 Wilcley Lima Jul 13, 2017 06:51  | Can you please clarify whether this is is an energy storage solution or an energy generation solution? Also, can you provide more details as to what exactly the BPT device is and how it works? |
 Sherman Braithwaite Jul 14, 2017 07:08  | Proposal contributor It's definitely "energy generation" as stated; "ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION USING CIRCUIT BOARD OR MICROCHIP..." in the title. Also, it is a "storage" device because, during power generation, as the device functions, there is continuous renewable power. For instance, the device charges ON from tiny charges "—between 2e-300 Volts and 2e-9 Volts, [Some devices can charge ON from 2e-1000 Volts. There is a theory here about how exactly the device will reluctantly function; At least half of 2e-X Volts is an unknown. Let's assume that half of the two charges, one is positive, and one is negative, then as the device is fabricated to specification, it will function ON at any given charges available between 2e-X Volts—of which one part of the two charges may be positive, and the other part is negative—, no matter how tiny or even somewhat apart, the available charges of positive and negative charges are. You can even imagine that will occur if only 1 proton and 1 electron were available. As the device powers ON, it will attract more of either particles, or an equal number of available particles, or the positive proton/s—Position in the device—, will attract more electrons allowing the device to charge with electron conduction. The conducting particles will be attracted from anywhere, and as soon as the device reaches its capacity threshold—A very high voltage point—, it will stop attracting particles and store them like a battery. The reason that the device will not return to an OFF initial position, is because it constantly renews any shortage of charges, to the gained power threshold. It is possible to stop the device from functioning through some device ground manipulations. It is also possible to enhance the device function by other device ground manipulations... In reference of “unknown" charges. You have to imagine that the positive charge does not exist, because we would be talking of protons. None of us ever imagined that a device can function with two free FLOATING charges of protons and electrons available in any medium, even if they are FLOATING through space. We are used to thinking that a BATTERY provides charges, and protons aren't accessible as electrons are—Sure if you have a radioactive isotope. The device to allow that functionality ("ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION USING CIRCUIT BOARD OR MICROCHIP..."), still has to be real—. The other thing is, what if the device functions entirely of electrons and the positive charge/s (proton/s) is/are elsewhere? The specific names for that sort of dynamic positioning, are a "dipole" or "Exciton". With that in mind, the device allowing the defined functionality ("ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION USING CIRCUIT BOARD OR MICROCHIP..."), still has to be real... In reference of available charges allowing device ON function. That is not to say that if charges of 1 Volt to 2e-1000 Volts were available, the device won't function ON. It will function ON, no matter which charges are available allowing it to function ON]—", and it will function all the same for different voltage charges. The only things different about how the device will function in case of a real 1-volt battery usage for instance, would be; Current threshold; Power threshold, and the device time to charge ON of the device. For variable VOLTAGES (Even real batteries) or CHARGES and devices' configuration differences; The device can take between an hour to a few seconds to function ON. There are device configurations that allow the device to fail function ON. RELIABLE devices, function ON between a few seconds and 1 minute. That is my way of looking at it anyhow. "[Storage]" capacity. The only ways to shut off the device after it is powered ON; Remove the CENTER POSITION that carries the charges to the device; Disabling Power ON ("—between 2e-300 Volts and 2e-9 Volts—") through that "CENTER POSITION. I never made one of these devices. I never had the finances, nor safety environment (Laboratory) to do so. I can imagine that the device may still function after the "CENTER POSITION" is removed; Therefore, I assume that would also be a definition of energy "storage". Typically, though, it all started out as energy or charges generation. "It is possible to stop the device from functioning through some device ground manipulations. It is also possible to enhance the device function by other device ground manipulations...". The device has been developed to be safe if fabricated. Even though the device charges to reach "A very high voltage point [Threshold]". The device can be fabricated to carry high (dangerous if too high) or minute current, and it can still deliver high power for a lot of devices' power profiles; From high power profiles to low power profiles. All devices remain functional. |
