Frequently Asked
Questions 4 of 6
concerning SVP, John Worrell Keely and His Discoveries
Answers given by Dale
Pond. FAQ1 - FAQ2 - FAQ3 - FAQ4 - FAQ5 - FAQ6
Q 100) How can this basic knowledge of SVP be
applied to meditation practices?
A 100) SVP helps us understand WHY we
meditate which understanding permits us to let go of confusion and
questioning that we may allow ourselves to accept or allow the
meditative experience to be reflective of that NOW quietness.
Q 101) Dear Dale: Is there a book besides
"The
Physics of Love" in which I can learn the basics of SVP?
A 101) The Physics of Love
is a compiled work resulting from me going through hundreds of other
books and thousands of pages of research from other people. If there is
another book out there with SVP basics I want to know about it! Please
send me a copy! The next best source is 1) my web site, then the 2) SVP
Forum, then 3) the SVP Cosmology which is THE
definitive source for learning SVP.
Q 102) It can be misleading to present
Keely's ideas as unique to him without a bit of context. Anyone
familiar with the history of physics knows the role of Einstein in
replacing the aether
model following the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. There were
others besides Keely who were exploring the nature of the aether
and many were on the vibrating medium trail until M-M and Einstein
buried it. It still remains the heart of free-energy research for many
to this day.
A 102) Next time someone says
the ether
theory has been proved void ask them which definition of ether
was proved false? Ether, we have learned, is the quantum soup being
explored by science to this day. Don't be fooled or misled.
Q 103) Anyone familiar with the history
of physics knows the role of Einstein in replacing the aether
model following the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. There were
others besides Keely who were exploring the nature of the aether
and many were on the vibrating medium trail until M-M and Einstein
buried it. It still remains the heart of free-energy research for many
to this day.
A 103) I presume everyone who can think
knows the MM experiment only proved those two guys couldn't measure ether
with the equipment they used - nothing more. This "work" of theirs
could not possibly prove or disprove ether one way of the other.
BTW, their definition of ether was considerably
different than Keely's - the one who could measure and work with it -
according to his definitions. That the ether theory was buried is no
mystery only the why and who remains so... Any sincere one who has
really studied Keely knows he had a different kind of "ether"
than the others working on it which may explain why he was successful
and the others not. Also the orbiting electron theory, the heart of
modern physics (which includes E=mc^2), is crashing and about to burn.
Michelson's daughter wrote in his biography (Master of
Light?) he died believing in the ether and was disappointed he
could not prove it....
Q 104) As an aside, the phenomenon of the
making of Einstein (and his theories) into a popular icon is only
rivaled by the success of Freud in this century and Darwin in the last.
There are many reasons other than objective fact that go into the
making of consensus reality.
A 104) It may be shown in the
not-to-distant future that the "successes" of Freud and Darwin are
currently over-celebrated. Basic premises of each may be considered
"good stuff" but more insights into humanity and its history are coming
from behind the general frauds sufficient to allow the development of
more comprehensive and hopefully more accurate revelations. ACIM
is an example. Both men's work has been shot threw with so many holes
they are wobbling now. Psychoanalysis is all but dead already.
Evolution is about to be killed off by materialist/spiritualist science
with the revelation Time and Space do not really exist. ?!?!? This
includes the Einsteinian posturings too. Popularization of theories
(for whatever motive, see below) is not the same as so-called
"scientific" proofs and/or demonstrations. This is cool stuff ... what
is "science"? Is
it a whore for sale to the highest bidder or when convenient? Or is it
a cold-hard-look for truth regardless of whose sacred cow, belief
system and fat contract gets skewered?
Q 105) What is really misleading (and
irritating) is the loose use of attribution in promoting Keely's ideas
on the SVP website and works of Dale Pond. It smacks of an agenda to
show Keely right rather than proving/disproving a scientific theory. As
an example, the novel Dashed Against the Rocks was
authored by the theosophist William Colville and published in 1894. In
the preface, Colville gives Keely all the credit for the technical
dissertations. How accurate was that transcription? Yet, we are
repeatedly fed those lines as if they came directly from the mind and
pen of Keely.
A 105) If one cannot believe what one is
reading why read anything? If one cannot trust their sources then one
cannot trust anything? (Irritation is of the ego - it comes from fear.
