the playing field, remove fear from competitors, and create a balance to the power structures. There are some leaders / countries that would start attacking immediately and there are also people who would pool together to specifically start trying to remove those that are using governmental power to create unfair economic conditions. How far people and countries would go is limited to the risk-reward they are willing to assume.
My tech is not explosive; however, I'd have to look into your ZP claims and avoid that if it actually does what you say. I don't see that as being a problem.
I'm an engineer by trade and not a scientist.
On the other hand, if your technology had more ramifications than the simply physical then there are other things to consider. If for example it was a technology that could also directly alter the way people think without any volition from them then it would be intrinsically evil in my book, because that freedom of will we possess is what lies at the very root of our humanity. To remove it is a very great wrong and is at the heart of tyranny.
No mind control has been attempted or observed. Of course, energy can be used to alter thought so that would be an application of energy and only secondary to the creation of it.
Just one other thought - I'm assuming that you have actually built a device that demonstrates the validity of your idea in practical terms. Far-fetched claims need extraordinary evidence and a verification or falsification of your idea is at the heart of good science and technology. Not only the theory needs verifying, but so does the technology - for instance interstellar warp drives are theoretically quite possible, but are totally impractical at the present time. I am of course very skeptical that you have a way of constructing a device such as you are claiming - I don't mean I disbelieve it, but that it remains an unproven claim until you demonstrate otherwise. All moral and logistic concerns are secondary to this because it becomes a science fiction thought experiment if the idea simply doesn't work (or destroys the universe LOL!).
I've probably rambled on enough now - hopefully these thoughts will give you something to work with.
I wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't working - that would be pointless.
Again, its a poker match so there is no point to publication, and verification. Plenty of people have attempted to patent similar solutions and the patent office is not working in an inventors favor. For example, if a patent is filed in the US then everything has to be disclosed and verified. At the same time the government will have full access to the details to use for their own pursuits while the patent office decides if they want to allow anyone to make an actual claim. The patent office is a sketchy place. Similarly, China and other countries that don't observe any intellectual property rights (except their own) will gain access to patents immediately and start using it in any way they see fit.
I get what your saying when it comes to proving the science but I honestly don't see a benefit to proving anything to anyone because there is only a downside to doing it.
The only thing that logically makes sense is to use the tech to grow the economics and then use the economics to create a culture that changes the existing paradigm. Like I've said, I have a pathway to achieve this but it has drawbacks which have to be checked and balanced - this is a social issue and not one of a technical nature. The good news is that nobody trusts the existing governments and social systems these days and the people have desired change for decades.
has to be a hot tub time machine, or some new combination of fentanyl and meth called feth or mentanyl!