Sherman Braithwaite Jul 14, 2017 08:17 | Proposal contributor I suppose I should mention also that there is a difference between "power" and "energy". There can be energy, and not energy for power for some power profile devices' needs. Then also you have to consider Horse Power. That is standard for electrodynamic power. For each "745.699872 watts" in electrical power, you have roughly 1 Horse Power. It takes that much power to do the work of "0.746" joule per second. Which is equal to "0.550" ft./Lbs. per second. I assume ft./Lbs. stands for 1Lbs in ft./second for the given "745.699872 watts". That means, as Lbs. go up from 1 Lb., more wattage is needed to do work. |
 Betsy Agar Aug 26, 2017 05:27 | Wow, there is so much going on here! I'm coming away with a picture in my head that is akin to a perpetual closed loop of energy transfer, so I am not clear how this circuit transmits power and maintains its "charge" or gains new electricity. I expect an loss analysis would also be useful here. Also, is the intention to charge the batteries with any source of renewable energy? Here may be the confusion about whether it is a storage or generation solutions. At the moment it seems to be directed at making systems more efficient. Some drawings would help. |
Sherman Braithwaite Aug 27, 2017 09:15 | Proposal contributor Betsy Agar "....Some drawings would help.". You know what they say; "Us magicians never reveal their secrets". As defined, the device gets it power from any charge, in retrospect (2x1e-9 to 2x1e-1000V) is doable. That is definitely a new and innovative concept. Look at it this way, perhaps that's how power generation works, and with my concept, I simply tapped into the initial position of power generation. I was never able to define why I knew that power generation as we know it on this planet hadn't reached optimization. I guess I finally have a say in why I was right. I even explained that lack of power generation innovation on Earth, in my patent application, and still did not mention it as I just did. In retrospect; "Some drawings" did help as I have my concepts patent pending. "...[Perpetual] closed loop of energy transfer..."; I had discover that concept, way before it was ever defined after the 1990s. I came up with this sort of concept in the 1990s. I defined it as power gain from HIGH VALUE RESISTANCES. That is not as it sounds, and it is a complicated concept. It's a simple enough definition. To make it happen, is more difficult. During the development of my invention, I did come across some oddities, that I wanted to ignore. One was the same idea presented here, in combination of what I worked on in the first place--Call it an accidental discovery, through innovation (I intended on making it, and tried to ignore using it, because it turned out to go against my original project)--. The other concept I tried ignoring, and that worked out great--Totally out of my mind--, was that I came across a coil output concept in my own research, that I decided to run from. It showed that a constant flow of perpetual energy can be gained, with usage of high value inductor coils. It is not as efficient as my concepts. With that usage, you need to supply a large initial charge, not a tiny one, or as defined in my concept; 'No charge at all' ('Simply make the device, and it will power ON.'). My concept is about RESISTORS. The concept you refer; . "...[Perpetual] closed loop of energy transfer...", is about INDUCTORS. Now try to imagine why I ignored the inductor output capacity, I found in my research? Inductors are old. I am sure you people know all about them. "…[Loss] analysis would also be useful here."; I assume there is loss from power generation. Look at it this way. Blow air into a balloon that is filled with tiny balloons that hold air, as all the balloons are filled, if 1 balloon starts to deflate, there is not much loss of air, and it would be easy to refill that single balloon. Now imagine that we aren't talking about balloons and air, we are talking about Electron Volts, or Electrons (Conductivity between materials capable particles), either way ("Electron Volts, or Electrons") in this case, it is easy to keep the charge. The loss is only what each tiny balloon is capable of. I call that concept; Independent Nodes and Independent Resistors. It is the key in power generation optimization. |
 Michal Monit Sep 6, 2017 03:24 | Dear Sherman, |
