|Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:35:19
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.