ZPEnergy.com - SEAS needs to change its strategy

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw

Here is a letter from a young, smart and unreasonable inventor, Mathew G. Witney adressed to Ted Loder of SEAS re their Z Prize and the R&D program:

Ted,

I feel obligated to critique SEAS from an inventors POV...

A year or so ago I submitted plans of the CLIT and ZEUS to SEAS because I was told at the time SEAS had been donated facilities and may consider my IP for R+D.

When the Z Prize was announced I made a desperate attempt to prototype my Closed Loop Implosion Turbine by pleading with rapid prototyping companies. One agreed to help and unfortunately I ran out of time and money. Here's a look:

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/Directory/AetherWave/ImplosionTurbine/index.html

There are problems with your Z Prize and now with the R+D program:

1 Inventors pursuing this technology are not from academia, they are generally self-taught interdisciplinarians. Because of this they lack credentials and therefore funding. Plenty of feasible ideas exist but inventors can't afford prototyping.

2 Your tech advisors, while highly qualified in their respective fields of expertise, are quite clueless when it comes to free energy technology - this is self evident in the fact they are not being used as in-house inventors. Even if presented with a working device they'd be at a loss to explain why it works.

3 If SEAS is presented with a working prototype the inventor has obviously already been past the R+D phase making your offer moot. Furthermore any R+D done with your people and facilities changes ownership of the IP which raises unecessary legal issues.

You are putting a carrot in front of a donkey with no legs.

I've been networking in this community for several years now and studied all the best technologies, labs, and all the initiatives for getting free energy out to the public.

SEAS needs to change its strategy for acquiring the ideal technology - the post verification strategy however is solid.

I've proposed at ZPenergy.com, in case you don't visit, an alternate method of acquiring the proper technology:

1 - Supplement your tech advisors with an EQUAL NUMBER of "unofficial proponents", mad-scientists, hobbyists, whatever you want to call us. I've identified the best in the field. Remember how XEROX created most of our computer hardware; they brought together geniuses in a comfortable setting, gave 'em a chalkboard and said, "go nuts boys!"...this is what SEAS must do. But SEAS MUST recognize that true genius does not come from academia because academia merely inhibits true genius. If you don't conform to this fact you will never succeed. INVENTORS ASSOCIATE IDEAS, ACADEMIA FILLS IN THE GAPS.

2 - Have this new think tank narrow down the most promising technologies that supposedly work or have worked in the past but have been suppressed or partially lost. Don't limit technologies to OU status, bring it down to 90% or better - this is still better than the 15% efficiency for gasoline or PV cells.

3 - Take this list of promising technologies and present them to the public for debate, that way the think tank model can be expanded to a larger audience who may have valuable opinions, insights and facts.

4 - Revise list.

5 - R+D best 3 ideas.

6 - Make SEAS a Business Incubator as opposed to a non-descript solicitation process.

Yes, rely on inventors to invent, but DON'T expect them to have the means to prototype. SEAS of all entities should know why we are underfunded.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely Yours

M.G. Whitney
Ithaca NY