Sorry to see you suffering.) If showing certain theory is more or less
correct happens to validate Keely as the originator of those theories
what is the beef? Sorry to say Einstein and his cultist followers are
doomed to revision - as are all "great" theoretical postulations. It is
the way the world of "science" works. We have the sources and quotes we
have. If you have better then please present them. Some of us have
spent a lot of time researching materials and are fairly sure of their
origin and sufficiency - enough to give us a premise and base to work
from - until Keely's science journals and books make an entry or our
self-financed research proves otherwise. There are a number of agendas
going on in this forum. One is to present work that demonstrates
principles. Another agenda (there are more) is the search for more
understanding thus lending further support of the theoretical base to
the demonstrations in actual hardware and life. These two efforts are a
two pronged effort designed to yield up greater applicable wisdom and
technology. We work with what we have to work with. What is being
presented is what we have to present. No one, especially me, can
present that which they do not have. So to complain about not seeing
what you want ("valid" or "perfect" and "proven" data) is no reflection
on my efforts but may be on your expectations.
As for Colville, do you know who he was? Have you read any of
his many books? You would be amazed if you did. Supposedly he and Keely
were best of buddies. After reading some of Colville's works I can
clearly understand some of their relationship. And I did laugh when I
understood!!! How silly we can sometimes be!!! Just because one may
choose to be unhappy or ungrateful with the paucity of FREE data on
this forum does in no way imply more data is not existent. More
research and thinking might go a long way to alleviating frustrations
and "irritations". My suggestion is READ MORE before choosing to be
irritated or unhappy..... ha! ha! when you discover who Colville was
you will laugh too........ :) if Theo had put that in his book
(did he know?) or if I knew it earlier you might not be complaining
so....
Q 106) The Snell Manuscript is another
example of the above, along with the way Bloomfield-Moore's
writings are referenced. Not to mention the chapter from Parker's
Quadrature of the Circle that happens to reappear somewhere else as the
work of Keely. The Keely story is fascinating in part because of this
enigmatic interplay between fact and fiction, truth and fraud. Here is
a good place to plug Theo Paijman's book for it does show the rich soup
of ideas that Keely operated in.
A 106) Like I've said so many times
before: we present the information as we have it. I have the ORIGINAL Snell
Manuscript in the event you wish to examine it in detail. I
also have a photocopy of Parker's book "Quadrature of the Circle".
These are what they are and no more, sad to say. Material is referenced
as best we can. If you desire a special FORM of presentation of that
data then that is your issue. Form is all important, right? Even more
so than substance? Not being "properly" educated in fit and form so as
to massage people's expectations is not in my soup, I'm not sorry to
say. As to the Parker enigma well it is an enigma I think will
eventually be resolved. The material appears verbatim in Parker's book
and also appears word for word above Keely's name in Bloomfield-Moore
's "Keely and His Discoveries".
You make the determination - a little research would help. Right now it
is as you say attributed to both men. Do you know who Parker was? Have
you read any of his other works? In this regard I applaud Theo's
constant digging after the history of these people and revealing their
interconnectedness. I went after the books Bloomfield-Moore
referenced with the idea of reading what Keely read so I could develop
the same mind-set so as to facilitate understanding what he was saying.
My strategy worked. Now to understand who all these people were can
only be approached in a similar fashion. Some of this work between
Keely and Colville or Parker or Hughes may be like Ben
Iverson and myself. So much of his work
published under his name originated with me. Some of my work came from
him as also from Keely, Tyndall, Jeans, and so many others. 100 years
from now who is going to say which work came from which? Let's get real
with these seeming ambiguities. The material is what it is. We can
choose to be happy about what we have to work with (which isn't much)
and be grateful or we can choose to be less than happy.
Q 107) It was Einstein, in his study of
black-body radiation, that paved the way for quantum physics even
though he personally was philosophically opposed to its conclusions. It
was the relationship between frequency and energy that prompted the
notion that the energy spectrum is not continuous. The rest, as they
say, is history. Which is to say that Einstein did not produce E=mc^2
out of an environmental vacuum, so to speak. It solved a problem.
A 107) Good for him. The famous equation
is simply an effort to resolve so much energy/matter dynamics to a
simple equation. There is far more to energy and matter and especially
now that we know there is a Mind connection. The fundamentals of the
force/matter equations goes back to the 1850s. Everyone was working on
those concepts. Keely took them to levels not yet understood while some
faltered and some gained notoriety. Very interesting reading is Grant
Allen's "Force and Energy", 1888 and
Sinclair's "Lux Naturae"
just to name a couple. These are but tiny windows into that era and the
scientific thinking preceding Einsteinian domination. There was a
richness in exploration and understanding not seen since, until the
resurrection of SVP that is. You see the same fraud that has been
foisted onto the social and political realms during the past 100 or so
years also was cast upon the sciences. There is just as much fraud in
science as there is in schooling, politics, religions and money.