Sherman Braithwaite Sep 7, 2017 04:11 | Proposal contributor To Michal Monit Sorry you misunderstand so many things in my proposal. If something "Never turns off", I suppose you can argue with that concept. That however, won’t make it turn off, not change the device’s functionality. What you mention against the possibility; That is entirely up to you, and it has nothing to do with science. You simply have an opinion of something that is already defined. In retrospect, some wise people, developed the concept of Renewable Energy. I wonder when people will wake up to the notion, that “Renewable Energy”; "Never turns off"; And Perpetual Energy, are all the same definition. Changing a concept, will not change device functionality. If the functionality calls for it, I write it. Your criticism is noted. Why should someone else, make up naming rules for things they did not develop? Your criticism is noted. I don't think I can give you any sort of explanations for things that are named; "Imaginary Battery". It is as such, no battery. I like the name. That is also in my patent application. The way you refer to it, seems like, that can mean anything, and it is up to you, if you want to misconstrue, something named already—"[Antimatter]"—; I can't imagine your definition of that form of energy. To me it simply means antimatter. If that makes no sense, sorry you misunderstand. Antimatter is even generated via lightning bolts, it certainly is no mystery. "2e-300 Volts" is totally different from any form of Electron Volt. "2e-300 Volts" is a definition of the possibility of functionality. I did not write all that here, I did write that in my patent application. "Electron Volt [1 ELECTRON] = 1.6×10?19 joules [WIKIPEDIA]"; A "[...Single electron moving across an electric potential difference of one volt [WIKIPEDIA]". "Thus, it is 1 volt (1 joule per coulomb, 1 J/C) multiplied by the elementary charge (e, or 1.6021766208(98) ×10?19 C [3]). Therefore, one electron volt is equal to 1.6021766208(98) ×10?19 J…[WIKIPEDIA]". Taking the electron volt, and turning it into Wattage; 1J = 6.242197e+18eV (ELECTRONS) = 1 WATT. What you refer to as elementary particles ["electric charge (1.60e-19) or Planck's constant (6.62e-34)"] is simply a meaningless definition, because it is something you imagine, and against my other explanations, and is therefore made void. In my definition, because, "2e-300 Volts [is a definition of the possibility of functionality...]", I can ignore what you have mentioned, because both input (-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 electron charge), and "2e-300 Volts"), give the entirely same output; You neglect quasiparticles, and potential energy may exist below "electric charge (1.60e-19) or Planck's constant (6.62e-34) [We do not yet know the charge a neutron carries [The neutron has no measurable electric charge] [WIKIPEDIA]; Quarks—“Spin” Values [WIKIPEDIA]—, and so on]". In retrospect; Who ignores theoretical physics? I also did device simulations using the Electron charge value (-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19). The results are always the same for each input “[-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 electron charge], and 2e-300 Volts"; High current, high voltage, and high wattage. The simple definition of such potential "2e-300 Volts"; May be defined as string theory, quantum entanglement, any form of matter defined as particles or structures, spins, devoid of matter, and defined as charge—Hey, call it "Negative Energy", no one argues with that—, that is an explanation of elementary particles or structures. You can't simply look at electrons as the only elementary particles or structures. Also, since the actual working potential is "Electron charge value (-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19)", there is no indistinguishable sense of functionality being that “[-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 electron charge], and 2e-300 Volts" allow device functionality. If you want to walk around with one of the devices in your hand, that is cool. I think the price to buy one, would be about $10K USD. It will, cost a lot to make one. I can't argue. It will also cost a lot to own one. The other route towards ownership. A single device costs "$1.5 K USD". The devices are dangerous anyhow; The hand-held devices are ignored, and power plants are made, which amounts to only a few devices made, and each device costs close to a $million to own. I am seriously not worried. At least, one device will cost about $700. Each device is made up of close to 200 components. If you think that can be changed, well come up with such a device of your own, and let me know how many component parts it has, and how much each component part costs, plus labor, all equaling to a manufacturing piece of "$1.5 K USD", or more, I assume. It would be the same price to get one manufactured, for anyone that invented such a thing. P.S., how much do you suppose one of those radioactive diamond, power sources will cost? This is not meant to be a patent application assignment, nor a device development proposal, there is no need for me to try and impress anyone in that sense. I actually want to drop out of this contest. In fact, if I do win, I may decisively walk away without the prize. I signed a contract with some people, and am deciding that with my invention being priceless, I should not want a $10,000 prize from a contest. Who knows how that will turn out? “Your [criticisms are] noted.”