Mathematics is the supreme judge; from it’s decision there is no appeal.
- Tobias Dantzig (February 19, 1884 - August 9, 1956)
Kohei Minato has been showing (demonstrating) his permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motors (PMMs) around since 1996. He showed them off, throughout the United States, Mexico, Korea, Singapore, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and in many other countries. He patented two of his PMMs in 47 countries; (US Patents #5,594,289 & #4,751,486). He sold 40,000 cooling PMM powered fans to a major convenience store chain in Japan; who, in turn, distributed and resold those fans to the public. This constitutes an enormous body of witnesses from whom to take testimony. Then, of course, there is Charles Flynn’s PMM, (US Patent #6,246,561, June 12, 2001), and all the many witnesses thereof; and, Calvin Hoogerhyde’s PMM, (US Patents #20,100,156,202, June 24, 2010 & 20,120,007,450, January 12, 2012), and all the many witnesses thereof. There is just too much evidence, of working PMMs, out there to ignore or destroy.
Even some of the top Japanese companies are coming out, publically, validating the reality of PMMs. In April 2011, Hitachi Magnetics Corporation of California stated that a motor-generator, run solely by permanent magnets, is feasible and logical but that the politics of the matter make it impossible for them to pursue developing one. In other words, they were not only muzzled, they were prevented (forcibly) from developing PMM technology.
Engineering, often, does not operate in a vacuum. When politics (the powers that be) enter the picture, as is apparent that it has, here (for PMMs); so does the law. Because the powers that be have (apparently) selected to quash (stagnate) the development of PMM technology, and the immediate commercial proliferation thereof, for ill gotten gain (selfish reasons), a “legal proof” is not only called for; it is paramount.
It is apparent, from the above facts, that all of the major motor manufacturers, throughout the world, are not only well aware of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs but, they either bench tested them, themselves, or reviewed credible bench tests of them.
In law; “The thing speaks for itself.” Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs tell us that it is possible for a PMM to generate 2.3+ times more electricity than the amount of electricity required to continually actuate it. This is not to say that Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, or Flynn’s, PMMs are more than 100 percent efficient; energy wise. They aren’t! The conservation of energy law (the First Law of Thermodynamics) is maintained, for Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs. The only thing that is missing (in Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs) is a plausible (mathematical) explanation as to why they work; but, work they do!
These facts raise several questions for those major motor companies, throughout the world, that would, still, claim that such a thing is not possible: (1) are they merely being grossly negligent in deriving the mathematical proof to support the reality of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs, before speaking out against the reality of such a thing (system); or, (2) are they intentionally defaming anyone who would claim that such a thing is possible, saying that it isn’t possible; knowing full well that it is?
In either case, if they continue to proclaim (publically) that such a thing (a permanent magnet powered PMM) is not possible, when the fact of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs, clearly, prove that such a thing is possible; not only can they be SUCCESSFULLY sued for damages but, damages are presumed. Worse, punitive damages are not out of the question.
High punitive damages, (at least 2% of total net worth), as well as prison time, are available sanctions because, by either defaming or grossly neglecting, to recognize the reality of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs, a major motor company would (effectively) be heavily contributing to humanity’s extinction from global warming. These offenses are also actionable, in a citizen suit, under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the U.S. Clean Water Act, as well as other U.S. laws.
The most profound aspect of the U.S. Clean Water Act is that, in light of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs and the U.N.’s recent Climate Change Report, any U.S. citizen can SUCCESSFULLY sue to have all U.S. States’ emission control plans revised to require that all motor companies cease and desist from manufacturing or selling any more combustion motors, of any type, immediately.
Defamation is a double edge sword. A company that has to rely upon defamation, achieves little to nothing from the effort. It does, however, expose that company, (and it’s owners and managers), to legal action from within (it’s own employees, partners, and stockholders) and from so many others, who are not a direct target of that defamation. Worse, defamation severs that company’s own legs (figuratively speaking) in the doing. Not only does it alienate prospective innovators, who know better, it prevents that company from coming out with a similar product. A company can’t say, on one side of it’s mouth, that such a PMM is not possible; and, then, on the other side of it’s mouth, later, say that it was working on such a PMM, all along. Doing so would expose that company to a SUCCESSFUL law suit for stealing, or extorting, proprietary technology.
