I've followed up on my previous communication to Natasha. Hopefully this will earn a response.
I have not yet had the benefit of your answers to my questions. Presumably they'll be to hand - eventually. Meanwhile let me - yet again, address some very real concerns I have related to this technology.
As I see it - there is a great deal invested in the 'belief' that one can never get more energy out of a battery or a plug supply than was first delivered. I'm afraid that our utility supply sources and our petrol suppliers rather depend on this. Governments benefit from the delivery of their utilities - no matter their efficiencies, and our petrol suppliers are anxious to enjoy their considerable revenues for as long as their supplies last. Both represent billion dollar enterprises. And both are able to fund whole departments at our global academies to further their best interests. And both have rather squandered the best interests of our Earth's good health in exploiting this energy with its poisonous consequences of nuclear waste and carbon pollution. But we're all to blame. We all use that energy to the limit of our pockets. That there is this belated movement to challenge that constraint to the supply of energy - is probably a consequence of this fact. There is now a dearly held hope - certainly by a huge majority of the population - that we will find a solution to this 'energy crisis'. I am not that certain that it's a hope shared by either the oil producers nor our utility suppliers.
Now. It is evident that man is highly inventive. At the risk of overworking this example, may I remind you about the facts related to 'heavier than air' flight. It seemed that in defiance of all academic opinion related to this, there were those eccentrics who took the trouble to test the fact. The early efforts were scoffed and the media had their share of the fun as they reported on those sad but brave efforts where our pioneers offered themselves and their devices up for ridicule very often together with their lives. But they persisted. And eventually, it was our Wright brothers who eventually 'cracked the puzzle'. In the same way do many people try and challenge our Laws of Conservation of Energy. But with far greater urgency. But again. Their best efforts are ridiculed. Some of our best players have simply disappeared. Others have been impoverished or discredited - deservedly or not. History is yet to judge. And others, such as myself, persist. It is hard not to. In my defense I see repeated evidence on tests that are replicated around the world - and I have my own apparatus on my own work bench on campus - where the evidence is that our Second Law of Thermodynamics is somewhat less than appropriate or required.
What is true is that unless this technology is first evaluated by our academics then it is unlikely to progressed. Thus far have these esteemed and revered - entirely ignored these many claims of breach that proliferate on our internet and that are discussed in depth at our many different forums. But what I know and what is nowhere reported is the fact that these same academics have, thus far, refused to even look at a demonstration. This is excepting the Steorn device which seems to have been largely discredited. In any event, this lack of accreditation by our academics is not in the interests of good science. I will append the introduction to the report that I'm preparing which covers this point. However, it is a matter of great good fortune that there are still academies and academics who believe that scientific fact must be established by experimental evidence rather than assumption. And I'm immensely proud to be associated with one such - in all likelihood - the only such in the world. If the evidence is not available then they will have the real prestige of being able to assert this as a fact rather than as a belief. And if, conversely the evidence is that it is possible to generate energy at far less cost than convention allows - then the prestige, I hope, will still be theirs. Either way they will have conformed to the base requirement of all science - that a claim is first experimentally evident and that it is then established - or not - by that evidence.
But - having said that - it's also required that the public be made aware of this fact. You see the progress of energy has always depended on a financial transaction. The one side will sell an energy product and the other side will buy the rights to use it. The question then is - what happens if one can simply access an energy supply that costs nothing or next to nothing? The upheavals in our financial and social structures would be a given. And we have not yet established that this energy is that clean or that non-pollutant - that it won't perhaps harm the health of either the users or the planet. It needs research. And lots of it. At the same time - the hope is that, in as much as it does appear to be freely available - then it will not ever be appropriated by some kind of monopolistic control. I don't think that this last concern is actually a danger but that would depend on the public being widely alerted to the technology itself. It needs to be understood that anyone can apply it as required. And that, again, depends on the simplicity with which the technology is advanced. It does not need to be wrapped and structured in the obscurities that now seems to be a required and standard expression of science. Sadly.
So. To avoid sensationalism and to ensure accurate reporting and to establish some kind of sound foundation to understanding what is going on here - my hope was to find a single reporter that I could enter into a dialogue. Clearly it will never be your Mr Yeld. But there must, surely, be someone in your organisation with whom I could speak and who could do the background work that is here required. I would be very sorry to read a banner headline that claims 'perpetual motion' or 'a discovery of a new source of energy' - or anything along those lines. We have found NOTHING NEW. All has already been found by our Greats in science. What we have uncovered is that the dark energy - which is the discovery of our astrophysicists - is possibly available in all matter. That has already been proposed. And proposed widely. The tribute here would go to Ellis et al at Caltech. That our Inductive Laws are right. Here the tribute would go to Faraday and possibly Maxwell. And that the our mass/eneregy equivalence is right. And here the tribute goes to Einstein. Then we'd need to revise the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But that's hardly a new event. Those laws are forever being amended. The last amendment related to a required revision exposed by nuclear energy.
At the same time - without fair and objective reporting there would be the danger of burying the evidence. If this is not reported then how can our public be alerted to this potential? It's a story that needs telling. But it needs to be told quietly. And it needs to be carefully progressed. Which also means that one needs to find a reporter who is equal to this. I'm still hoping that you can recommend someone.