Mark, you obviously read the mission statement and the section comments of the site you want dumped. We deliberately avoided the "why" a ZPE device works, the theory on how, etc., but we do want to know very well one thing : if it works or not! You, as a physicist know that there are various theories on what are and how inertia, gravity and magnetism intimately work, but that doesn’t prevent us from using them, to generate power for example.

Let me put it this way: if someone dear to you has terminal cancer and you see the patients around him/her cured by a new experimental machine, what would you do?, a) get a doctorate in medicine, b) listen to the president of the Cancer Society who says this is pseudo-science or c) take the evidence as a fact and ask for your loved one to be treated? We consider the Earth as such a patient and hope a ZPE converter will emerge in time to save it, or better said to save us from self destruction. We don’t have time for futile debates with skeptics or believers; we’re only looking for evidence and provide information about it

> Believe me, all the people who are making money off "Free Energy" are con

> artists. Some of them are small-time, like Joseph Newman, some are

> big-time, like Randell Mills. Getting caught up with any of them is going

> to ruin your reputation in the real world of high technology.

Unfortunately you are right; the people who are making money of "Free Energy" are con artists and exposing them is also part of our mission. The real innovators though, don’t make a penny out of it yet; in many cases they’ve put everything they had or got from others in their experiments to try to make these devices good for public use. It seems it’s not that easy.

You should know that Mark. We would like to buy a device with a Superconducting Electric Field Effect Transistor (your possible field of research) from Radio Shack, but there is none yet, even though you have been (and are) using millions of dollars in research grants! Does this make you a con artist? What if Bill Fogal brings his Charged Barrier Technology Transistor to the market first? Would you or your University feel guilty if accused of using the money for sophisticated labs and good salaries but no results? We think that should not be fair to you, because most of you scientists are doing your best and honestly believe in your work.

What about the hot fusion scientists that have spend billions from public money (that could have been used to eradicate poverty or cleanup our toxic dumps, etc.) and who, for a couple of decades, claim every year they are just around the corner for the big break through to a limitless clean energy source? They sure look like big time artists to me.

Do you think that the two big utilities PacifiCorp and Conectiv would decide to invest millions of dollars in Randell Mills without a qualified and thorough Technical Assessment Report on his BlackLight Power Inc.? Do you really believe that the former chair of your Physics and Astronomy departments, Robert Park and his "Voodoo Science" crusade is the only voice of reason we should listen to? What would the world look like if people would have had only listened to Lord Kelvin’s voice saying, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", cold turkey?

I have a good friend who visited Randy last year and examined first hand his hydrino compounds and his power cell and conclued he’s on to something. He’s a Ph.D. in chemistry from an Eastern European country. Do you think that the former Soviet Union’s physics and chemistry science is of lower quality and rigor? Again, we don’t say Mills’ theory is correct, but we care less about that and more if what he produces is real. Would you be kind enough to share with us what do you have to prove Mills a fraud (beside Park’s statement that hydrinos are impossible, cold turkey).

Did you bother to do the same as Naudin in your much better equipped labs at the university before insulting Newman. Would you at least try, given the importance of the subject matter? Probably you just know he’s a small time crock and you don’t have time for this kind of crap!

Now my favorite part 205 "Getting caught up with any of them is going to ruin your reputation in the real world of high technology." I can picture you Mark205a young ambitious lad so proud of being a scientist in the making that you probably have your university emblem even on your pajamas! Your real world of high technology obviously stops at a university border.

This arrogance is notorious among the self proclaimed "real" scientists and responsible for countless battles between otherwise highly educated people (that have slowed down our scientific advancement with sometimes tragic consequences). We understand, envy is part of the human nature but we believe only the lack of character would let it grow to pathological proportions. The classic example of "the theory of the continental drift" comes to my mind. Here is a fragment (from the excellent mercatormag.com site) on what the real scientists did to Alfred Wegener and Marie Tharp:

"The theory of continental drift was first advanced by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener in 1912. In one of the earliest and best examples of modern interdisciplinary science, Wegener amassed evidence from geography, geology, paleontology, and biology to propose that the continents were not fixed objects on the surface of the earth, but instead were analogous to icebergs, floating and drifting on top of the molten rocks of the earth’s mantle. 205 Both Wegener and his theory were immediately attacked. Many scientists resented this meteorological interloper on their turf. Others were troubled by his lack of evidence - not that drift may have occurred, but of the mechanism that could drive it. One prominent American scientist pronounced the theory "Utter, damned rot!" At Lamont, where Ewing was a loud and powerful skeptic, speaking out in favor of the theory would be an act of professional suicide. Heezen himself tried to dismiss Tharp’s rift valley as "girl talk."

Sounds familiar? I rest my case. "These are tragic exceptions" Mark would say a little bit embarrassed (maybe). But we are seriously concerned the ZPE might be another one, this time with tragic consequences.

> Believe me, when your site reads, "...ZPE Most scientists agree this

> energy exists but many claim it can not be used for a practical purpose,"
> you put yourself, in any knowledgeable reader's mind, in the category of

> the amateurish lunatic fringe. When it says, "There are credible people

> out there saying that prototype devices doing just that, already exist.

> If that is true, we are here to help them prove it," it makes you look

> either naive or cynical and untrustworthy. If I am an investor looking at

> risky high technology propositions, and I see this kind of stuff on the

> website, I am not going to trust anything else I see.

Oops205 forgot about the "knowledgeable reader’s mind" who believes he is the possessor of all that is right and true205"amateurish lunatic fringe"205how about "utter, damned rot" Mark?

Yes, we are naive if that’s what you call an open mind, and we thank God for that! We also believe eating organic is good for your health and that aliens smarter than us exist somewhere out there and its dangerously stupid to think otherwise!

Would you invest in Dean Kamen’s controversial "IT" (code name Ginger) Mark? You know who did, right? Probably not, because he’s an engineer. What about some other inventions on his web site? Well, there are people making millions from Dean’s other stuff while you probably stay with your mutual fund investment (nothing wrong with that, really).

> I won't bother you again with this advice, but you should have the sense

> to listen to somebody who knows this from many years of observing the

> scene and who knows something about real science and technology. I have

> nothing to gain by helping you, except a certain perhaps misguided

> fondness having seen you casting around for a business venture and now

> apparently settling into something that looks like it could succeed.

>

> Good Luck, your friend,

>

> Mark



Jonathan, we don’t question that Mark knows something about "real science and technology" and that he observed the scene for many years (can’t be that many for a grad student!?). What we want to highlight is that "something" is not "everything" and "observing" is not "experimenting".

We think we have a healthy skepticism and we share with the hard core skeptics the "show me the evidence" concept but not the "it's more important to be clear than it is to be right" idea. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents in 1899 was very clear when he said "Everything that can be invented has been invented" but that didn’t make him right.

- Vlad