The issue here is that no matter what the science says, and what the experiment shows, ramping up an effect to a usable product is never certain, and lots of REALLY useful known facts fall apart when you try to make a product out of them. This is why we MAKE proof of concepts. Not to prove the concept TRUE, but to prove it EXPLOITABLE!.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
