 |
There are currently, 265 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Re: MPI - Executive Summary updated (Score: 1)
by techmac on Thursday, August 31, 2006 @ 12:47:54 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.geocities.com/mgmlab04 | mach946, from what I understand after reading over the many concerns and experience of MPI, Steorn, and MEG is that their goals which besides bringing the world cheaper energy, is to protect their intellectual property. Because their devices are tapping into the same energy that flows into everything on earth and space, yet is unseen by the earth's blind intellectuals, we have a problem.
The force unrecognized by the masses of scientists and engineers described as the virtual photon flux (VPF) is not the same scary 'perpetual motion' that scares them away. But they do not know that.
And since their are people in government who are of the same un-education, there is a problem getting solid patent protection for these new energy harvesting devices. Without solid IP protection, investors are very nervous about putting up the required cash for product development.
So, mach946 I see your concern, but I believe they are doing the best they can considering that they are world pioneers in this new energy field. |
| Parent |
|
Re: Re: MPI - Executive Summary updated (Score: 1)
by modernsteam on Thursday, August 31, 2006 @ 18:38:07 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Yes, mach946, "there
are a lot of 'could's and 'should's in [their] article". And I would'nt
have given any time lines, because it draws the kind of unproductive
criticism you've just given.
But it's also unfair to imply they don't need any more money. They've
barely moved from the US$7 mill. level sInce 1998, when I bought my
shares. But, any industrialist will tell you it takes a lot more than US$7 mill. and change to develop brand
new technology to the engineering prototype level, mainly, I would
gather, in salaries; engineers and scientists don't work cheap, if
they're going to be at it 40 hrs./wk minimum. And there's more very
costly lab equipment to buy - big bucks right there. Sorry, mach946,
but I'm surprised at how little MPI has - a bit more than US$7 mill. is
just a shoestring. How about US$30 mill just for starters, when you're
considering:
a ) completing the patenting process -world wide
b) hiring full-time staff for 24/7 operations, some with 6-fig. salaries
c) machine shop work - mucho dollares there!, and building and testing
several lab-level prototypes, just to derive the maths empirically
d) paying for the validation - not done for free
e) travel costs for demonstrations
The above are just some of the unavoidable expenses.
Now if I were a big investor,- and I'm not -, I'd be watching the
accounts to see how the funds are spent. Having signed an NDA, I'd be
visiting the shops to see work in progress. Were I satisfied, you'd not
hear a peep outta me. Investors don't shout to the highest places what
progress is being made, because that would surely tip off potential IP
cheats, and there would go their investment. And that's why only Mark
is talking about progress, and he's careful to speak only in
general terms.
Mark expected much more funding over two years ago, as did I. I would
think if that were available to hire knowledgeable staff full time, 24
hrs/day, 7 days a week, we would truly have had the self-running
engineering prototypes ready and demontrating by the beginning of
2005 to those who could put in the extra US$ millions needed for
the production prototype, pilot plant etc. This is "chicken and egg". The money is needed
to build the self-running engineering prototype. But the money may not
be there unless the engineering prototype is running to the
satisfaction of the potential "BIG-BUCKS" investors.
And those maths I mentioned? That's where much of the US millions
would be going: to pay for the lab equipment and the
engineers and scientists to develop the maths equations which don't yet
exist in the literature, and are so new and so complex, they can't be
derived by theoretical deductions alone. It'd be one empirical
experiment after another, noting the input and output data as tables of
values in lab books, just as Faraday, Ohm, Lenz and Planck did, and
just as unpaid students do today in schools and universities. It's too
new for computer simulation, because there's nothing yet on which to
base a computer simulation application, hence the multi prototypes.
Finally, after paying the professional, technical, and support
staff salaries for their ernest efforts, one gets (probably
differential) equations which see-ee-ee-m to work ... we hope,
because, of course, one does the reverse of what one has been doing:
test the equations by more empirical work with many different sets of
values. When one finds the equations which do work, of course, one
keeps them secret, because of the money and sweat equity spent to
derive them. That's how Steorn said they did much of their work, though
they still do not understand the phenomena they're getting as well as
many members of our F-E "community" do; I doubt if they have a
suffcient understanding of Quantum Physics to even hypothesize how
their device may work. But I have every reason to believe that MPI
does, and I'd hazard a guess that MPI is doing their work much
like Steorn:
1) use good engineering practise in trial and
error empiricism to derive the maths (kept secret, of course)
2) start with these brand new maths, and test them empirically
with many value sets, to validate these new maths
3) if the maths test correct, use them to quickly design and
build more productive (usually more powerful) versions
of the engineering prototype
As I said, the above "works of the mind" are very, very expensive in
terms of salaries and utilized lab equipment - no getting away from
that. US$30 mill. for that effort is not unreasonable, when other
companies have spent far more to achieve far less. How much was spend
by Microsoft to develop Win XP? (about which I'd have a few things to
say...)
Could these maths and other developments in F-E get the Nobel prize in
physics? If they're published, I believe so, if other F-E
invention teams don't beat them to it.
Hal Ade.
|
| Parent |
|
|
|