Skimming through history to sort the chaff from the wheat as Theo did
in historical pervue and I've been doing in technical SVP and so many
others are doing in their respective areas of interest is revealing
this fraud and the truth is coming out all over the world thanks to the
marvel that is the internet. It is a tragedy that so many have
misplaced so much faith in these trappings for so long, ala the MM
story. Our slumber is ending and the revelations are sometimes
"irritating" to many to wake up from their dream realizing they've been
misplacing their trust and faith in so many wrong "experts", places and
modes of thinking and believing. This forum is about sorting the chaff
from the wheat concerning Keely and SVP. If we knew all the facts
already (and could hand them up on a platter for FREE) we would be
duplicating the work already.
Q 108) The historical tragedy is that the
papers and machines that Keely actually did produce are largely
missing. The question of why and where seems more compelling in real
life than turning what we do have into the final answer. Keely's
promoter's raised a ton of money in capital (tens of millions in
today's dollars), yet had nothing but a "secret" to show for it.
A 108) Tragedy? I think, personally, it
was a blessing. As you come to understand more about SVP and its
potential you will eventually agree with me on this. Yes, where indeed
are Keely's research papers and inventions? Why have they been hidden
from the world? Could you understand them if they were present? Do you
understand the little we do have? During the Atlin
project I asked Keely about this and his answer was the same
as above. "Do you understand that which you already have?" His material
is still in existence albeit hidden and will come forth when the time
is right - whenever that is. I've said for years that if those
documents were before us today there is not a soul on earth who could
read, understand and apply them - including me. The spiritual side
comes in as a form of gratitude and appreciation for what we do have -
even if it is mostly offered for FREE. Keely's promoters were primarily
interested in money - not technology. There was not the emphasis placed
on technology in those pre-technology days as there is today. The
general value system(s) in the 1880s was considerably different than
our's today. And this concept should have been apparent to all readers
of Theo's book. Bloomfield-Moore was
interested in science sufficient to advance humankind and demonstrated
her integrity by putting her money, effort and reputation where her
mouth was. How many do so today?
Q 109) The validation of Keely's ideas
rests in their application. Was he able to demonstrate them to a
skeptical world? Certainly not in writing or math, only by his machines
and, some say, his character. Did they work as described? How hard is
it to demonstrate a new mechanical truth? Why all the failed promises?
These are tough questions, but not overly harsh. The same ones that one
would ask a Mr. Dennis Lee, no?
A 109) It is interesting you sneak in
Dennis Lee. Does this imply you think Keely is a fraud? Do you think
Dennis Lee is a fraud? I think the jury is still out on both. Here
again we see an assumption ruling reason. Simply because Keely's
writings are not available does not mean they were never created and do
not exist. I can sympathize with your frustration at not having more
FREE information. Now you are knowing the frustrations I've put up with
for many years. But I'm not gonna whine about not having such and such
handed to me on a platter for FREE. I've embarqued on my search to
learn and this forum and my web site are testiments to that past and
continuing effort to answer questions like yours and many more than I
can count or innumerate. Application of Keely's work is wholly
dependent on understanding it. Who among us can say they understand? If
so then where is the working hardware? So far as I know the only
hardware remotely possible of applying SVP successfully is Atlin sitting in the other room. I
like Bloomfield-Moore's
so very honest approach: putting up her own cash, effort and reputation
for what she believed in. She also courageously blasted those who
mindelessly attacked Keely's efforts all the while whining and
complaining he didn't hand the secrets of the universe over to them for
FREE.
