🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92203.121247CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>For want of a sponsor or potential "licensee," an official "Invention
>Disclosure" outlining an unconventional method of forcibly changing

    What would be the 'conventional method'?  Acceleration to high
    energy?

>nuclear-decay "half-lives" has been sitting in an office gathering
>dust. Although the method uses certain kinds of currently available
>though, in some cases, somewhat "exotic" electronic devices (if you
>consider SQUIDs, IMPATT devices, or UJTs to be "exotic"), and although
>the method is described in sufficient detail in the disclosure to make
>it easy to put the "invention" into operation to see if it does what it
>is supposed to do, it seems to be going nowhere.
>The reasons are (1) the "invention" supposedly has no commercial value
>and (2) the "inventor" hasn't turned over to the authorities the basic
>equations comprising the theoretical basis for the "invention," one of
>which is some kind of non-source-free Klein-Gordon equation.
>I don't remember the official disclosure registration number, but I
>could find it out easily enough, or else, if someone or some organization
>is interested in looking into the possibility of being a "sponsor" or
>"licensee," let me know and I'll put you in touch.
>A well known university is the current "holder" or "owner" of the "Inven-
>tion Disclosure," not me. =-)
>(Also, it's not sitting in *my* office, but theirs.)

    OK, now that we've seen it twice, I'll bite:

      1)  We clearly need more information.  Is it low energy?  Or
          does it rely on boosting to relativistic energies?  Under
          what conditions is the increase supposedly seen?

      2)  Is there a patent?  If so, who is the filer and do you have
          other relevant information about it?

      3)  If you have gone to the trouble to post this twice (with
          no other inquiries?), why have you not given more complete
          information on the inventor and his 'Invention Disclosure'.
          And why are you using the term 'well-known University' rather
          than the name of the University and 'inventor' rather than
          his name?  Why the apparent secrecy if this is presumably
          public knowledge at some University's commercialization 
          office (and it sounds like you are trying to get a sponsor
          for the work)?

      4)  Why are you telling us about this?

     A 'theoretical basis' is really not necessary if the phenomenon
     has been shown to exist.  However, keep in mind that many of us
     could probably make fairly convincing pseudo-mathematical arguments
     for phenomena that patently do not exist.  

                                      dale bass



--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926