Paul sez (to Horace):
Sounds like you're just bitter because I keep finding errors in your statements. For example, when I clearly wrote *BOTH* sides of a material radiates and you replied I was wrong, when in actuality you were incorrect. My answer was correct.
So, I gather these discussions are a form of "break time away from [your] research." I think Both Mr. Heffner and Mr. Macaulay have already expressed their concerns. Nevertheless, I'll contribute a few additional unsolicited pontifications of my own, as a result of having performed a ton of computer simulation work myself: I must admit my ignorance here. I have no clue as to whether your theory on harnessing ambient energy could work or not. Like one of the many Maxwell's demon premises that I've read about your efforts sound intriguing, and I wish you the best of luck, just as I do for Charles Brown's fascinating diode array efforts. I personally hold the opinion that Nano-technology and nanofabrication techniques will usher in wondrous surprises. I'd love for either your efforts to eventually pay off. You certainly give an exterior impression that you believe your theoretical research, backed by voluminous computer simulations I gather you personally designed, will work. Therefore, why do you care if others not beholding to your current conclusions disagree with your theory. R&D of the type that you and what Charles Brown are working on obviously requires a great deal of capital, energy and resources. That's where I would be focusing my limited energy and resources on. Trying to convince others to "admit their errors" while in the midst of negotiating for the funds you require to pursue the necessary R&D strikes me as time consuming. It's an inefficient use of one's limited personal resources. It gives me the impression that you have a personal need to convince others of the incorrectness of their opinions, rather than simply focusing on the task at hand - proving to yourself that your theory on how to harness so-called latent power locked up in ambient energy is on the right track. Your continued efforts to convince others of the correctness of your theory (and the incorrectness of their perceptions) tends to give me the impression that deep down you might not be as convinced of the accuracy of your theory as you claim. But then it would explain why you are here talking up a storm in Vortex-l. After all, if you can convince as many others as possible that your theory is correct, well then, maybe you can convince yourself as well. Otherwise, why do you care if they disagree with your conclusions. I doubt Randall Mills cares all that much about what Dr. Zimmerman or Dr. Park think about his extremely audacious CQM theory. I suspect Mills has enough on his dinner plate simply managing the day-to-day affairs of Black Light Power Inc. Shouldn't you be doing the same? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
