| Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:35:19
-0500
Dear LariAnn,
That is exactly what
we are hoping some of the young fellows will be able to do.
To work in the area,
one has to have the funds to do it. Contrary to ordinary EM work, the
moment one works "outside" the actual models and handbooks, one is
immediately into full basic research where all the rules can be off.
The only way to really do that is to do deliberate test matrix buildups,
where certain things gradually emerge. However, when you look at the
cost of such research, figures like several hundred thousand dollars or
a few million dollars immediately stare one in the face.
One has to develop the
phenomenology, which is multi-disciplinary, e.g. Well, in our case we
need a specialist in geometric phase, a specialist in particle physics,
one in nonlinear resonance theory (nonlinear resonance is very, very
different from the ordinary linear resonance), one in CONTROL of
nonlinear resonance (one has to use the Russian system here, because the
U.S. control system will have one chasing strange attractors for the
next 20 years, while the Russian system will get on with it and allow
the control to be achieved). One also needs a specialist in higher
group symmetry electrodynamics (the area cannot even be described in the
standard old electrical engineering or in trade school electricity).
One also needs a computer nonlinear physics modeling specialist, since
such a model has to be developed and "fitted" to the results of numerous
phenomenology experiments --- before one can even scale-up and design
units suitable for powering!
This part of research
-- where one goes from a successful little laboratory bench experiment
to something that is the beginning of a technology and allowing buildup
of useful and stable power units --- is the "sheer vertical cliff" where
some millions of dollars are required. (Just try pricing out all those
specialist, the necessary lab and equipment, at least one
secretary/receptionist), and watch the size of the numbers grow
alarmingly.
This is the sheer
vertical cliff that has so far defeated all the legitimate overunity
researchers. Either one tackles it right, and gets it done (which is
very expensive), or one tries to "get lucky" and "just do it by trial
and error". The woods out there are full of those who continue to try
it by trial and error; many are on the internet pontificating as if they
already knew all the phenomenology involved, when they've never even
seen a successful overunity COP system taking its energy from the
vacuum!
The problem is the
scientific mindset prohibits any legitimate funding being obtained for
this phase of research (i.e., exploratory research). So one is left with
venture capitalists -- and they will only fund it if you already have
performed that exploratory research, and have a "robust demonstrator"
powering lots of things and just about ready to go into production.
If one has the robust
generator, one doesn't need venture capitalists since then one can raise
the necessary capital on front-end license fees alone. If one doesn't
have the robust generator, he is then cut off from all legitimate
sources of funding.
So it's the chicken
and egg situation. If one had the chicken, one could get the egg, and
if one had the egg, one could get the chicken. But without one of them,
one cannot get the other either.
So the answer is to
just put out all the solid information one can, e.g. on the Internet.
That is exactly what we are trying to do. The intent is to get the
necessary factual information -- with solid references in physics ---
out there to the young tigers coming along. Then after us old dogs are
long dead and gone, they will not have to spend 30 years of their lives
just getting to this point. They can start here and go much farther.
With enough of them knowing the real information, they will be able to
get it done.
So since that is
apparently just about our only course of action available, that is what
we are doing as fast as we can, thanks to the help of some stalwart
colleagues such as Craddock, Rieker, Stockton, Anderson, and Barbour and
a few others.
Hope that answers your
question. I know of several other legitimate COP>1.0 systems, and all
have the same problem: they need that infusion of exploratory
development money to get up that sheer vertical cliff to the "robust
demonstrator" that is the pre-production prototype.
Lots of inventors have
been to this same point over the last century.
Not one of them has
successfully made it to the top of the cliff yet.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
LariAnn |