Here is another FREEBIE: Let me just say this and it is
entirely my theory based on my years of research and thinking about
these issues and also reinforced by spiritual/mind communication
of the points covered. Early on (mid 1880s) in Keely's work he
understood the significance of his work and had a glimpse at its
potential misuse as weaponry, etc. being a man of integrity he chose
not to reveal most of his work but to preserve it for the future so he
would not be blamed for all the destruction wraught by others with his
discoveries which he researched out for the BETTERMENT of humankind -
not its destruction or his enrichment. He and others with him felt
mankind would not be well served if it had access to unlimited power
which would be used for destructive purposes. The materials were
purposefully hidden to be unearthed at a later date. This propensity
for destruction and control was demonstrated shortly thereafter in all
the wars since initiated by the nefarious Hegelian
manipulators, who by the way, had Keely and later Tesla
surrounded for control purposes. (They were afraid, see?, of these guys
and their technologies. So they tried to control it and/or them.) When
humankind is READY (already covered in this forum) this knowledge will
be made available, we have been assured. This principle is being
demonstrated in my own research by opening up incrementally new
insights as I'm able to understand and assimilate them. We were told
humankind is ready for Atlin and associated tech NOW,
today - so it is here for us to learn from.
Speaking of fraud check out the Hot Fusion cult. They
*promise*, using their "scientific methods" to M-A-Y-B-E produce Hot
Fusion in another *50 years or so* and they only
require more free BILLIONS of YOUR dollars to make it happen. I have
far more to show in results with Atlin than they with all the
BILLIONS of dollars already spent. Lee has more to show than they. Same
with Newman and a host of others. As perposterous as some of the
stories about Keely's work is there is more to go on than all the Hot
Fusion confetti and propaganda published at untold wealth expenditures.
Perhaps we need a better definition of "fraud"? Maybe the Hot Fusion
cultists are practicing a different kind of "science"? Why do the Hot
Fusion cultists get the big bucks and we get the shaft? Do you suppose
Hot Fusion is a delaying tactic designed to maximize income and profit
from oil which we are told we are "forced" to use in the meantime while
we are waiting for "The Promise" to be fullfilled? How many of us can
successfully paint ourselves as victims in order to make more profit
and thereby gain more power? Pretty slick stuff but then "slick" is
currently "politically correct".
Electric vehicles were manufactured, purchaseable and useable
in 1910. Why weren't they developed more? Hydrogen powered cars, trucks
and tractors were available in the 1940s. Why weren't they successful
and allowed to prosper? Dr. Clark has killed no one yet she is under
attack from the so-called "legal system" backed by the AMA. Why? Licensed doctors have killed many.
Unlicensed Dr. Clark has killed no one. Is the medical license then a
"license to kill without retribution"? Move over 007!!! The AMA has
many deaths at their feet but they are not being investigated. How
come? You have wear a seat belt while operating a STATE OWNED motor
vehicle (which you paid for) not to protect you but to protect the
insurance companies from more expense. Surprised? Your "driver's
license" is a contract
binding you to all the rules and regulations of the DMV. Were
you ever told that? Why not? The tales of fraud by the system, most
blindly and erroneously consider to be legitimate, are more than can be
listed (or stomached). So much for the "pot calling the kettle black"
type stuff. Fraud? We need a better definition that fits everyone
equally not just "the system's" self-serving (get and maintain power at
all costs) definition.
Q 110) The Keely story is a fascinating
blend of history, fact and fiction, in a realm that appeals to some of
the key issues of life.
A 110) It really is fascinating isn't it?
I love it. Lots to chew on and marvel about. Beats the heck out of the
pithy dry stuff from the old elementary school days...
Q 111) Most come to the story with a
rather limited agenda and find out that the story broadens out into a
vast panoply of values. To know who John Worrell Keely really was is
for me the most interesting aspect of this search.
A 111) Most come to the forum having only
heard vague things about Keely. Now we see it is a far vaster
experience than simply reading dry text and formula from a bland book
of eruditic musings. Being on this forum then I reckon is part of your
research effort to uncover more about Keely as a person. So far I
haven't seen much about this aspect on this forum. Do you have any you
wish to share? Got any questions along these lines?
Q 112) To become "followers" of Keely
seems a rather dubious goal at this point. Vindicating a wrong is a
noble pursuit and if Keely was hounded into oblivion for the wrong
reasons then we owe it to him and ourselves to bring the truth to light.
A 112) No one here is a "follower" of
Keely although there are many "followers" of Einstein and his like.
Keely is dead and he is not leading too many anywhere right now. My
work is to understand what makes me and nature tick. I present (for
FREE) what I find for your consideration without any obligation that
you or anyone else believe any of it. I do not require followers. You
can simply take it or leave it. My effort is not to convince anyone of
anything. I have one obligation and that is to myself to awaken from my
dream. SVP is proving a great aid for me in this effort. If SVP can
help others then that is wonderful.