. I think they are pointless though. I truly do not need to explain anymore about my invention. I wrote about all the points you can possibly come up with in my patent application. No, you need not see any schematics (“diagrams”). That is ridiculous, and stop asking for those please. |
Sherman Braithwaite Sep 7, 2017 04:31 | Proposal contributor To Michal Monit REVISION II Sorry you misunderstand so many things in my proposal. If something "Never turns off", I suppose you can argue with that concept. That however, won’t make it turn off, nor change the device’s functionality. What you mention against the possibility of "Never turns off"; That is entirely up to you, and it has nothing to do with science. You simply have an opinion of something that is already defined. In retrospect, some wise people, developed the concept of Renewable Energy. I wonder when people will wake up to the notion, that “Renewable Energy”; "Never turns off"; And Perpetual Energy, are all different definitions of a single term. Changing a term name, will not change a device's functionality. If the functionality calls for it, I name it. Your criticism is noted. Why should someone else, make up naming rules for things they did not develop? Your criticism is noted. I don't think I can give you any sort of explanations for things that are named; "Imaginary Battery". It is as such, no battery. I like the name. That is also in my patent application. The way you refer to it, seems like, that can mean anything, and it is up to you, if you want to misconstrue, something named already—"[Antimatter]"—; I can't imagine your definition of that form of energy or particle interaction. To me it simply means antimatter. If that makes no sense, sorry you misunderstand. Antimatter is even generated via lightning bolts, it certainly is no mystery. "[2 * e-300 Volts]" is totally different from any form of Electron Volt. "[2 * e-300 Volts]" is a definition of the possibility of functionality. I did not write all that here, I did write that in my patent application. "Electron Volt [1 ELECTRON] = 1.6×10-19 joules [WIKIPEDIA]"; Electron Volt; A "[...Single electron moving across an electric potential difference of one volt [WIKIPEDIA]". "Thus, it is 1 volt (1 joule per coulomb, 1 J/C) multiplied by the elementary charge (e, or 1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 C [3]). Therefore, one electron volt is equal to 1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 J…[WIKIPEDIA]". Taking the electron volt, and turning it into Wattage; 1J = 6.242197e+18eV (ELECTRONS) = 1 WATT. What you refer to as elementary particles ["electric charge (1.60e-19) or Planck's constant (6.62e-34)"] is simply a meaningless definition, because it is something you imagine I wrote about, or didn't include, and against my other explanations, and is therefore made void. In my definition, because, "[2 * e-300 Volts] [is a definition of the possibility of functionality...]", I can ignore what you have mentioned, because both inputs (-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 electron charge), and "[2 * e-300 Volts"]), give the entirely same output; You neglect quasiparticles, and potential energy may exist below "electric charge (1.60e-19) or Planck's constant (6.62e-34) [We do not yet know the charge a neutron carries [The neutron has no measurable electric charge] [WIKIPEDIA]; Quarks—“Spin” Values [WIKIPEDIA]—, and so on]". In retrospect; Who ignores theoretical physics? I also did device simulations via EDA, using the Electron charge value (-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19) (2 * -/+157.0133088384e-19 Volts). The results are always the same for each input “[-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 electron charge], and [2 * e-300 Volts]"; Give outputs of, high current, high voltage, and high wattage. The simple definition of such potential "[2 * e-300 Volts]"; May be defined as string theory, quantum entanglement, any form of matter defined as particles or structures, spins, devoid of matter, and defined as charge—Hey, call it "Negative Energy", no one argues with that—, that is an explanation of elementary particles or structures. You can't simply look at electrons as the only elementary particles or structures. Also, since the actual working potential is "Electron charge value (-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19)", there is no indistinguishable sense of functionality being that “[-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 electron charge], and [2 * e-300 Volts]" allow device functionality. This; "[2 * e-300 Volts]", means “-/+1.6021766208(98) ×10-19 electron charge, allows functionality. 