While I don't seem to have as much free time on my hands as many others =
of these lists have, I'm trying my best to ultimately reply to everyone. =
My order of priority in choosing which ones to reply to first is based =
on my guess of how many readers will have their questions and concerns =
answered by any one of my replies. Yours is one of them.
You wrote:
>As you are probably aware there are a lot of fellow researchers out =
here
>that have been hanging tough for a long time now. Claims come and go =
and
>patience wears thin as the years roll by. Jerry has refered to your
>disclosure method as a 'tease', and it is, isn't it. But, you have
>generated an interest level in your claims which reflects our human
>reaction to being teased. I'm sure this is not accidental on your =
behalf.
>You play the game well. But it is the 'end game' that really counts, =
don't
>you think?
While my motives do not include teasing anyone, you're right, it is a =
tease. And, yes, our approach is meant to maximize the interest level =
in our claims, BECAUSE it is the "end game" that really counts. But I =
want to emphasize that drawing attention to ourselves for the sake of =
the attention is so far removed from our true motives that the =
possibility that we would become the center of attention was actually a =
factor AGAINST our decision to make the initial announcement. Yet, the =
potential benefit of our announcement far outweighed the negative side =
of our getting this kind of attention, so we decided to go ahead with =
it. To expand on this, I'll include part of a private reply that I am =
currently composing for another individual. I encourage everyone to =
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
WHY THE COUNTDOWN....
Our only goal in making the "announcement" with a countdown was to =
"raise a flag", so to speak, to let everyone know that we will be =
disclosing some VERY significant revolutionary discoveries very soon, so =
that anyone who was in a position to become our financial business =
partner would be given the opportunity (along with us) to get a head =
start on the competition. It's as simple as that. If there are no =
"takers", then we follow through with full public disclosure which would =
permanently close the window of opportunity for anyone getting any =
significant head start on competition, including ourselves. The playing =
field would essentially have been leveled. The motive is simpler than =
what some may think it is. There is no "hidden" agenda (unless you call =
our private charities such). (BTW, our private charities are NOT =
ourselves, as some have eluded to.)
For many years now, we have been trying to find a financial partner =
while, at the same time, not letting the "wrong" people know that we =
"really have something". This has turned out to be sort of a catch-22 =
situation. We must make contacts in our search, but in making contacts, =
we may inadvertently alert the "enemy" (of F/E). The risk has been that =
we could end up losing everything we've worked for. Well, a few weeks =
ago, we decided that it was time to go ahead and just give it all away =
to everyone. Time is nearly up for our own goals to be achieved, so =
continuing to wait indefinitely for the right "break" was no longer =
logical. In making this decision, what we stood to lose in making =
contacts was no longer of any consequence. Suddenly, we were free to =
make as many contacts as possible. But the window of opportunity would =
have to opened and quickly closed and be seen by everyone in order to =
maximize our chances of succeeding in finding the right partner. Any =
lengthy drawn-out search process would ultimately fail. It would either =
happen quickly or not at all because being seen by everyone also means =
being seen by those who want F/E research stopped. In our view, we =
needed to move quickly in our final search and then, if the search =
fails, follow up with full disclosure before the enemies of F/E could =
have a chance to stop the proliferation of what we know. If, when this =
window in time closes, we get "left out in the cold" and don't achieve =
compensation for all our years of hard work, oh well, at least we tried =
everything possible, and we are now ready to live with that possibility. =
Beforehand... we were not.
You wrote:
>I have a question for you. You mentioned in a previous post that you =
have
>not proved (i.e. physically demonstrated) your claim of over-unity
>operation of your concept in a self-running device. I can only assume =
that
>you have proved certain aspects of your work to your own satisfaction, =
but
>have fallen short in demonstrating the self running machine which your
>theory predicts. You have stated that application of your principle, in
>creating a self-running device, would require precise manufacturing
>processes which you don't have access to - hence the need for funding. =
This
>being so, then if and when we arrive at the end of this countdown =
period
>and you publically disclose as stated, how may we validate your work =
with
>an operational device if that is beyond our fabrication abilities? If
>fabrication of a self-running device is beyond our abilities, then what
>value is there in offering public disclosure to a bunch of people that
>experiment with and build things?
>To recap: Assuming I eventually view your disclosure material, will it
>allow me to produce a self-running demonstration prototype or will I =
have
>to wait for some large company to produce it for me?
The only reason we don't have access to the precise manufacturing =
techniques is... finances. To date, we have not been in a position to =
afford to spend the thousands or potentially tens of thousands of =
dollars it will take to built the first reproducible repeatable fully =
U/O device. We no longer can wait for the day when we will. It is our =
opinion that soon "time will be up" for us to be able to take advantage =
of the opportunities that are associated with being the first to advance =
these concepts. As I have said before, others are close to achieving =
equally revolutionary discoveries if not the same discoveries. This =
will cause our work to be lost in the flurry of F/E development efforts =
that will then exist. We either act now or it will never happen for us.
As far as the F/E community's ability to validate our work, true it will =
depend on your personal resources for fabrication. If you can only =
depend on your own stock-pile of ordinary shop tools and skill-sets, =
then you will probably need to "farm out" some of the more difficult =
precision parts if you plan to succeed. Otherwise, I would venture to =
say that you would suffer the same deficiencies we are dealing with. We =
do not expect EVERYONE to be able to construct working devices from our =
disclosures and the only limiting factor would be the potential cost. I =
am hoping that someone out there will be able to apply their mechanical =
engineering expertise to what we disclose and device a less expensive =
device that is based on the same physics but uses a more innovative =
approach that will ultimately allow it to be built using ordinary shop =
tools and equipment, and then make those plans available to everyone. =
We do not claim to have the secrets for the best application of our =
discoveries. We only claim to have the secrets of the physics behind =
such technology. Anyone who fully understands what we will be =
disclosing will have all the knowledge required to succeed in building a =
device that is guaranteed to work.
Here's an analogy that might help you to understand what I am trying to =
convey.
Would it be possible for a person living today with a good understanding =
of electric motor technology and access to the right base materials and =
parts to be able to construct a small working electric motor from =
scratch. Yes, of course it would possible. Now, let's ask the same =
question for a person that lived before the discovery of electricity. =
Of course, he would not be able to. Why? It is the knowledge of the =
physics of electricity and a basic schematic of how to apply that =
physics toward the construction of an electric motor that makes the =
difference. We will be providing everyone with the clearly explained =
knowledge of the physics of vortex O/U and at least one basic =
construction schematic. Imagine the scrutiny that would have resulted =
if, in the year 1700, a person announced the discovery of a new physics =
(electricity) that would allow the construction of a device that could =
provide significant mechanical torque through a turning shaft without =
the aid of a man, animal, water wheel or windmill to power that shaft. =
That person would have become a laughing stock, called a crackpot and =
thrown out of town. That is exactly what is happening now, only now =
it's another new physical principle previously unknown to mankind that =
can provide the power to turn to shaft.
I sincerely hope this finally answers some of everyone's questions. The =
time I have available to allocate to these explanations is very limited. =
I have made some real sacrifices (timewise) in order to help satisfy =
most everyone and I will continue to do that as best I can. I must say, =
it's a real joy to do so but, as you can imagine, there are other =
matters that need my attention...3rd party validation negotiations and =
such.
Thanks for reading.
Best Wishes,
ZPE
http://freeweb.pdq.net/zpe