So far as owing Keely anything this would again be misplaced
values, I think. The furtherest reaches of SVP are showing us we are
all One. How can we owe ourselves? Like the so-called national debt
owed to ourselves? What a joke of the manipulators! Honoring another is
honoring ourselves. Giving credit where credit is due is a moral
arrangement within a person's own belief system. Taking for FREE and
not giving due credit (or following through on promises made) is also
consequence and sequence of belief system arrangments. Keely did what
he did. He did not ask anything of posterity that I'm aware of. He may
have had hopes we could do better with his work than those around him.
In 1984 there were maybe a dozen or so people on planet earth knowing
about Keely and understanding ZIP, nada, zilch. Two people, Jerry
Decker and I, independently for the most part, brought the memory back
through our own efforts and expenses - often scoffed at. Now many are
jumping on the band wagon - why do you suppose that is? Because they
think he was a fraud? No because they sense a value and importance to
their belief systems. Keely was laid to rest in an unmarked grave. He
didn't even get the grave stone marking him as a "hum-bug". It
took two guys barely able to pay the gas to get and put a simple cheap
stone on that site - 100 years late. The effort was a token
of respect and honoring. The Keely work, which was long forgotten, is
simply presenting us, individually, with an opportunity to learn who
and what we really are. It is for this possibility that I give thanks
and appreciation. The so-called technology will come in its due time
when we are able to deal properly with it. I hope others can derive
similar pleasure and utility from this work. It would seem from some of
the comments on this Forum that this is happening to
some extent. I think that is cool....
Q 113) There are some who, for their own
reasons (conscious and otherwise), have decided the case and seem to be
a little presumptuous with the facts. That, to me, only muddies the
waters for those who might choose to follow a path to their own
conclusions.
A 113) Whose dream is more real than that
of others? The entirety of science and social/political awareness is
based on hearsay (opinions) of so-called "experts". Please choose which
dream/illusion system you wish to participate in.... "presumptuous with
*facts*"? please read on...
Q 114) > Yes, the quoted Keely
Principles do seem to embody the concepts that Einstein would later
formalize. Yet, in light of present theory there are some areas of
seeming contention that need to be further explained. Remember our high
school questioner many months back?
A 114) Research is research. Yes, you are
correct - more reserch is needed. Keely's work was published over 100
years ago under "strange" arrangements sometimes." In light of present
THEORY how much of anything 100 years old is still valid? In whose
opinion/theory? When lacking acceptable "proof" any theory is as valid
as any other. We are presenting here what we have - if that is not
appealing one can exercise their right of choice with their power over
the humble mouse.... If you have questions or "contention" do more
research to find more answers. Your efforts and findings will be
honored here like mine and as others are being honored.....
Q 115) From what I have seen so far, I
still share the opinion of Tesla as recorded in a letter to Clara
Bloomfield-Moore where he expresses his reservations:
"I sincerely wish that I could share your opinion
about Keely and his works. That he has skill and ingenuity in
experimenting I readily believe. But his method is an unscientific one
and his exposition is wanting in the extreme. It is painful to read his
theories. Can he have recognized something and yet be utterly incapable
of expressing it?... I devotedly wish that you may be spared the pain
of deception. The solution will eventually come but from other
quarters..." p. 83. Free
Energy Pioneer: John Worrell Keely by Theo Paijman
(1998).
This is not to say that my little irritations may not
eventually result in pearls.
A 115) Everyone is entitled to his or her
opinion. Let's look at the above quote from the hand written letter I
sent a copy of to Theo from which this quote arises. Tesla is thrown up
in the above paragraph as though he were some legitimate "authority" or
"expert" on the matters at hand. It is undoubted Tesla was unequalled
in his field of electrical research and development. But did he know
much about music? Did he know much about the physics of sound and
vibrations? Hardly. Did he know anything at all about subatomic
physics? No, such a field did not exist outside of Keely's lab. Then he
is not and cannot be considered a valid "expert" to make any
determination about Keely's work. Besides, he was after Bloomfield-Moore
's money, if the remainder of the letter were quoted this
would be seen. (I was shocked to read this myself!) And this brings us
back to the MM fraud. These two guys did what they did in good faith
and integrity. What was done with a distortion of their fine work by
propagandists and the nefarious Hegelian
manipulators is criminal. This was part of the beginning of
the concerted efforts to distort real science and leave the great
unwashed masses with distorted truths - that if objections were ever
raised would result (and often did) in black-balling, dismissal from
prestigious jobs and positions, no fat government contracts, ridicule
and the like. The exact same tactics of control are in operation in the
political realm. I have no bone to pick with you personally or any one
professing blind faith in MM, Einstein or the orbiting electron theory.