Those who would, still, claim that Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs are not possible are either affiliated with a major motor company (or a major research lab); or, are independent. Affiliates, by so defaming (or so grossly neglecting to support that claim), subject (expose) themselves, the companies they are affiliated with, and the owners and managers of those companies, to the liabilities I outlined above.
An independent might perpetrate such defamation, or gross negligence, in hopes of securing a position with one of the major motor companies or one of the major research labs. They think it might impress. It won’t. The problem with that is that, those entities cannot hire that person, if that person committed or continues to commit such defamation or gross negligence. If they do hire that person, by so doing, they subsume the liability for that person’s defamation or gross negligence.
No one (in affirmative defense) can claim ignorance because they didn’t or couldn’t bench test Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, or Flynn’s, PMMs; or, because they didn’t or couldn’t read their company’s bench tests of those PMMs. A person can say that they’re not sure (under those circumstances) but, they cannot say that such a thing is not possible, in light of the available proliferation of empirical evidence to the contrary, unless they (personally) have properly examined that evidence. To put it a different way; a company (or an individual acting alone) can’t claim that they didn’t know any better, if they participated, (directly or indirectly), in the concealment, fabrication, or destruction, of the relevant evidence. Hiding from the evidence also nullifies any claim of ignorance. A person cannot say that a thing is not possible if it is relatively easy (which it is, here) to discovery that it is possible.
When a person comes out and claims to be knowledgeable in the art (claims to be an engineer or a physicist), a higher duty of care attaches to that person’s statements to others, in questions of the art they are versed in. Once a person claims to be knowledgeable and an authority (an expert), in a particular art, their speech, as it pertains to that art, is circumscribed by a finite set of very specific laws, meant to curtail that speech; or, rather, meant to prevent that speech from harming others. In other words, experts are not free to say whatever they please, when it comes to their area of expertise. If a person does not want to be presumed an expert, and treated as such, that person must qualify their statements by coming out an saying so.
For a real life example; I am not an expert on the law because I am not an attorney. I am not a licensed engineer or an accomplished physicist, either.
The first three questions that the court will ask of such a person, in such a defamation action against that person, is; (1) How did you know (for an absolute certainty) that such a thing was not possible, before you claimed to be an expert in the area and said (publically or to other employees) that such a thing was not possible; (2) Why didn’t you bother (take the time) to examine the evidence (especially the U.S. Patents) to the contrary, before you claimed to be an expert in the area and said (publically or to other employees) that such a thing was not possible; and, (3) If you didn’t want to, or couldn’t, take the time to examine the evidence to the contrary, why didn’t you just say (after claiming to be an expert in the area) that you weren’t sure if it was possible (because you didn’t examine the evidence) but, that you think (suspect) that such a thing might not be possible, instead?
No private entity or person (claiming to be an expert in the area, in affirmative defense to such a defamation action) can claim public necessity, either. A private entity, or person, can’t make such a claim. Regardless, even if they (PMMs) are deemed a military secret, which they are not, public takings are still compensable, in the U.S. Additionally, the military is subject to the same liabilities I outlined above, under the U.S. Sikes Act.
There is (practically) no statute of limitation on such defamation or gross negligence. In light of the nature (severity) of these offenses; the more time that goes by, the harsher the punishment will be when the offenders are brought to justice. As global warming becomes more readily apparent, the clamor for justice (in this regard) will become that much louder.
In light of the nature (severity) of these offenses; Congress isn’t going to bail anybody out from being prosecuted for these offenses; no President is going to pardon anybody from a conviction for these offenses; and, no judge is going to accept any amount of a bribe to render a different decision, other than guilty (liable) as charged, on all counts.
Dan
PS:
Well done is better than well said.
– Benjamin Franklin (January 6, 1705 - April 17, 1790)
Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.
- Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955)
The essence of mathematics is not to make simple things complicated, but to make complicated things simple.
- S. Gudder
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955)
Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.
- Betrand Russell (May 18, 1872 - February 2, 1970)