3 ms·
Here’s the TLDR: > - The High Energy Electromagnetic Field Generator testing occurred from October 2016 through September 2019; > - The cost was $508,000 over
by electrograv 6y ago
Here’s the TLDR:
> - The High Energy Electromagnetic Field Generator testing occurred from October 2016 through September 2019;
> - The cost was $508,000 over the course of three years. Around ninety percent of the total - $462,000 - was for salaries, while the rest was used for equipment, test preparation, testing and assessment.
> - When NAWCAD concluded testing in September 2019, the “Pais Effect” could not be proven.
> Despite the fact that NAWCAD says the experiments ended in September 2019 without proving the “Pais Effect,” the inventor asserted to The War Zone in a November 18, 2019 email that his work “culminates in the enablement of the Pais Effect” and that “as far as the doubting SMEs [Subject Matter Experts] are concerned, my work shall be proven correct one fine day…”
However IMO what's really interesting is when we contrast this announcement of test failure with prior released documents showing that the Chief Technology Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise wrote a letter to the US Patent Office pressuring them to overturn a prior rejection of these patents, claiming that the technology is operable and that "China is already investing significantly in this area".
Citation: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-got-ufo-patent-granted-by-warning-of-similar-chinese-tech-advances https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-g...
- keyle 6y agoThat seems like such a low cost. How can a R&D project of this magnitude only cost that much in 3-4 years?
- lallysingh 6y agoMostly folks doing the math and simulations, I'd assume.
- colechristensen 6y agoIt doesn’t seem that unreasonable, mostly one guy in a lab chasing a theory. If it were any smaller scale the costs would be denominated in beer and garage space. Government salaries aren’t silicon valley salaries.
- simonh 6y agoAny equipment used could have been repurposed from past projects, or borrowed from existing ones. If that's the case, it helps explain why they might green light the project even if it has a low expected chance of panning out. Might as well use it for something.
- bane 6y agoWell, the article says "operable" which just means there's a thing that works. But it doesn't say how well.
- bonestamp2 6y agoIt's also possible that they have something operational, whether they build it or came by it, but they don't know how it works and still wanted to patent it.