Like I've said so many times: I present what I find in my work for your
consideration. It can be accepted graciously or ignored. What other's
think or believe is really none of my business or concern.
About Keely's "unscientic method" what is an accepted
"scientific method"? The one that "proves" deadly mercury placed in a
person's mouth is healthy? Or the "scientific method" that "proves"
adding rat
poison to water and toothpaste is likewise healthy? How about
the "scientific method" that says spraying raw food with deadly-to-bugs
chemicals is healthy for humans? Or how about the well-established
"scientific methods" that are used in the conventional disease management system that
kills 300,000 or so "patients" a year and no one is investigated?
Cayce, unscientific as he was, caused the healing of many thousands of
people when "scientifically" proven and supported medical people could
not. All the technology born of the "scientific method" of this century
could not crack Keely's SVP until I came along with "unscientific
methods" of psychic communication, meditation, day dreaming, hard work,
general studying in many fields, courageously asking questions,
passively watching nature, NO FORMAL DEGREE (Oh! My! No PhD??) or
formal brain-conditioning, etc. (Have you ever asked why is it that the
so well and expensively "trained" in formal "schools" have so much
trouble with SVP?) Proof of the validity of this so-called
"unscientific method" is in Atlin's various motions to date. At least
my unscientifically derived mechanical piece of expensive hardware has
moved - has the "scientific method" demonstrated one of its own? Why
not?
BTW, Michelson never got the same measurement of the speed of
light twice according to his biography. Therefore it was not then a
constant and cannot now be considered a true constant. Like so-called
"scientific notation" in numbers - they are only approximations - like
the "scientific" value for PI, as exposed by the
mythic duo of Parker/Keely. If so-called "science" is built up of these
types of approximations, assumptions and fabrications what, then, is
the truth? If "science" is composed of these "unscientific" misbeliefs
and generalities then whose "system of belief" are we to give credence
to?
Q 116) The thing that bother[s] me the
most, as a physicist is, that Keely's machines are supposed to work by
mind power, or at least started that way. For a physicist this is a
little too much. It seems unreliable or non technical an other domain
not of our knowledge and understanding, and there are questions about
reliability. Now, maybe a hundred years from now all these things will
change and everything will blend. There is power in the mind, telepathy
etc. But maybe this is not yet the time for humanity to use it and/or
understand it. Do you see what I am saying?
A 116) I agree with your observations and
reservations. People like to flip the wall switch and have power
literally at their finger tips. I think my work is 1) geared towards
bringing awareness to the possibilities and 2) developing pioneering
prototypes from which we will eventually learn how to do all this. Time
to market is an unknown but sometime in the future. The P.E.A.R. Project proved beyond any doubt
there is power in Mind.
Q 117) If I push a button to run my
machine, fine. But if I have to rely on you (or Keely) to stand beside
me and push it, pretty difficult. and when or how will I learn it? do I
have to build my own machine myself? I can not make many for may people?
A 117) Sorry, I can't start then operate
your SVP-type machine for you. :) I don't have all the answers you
would like right now. They are coming though, slowly. But what prevents
us from exploring? If nobody does the "dog work" no one will ever know
how. And there maybe other solutions to this as we learn more about it.
Three years ago the whole thing was a big mystery. Today we have some
of the pieces and theories are beginning to come forth. Three years ago
we didn't have a dynasphere to work with or study. Now we do. I will be
building more of them using what I learn from one to make the next.
Subsequent copies will be better constructed and tuned. As far as
quantity is concerned we do not yet need many of them. As we learn how
they work and how to make them we will also learn how to make them in
quantity. Right now the whole thing is ART just like everything else
new in its infancy. The first airplane for instance.... was at first
considered a fraud, then tentative acceptance, then fabricators
sprouting up everywhere as the ART became known eventually becoming
factories cranking out thousands of them. I'm hopeful and expectant of
our success and good fortune.
FAQ1 - FAQ2 - FAQ3 - FAQ5
Top of Page
|
Master
Index |
Home
| What's
New | FAQ
| Catalog