2 * e-1000 Volts fails with some device's configurations. If you want to walk around with one of the devices in your hand, that is cool. I think the price to buy one, would be about $10K USD. It will, cost a lot to make one. I can't argue. It will also cost a lot to own one. The other route towards ownership. A single device costs "$1.5 K USD". The devices are dangerous anyhow; The hand-held devices are ignored, and power plants are made, which amounts to only a few devices made, and each device costs close to a $million to own. I am seriously not worried. At least, one device will cost about $700. Each device is made up of close to 200 components. If you think that can be changed, well come up with such a device of your own, and let me know how many component parts it has, and how much each component part costs, plus labor, all equaling to a manufacturing piece of "$1.5 K USD", or more, I assume. It would be the same price to get one manufactured, for anyone that invented such a thing. P.S., how much do you suppose one of those radioactive diamond, power sources will cost? This is not meant to be a patent application assignment, nor a device development proposal, there is no need for me to try and impress anyone in that sense. I actually want to drop out of this contest. In fact, if I do win, I may decisively walk away without the prize. I signed a contract with some people, and am deciding that with my invention being priceless, I should not want a $10,000 prize from a contest. Who knows how that will turn out? “Your [criticisms are] noted.”. I think they are pointless though. I truly do not need to explain anymore about my invention. I wrote about all the points you can possibly come up with in my patent application. No, you need not see any schematics (“diagrams”). That is ridiculous, and stop asking for those please. |
Sherman Braithwaite Sep 7, 2017 09:27 | Proposal contributor To Michal Monit I just realized, all that was asked for is a "Summary" describing our ideas. There is no mention of a need for Abstract (Summary), with Narrative (All the personal stuff you desire to read, and more things than you can imagine, to go against). It would seem that you got what they asked for, and they probably asked for simply that, concerning confidentiality, somewhat. "Summary"; A reasoning it would seem, everyone rebel over, due to curiosity. I am sure I did my job correctly. I promise you that one day you will seem my invention in action, even if it does not blossom from a proposal here. Let me know, if such an idea could be real, how changed do you see the world? Now ask yourself, what on Earth does Sherman W. Braithwaite have to worry about, being in possession of such things? My answer, nothing for all. Who wants free energy? Shop owners, the US government and corporations making money from battery technology, and other perishable technologies, that constantly are in demand as they get scrapped after just a few usages? I truly have to find an economy for my product. It's not even Space that I can venture for my economy. In retrospect, space is big, and it does not have an economy. If I owned a planet, and was able to move there, and colonize it, will I get my economy? Probably, it is still probable. An economy for such things, is not real at all. I should have a critic like that. It is the only thing wrong with my proposal. You seem young in your picture, I don't think you can consider economy as my obstacle, even though you can consider Einstein as an obstacle. Einstein is what everyone says. By the way, I not only wrote a paper on Antimatter; I explained that Antimatter comes in 3 flavors. High Power; Medium Power; And Low Power. Your point about Einstein is noted. You are the only person since my Patent Application and my published paper, were submitted, who has shown an opinion on the subject of Antimatter as none important. I like that. Antimatter is unimportant, because no one truly knows what it is. As far as I can imagine, it can be defined as the absence of a particle in a function, that end up existing, due to forces in an active medium consisting of at least one polarity charge—Very imaginative, and very quantum entangled—. The point is, if there was an existing positron with enough force (Charge), it would attract an electron, or even create an electron. If you have an existing electron with enough force (Charge), it is possible to generate a positron. The only necessary conclusions of the generated particles, are how powerful they will