Keith Nagel responded;
Hi Thomas,
you write:I find it odd that BLP ignored me.
Why? Can you explain to the rest of us why you think he should take your offer seriously?
You don't know who I am, I might be talking to an established company with a group of wealthy investors.
Have you ever done any contract work for the military?
No and as I understand it, compliance with their byzantine regulations is a full time job for at least one person
Do you have sufficient money and experience to run a start up?
No, I'm a broker, my hobby is finding new technology that has economic potential. The amount of capital would have to be figured out when writing the business plan.
When you write, "I suggested using hydrinos to harden the interior of cannon barrels." do you have any idea how you would actually apply the described technology to achieve your stated result?
No, but neither has anyone else. We have lots of engineers here who are looking for work.
Then Harry Veeder posted;
Unlike the emergence of modern science, I don't think the emerging post-modern science is looking for affirmation from the military. ;-)
You seem to feel that there is something dirty about making sure that the people who are defending me have the very best equipment available. I don't.
Getting back to my original comment about finding Randall's behavior odd. When it comes to practical applications, this is as simple as it gets. It solves a problem that I know the military is having, and one of the claims on the website was super hard steel. Is it cost effective? I have no idea.
But that's not what really bothers me about this. About two years ago they had a picture of a three necked flask with a beautiful purple glow in it. They said that is was producing so many watts per CC, it was the equivalent of an internal combustion engine. If they had a reactor that would produce that much energy, don't you think that they would be marketing it? Maybe I'm being a cynic, but I smell BS.
