>Paul,
>I trashed the patient after I reviewed it, but did not read the credentials
>of the inventor. I would be shocked if a Phd wrote wrote this patient
>cause of the lack of detail and the 'way out' nature of it. I'm shocked
>that the scientific community would permit such research as it involves
>the aether, which is a BIG no-no in the education establishment. The
>scientists and physicts of today do NOT acknowledge that there is
>an aether. I would recommend that people look at this patient and
>assess it themselves, but sure sounds 'too far out'.
>
>v/r Ken Carrigan
>
Hi Ken!
A great deal of the work performed at Phillips Laboratory, Edwards AFB
(formerly known as Astronautics Laboratory-Air Force Space Technology
Center) is "far out." Over the years I have been provided with Final Reports
regarding many projects such as,
1. ELECTRIC PROPULSION STUDY
2. FUSION PLASMA THRUSTER
3. 21ST CENTURY PROPULSION CONCEPTFORCE-FREE TIME-4. HARMONIC PLASMOIDS
5. ANTIPROTON AND BEAMED POWER PROPULSION
6. MASS MODIFICATION EXPERIMENT
Plus many more that I would have to pull out of the file-these just happen
to be on my desk. References incluse Brown, King, etc. (those involved with
electric spacecraft propulsion know these references).
Just because they don't call it "free-energy" or "Aether," don't kid
yourself; the government is involved with research into all aspects of
"alternate energy research." The individual scientists involved do have
reputations (your most valuable asset) and use terms such as "Cavity Quantum
Electrodynamics" and "Zero Point Field Potentials" or fluctuations. With
proper terminology, they get funding and do the research. These guys just
don't attend Tesla conferences.
Paul Brown
Again, I can not speak for Dr Mead, but in my case; I did not write my
patents. They were prepared and submitted by my attorney and modified by the
examiner before allowance. In many cases, the printed patent does not
display the disclosure of the inventor!
>