be, or how separated they are, and what separates them. Research simply says antimatter will always be tremendously powerful. It will be so powerful, only magnetic fields can hold it. Yet, we absolutely neglect the idea of why a magnetic field gets to hold antimatter without destructive consequences. We can’t see why, because, still something is missing. I suppose we can then go into mentioning the "unified field theory", and how we know naught. How many times have we experimented to get no answers or partial answers? Then; Who on Earth would ignore me and feel that I have nothing and partials? That’s not fair. |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 20, 2017 09:42 | Proposal contributor I am weary and suspicious of, how much other projects presented here will cost to develop? I came up with a rounded amount; $1.00 per unit; Or maybe $100,000 per unit. At this point I am weary, so I decide to stop thinking about it. It's so sad that no can afford a mere $1.5K. I wonder where on Earth did some people learn their math? Especially basic math. |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 20, 2017 10:13 | Proposal contributor At this point, I am thinking I need to file a lawsuit against you people, because it seems that idiots run the world. Just for you people being ignoramuses. Really? This is how the world works. I will get a lawyer, let's take this into debate upon the true stupidity of the entire human race. |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 20, 2017 10:14 | Proposal contributor You people think you have to right to play with the world as if it was your toy? You think you know best? You don't know anything, you people are idiots. You aren't trying to save the world. You are making a mockery of science. |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 20, 2017 10:08 | Proposal contributor I think you should recheck those numbers. All of your other contests, the fat was trimmed (Trimmed Fat). You are tired of me already that in this contest you get to say that "39" people didn't enter the contest, and "39" people didn't become finalists? Too many mind games, stop looking out for me. Stop stalking me in scientific contests. I will sue you people, and still avoid developing my project. Work with what you got. I will spend forever making sure you people never touch nor use my invention with the money I will sue you for. Watch me. |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 21, 2017 01:09 | Proposal contributor One should not have to worry about how many of their words are used against them if they have free will. Words like; 'I plan to avoid accepting the price even if I win.'; "I will spend forever making sure you people never touch nor use my invention with the money I will sue you for. Watch me.". Why on Earth wouldn't I win? Look at all these stupid ideas presented. The only thing meaningful about them, is that they are huge in scale. I know a lot of fools love to preach "bigger is better". I probably didn't want to get people to like my idea by invite. Hey, just because you got endorsements to be a candidate, it does not mean you are right to be one. Besides, the thought of endorsements as you are a candidate via invite by likers to be a candidate, is very oxymoronic. You are already a candidate. I can get people to like my stuff. Wanna see? I guess then, judges should be out of work. |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 21, 2017 09:13 | Proposal contributor Betsy Agar I did mot remember to mention, I achieved high output, using low value RL output ground capacity with my project--In reference of your comment; "[Perpetual] closed loop of energy transfer"--. That coil device, is such a lame concept. When I first saw it, I almost p'ed my trousers. I was like, "these people, again, they stole my concept.". Hey, there is a difference between coils and resistors. Think about that. A solution towards my original concept--The stolen one and the current one--; Achieving high density current even while using low value resistors at ground, is just a fascinating and different concept, than your coil concept reference. I won't stop anyone from using coils at any ground position of my device, if my stuff was LEGALLY published. During your experience; You may find that at some points, you goofed, and at other points, you achieved something great. Don't brag about anything concerning "perpetual closed loop of energy transfer". My original concept of such, and as usual, different specifications, was stolen by a college professor and a student that assisted him in a college class I took, back in the 1990s; "[Perpetual] closed loop of energy transfer"? You people defined it already. No take backs. Next time stolen person's concepts are used as a reference, make sure you think of all other possibilities. I just wonder in