I recently had some interesting interactions over at Dr. Mills' SCP group. After repeated postings I finally got Dr. Mills to respond to a suggestion I wanted to make. See:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/4652 "The point I keep harping is that it seems to me that assembling a proof of concept (POC) prototype before tackling an honest-to-god commercial prototype would be a more immediate, realistic and safer goal to reach for at this developmental stage of the game. Seems to me that it would accomplish the same goal of convincing financial backers that SunCell technology worth sinking fortunes in." I finally got a response from Dr. Mills which I will post here. But first, and for your enjoyment, here's what one ardent supporter had to say about my attempts to post my suggestion multiple times: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/4657 "Your glib "balanced" harangue against Dr Mills, belies your stated support. Your incessant repetition of "POC" shows an ignorance of the gold standard Dr Mills has already adduced numerous times, indeed, in published peer reviewed journals. Let me edify you in science there is no greater proof positive/negative than the experiment. Dr Mills theory in all its determinisitic and pleiotropic applications computes, predicts and creates experimental results that are impossible for the "BIG SCIENCE" to approach. Indeed there is not greater scale than the 85 order of magnitude that Dr Mills GUT makes knowable. That reproducible fact immediately and permanently bastardizes, yes deliberately used, the "BIG SCIENCE" adherents and all their entire financial ecosystem, politicians, granting agencies, grant administrators, colleges/universities, physic department funding, right down to the lowly TA. The proven fact that "BIG SCIENCE" is professionally bereft to match the experimental result is all the POC you ever need. If Dr Mills did not have the published derivation, the experimental results but was still advocating an energy technology then maybe your harangue would be valid; it is not and never has been." Yeah. Whatever... Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/4660 "A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial device." I remain unconvinced. Seems to me it would be a whole lot easier and wiser to initially attempt to assemble an experimental self-running POC as a preliminary step towards putting together what I assume has to be a much more ambitious commercial device. Seems to me an experimental POC would accomplish the same results: Convincing financial backers it would be a wise decision continue funding BLP's plans... generously so. But maybe I'm wrong. So, I'm looking for feedback. Are there any Vorts who might want to add their two cents to this matter? Pro or con. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