which TV or Radio, that goofy thing was found. Let's do not confuse concepts though. You got coils. My "solution" of a resistive/low value components usage in the natural configuration of my designs, was nothing to brag about. The more I mention, the smarter people will feel they are. I don't want that. I want to be smart. You can learn some new things after my full presentation, whenever. I might not even get there. My development is very dangerous, if not contained, or controlled by the right people. I don't blame anyone here for not being the right people. I already knew that there was nothing right, here. This is my 3rd entrance in a MIT sponsored contest. This is about my 14th entrance in online contests. Guess what? It's bad to hate a scientific player and make them lose. You just look dumb. The scientific community should simply consider their insanity as they reject fascinating things like mine, feeling they know all. P.S., I was unfairly cheated out of victory. My "solution" in other lights. I am surprised that stuff (Your definition of a definitive concept, relating to only ONE thing; Coils ("[Perpetual] closed loop of energy transfer")) work on lights. Did you try leaving the light running for a year? What a sad world you people live in. I may be a failure at this, but I don't look stupid. I know a lot of people want that. I experience it every day, as if all who went to school with, and didn't go to school with me, feel like dunces, and solve it, as they prance around showing off as if I will ever forget how smart I am, simply because they can act a storm up just to prove their intelligence. I keep reminding people. Something is science. If you want to call it the streets, that's nice. I don't care. I think, I don't need my college degree to spoil how I feel about some people. Just bring it on. It's all street trash. What else do we have after we have left schooling, than an experience in street trash education? I learn that everywhere I go. Here is no different. "[Perpetual] closed loop of energy transfer". Ha!!!!!! Be ashamed of that thing please. It has some evil doings behind it. |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 21, 2017 10:49 | Proposal contributor Me and my bad memory; "This is about my 14th entrance in online contests.". I wrote more than 30 proposals to the US government for grants, and failed at all--I almost succeeded once, but that does not count. They could have taken my dare to accept my proposal, even if to was 1--. I have about 3 inventions. What I see from proposing, is that the world is full of idiots, who feel they know all. If you know all, how is it you didn't invent what I invented, and all you are is a shadow beneath my wings? How is it that you always write synopsis to fill that gap in your minds that does not know anything? Someone makes a proposal, then you pretend that you know it all? How stupid. Let's not go out of the country and become international. From what I see going on in the grant's system, is that American grants monies, are used to fuel foreign scientific ventures, as a deliberation of ignorance is made against US affairs in the scientific community. How else does one take over the world than with money? From this insight; Science may well be defined as belonging to international entities. What? Was it brought into the US during WWII, and it's stuck in the hands of those who feel it belongs to them? They possess it? Own it? See how simple that was to understand? P.S., as a joke, I made references of very intriguing inventions. I gave credit to all those who helped me invent my idea. I gave thanks to those people that made capacitors possible, resistors; Those who made semiconductor components are thanked too. It's just not necessary, because my invention only need those components in an optional manner. I referenced every common electronic component ever made, from the passive to the active, as they were designed by the original inventors. Read that and weep please. You want credit? You got it. The credit simply belongs to those who have made history with their tiny contributions to science. Not the inventor of a "perpetual closed loop of energy transfer". |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 26, 2017 10:00 | Proposal contributor I am trying to find a lawyer, and I am having trouble getting one; THE PROCESS ACTUALLY WORKS FOR SOME PEOPLE. THEY JUST GET THERE BEFORE YOU, AND WHAT'S NEW? |
Sherman Braithwaite Oct 27, 2017 01:45 | Proposal contributor I am trying to find a lawyer, and I am having trouble getting one; THE PROCESS AT WORK. |
Sherman Braithwaite Nov 24, 2017 07:25 | Proposal contributor WORKING WITH GARBAGE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE RIGHT EXCEPT PEEP INTO THE QUANTUM UNIVERSE AND PRETEND YOU KNOW SOMETHING OR HOW THINGS WORK; MP/1900 IS THE PAST, GROW UP |
