qq1932: mircea_popescu: I don't know how else to put this. I want to pitch just someone who has the level of physics understanding that they would have understood and funded the Watt engine (as an IP play, which is what it was) in 1700 (70 years early.)

qq1932: mircea_popescu: I realize that you have self-qualified above with "no". I do not want to convince you based on appeals to authority, collaborators, third-party things, etc. This is a suitable partnership with someone who would self-qualify as 'yes' to the above question. Thank you however.

qq1932: mircea_popescu: the other projects hvae employees, progress, etc.

qq1932: mircea_popescu: well, I am not in a position to drop my other projects to pursue this discretionary project.

qq1932: mircea_popescu: there is no "secret" component to this, I don't need to hold anything back. Of course, that only matters to those self-qualifying as having enough understnading to discriminate between the Watt's steam engine 70 years early (1700) and snake oil.

qq1932: mircea_popescu: this means, however, that I am at liberty to share 100% of it within hte limits of what IP law permits (as this is a licensing play, like Watt's engine).

qq1932: mircea_popescu: I have not committed any resources to it, and cannot commit to full-time work on it; I have two major existing outside commitments. I may not do the project at all.

qq1932: Basically, I agree with you. At any rate anyone who is interested in hearing in this needs to self-qualify as having enough understanding of basic high-school physics that they actually could have understood the Watt steam engine 70 years early, if Watt had described it. If you self-qualify (it sounds, mircea_popescu, that your answer is no) we can discuss. This is a totally discretionary project.

qq1932: mircea_popescu: I agree with what you're saying, and most innovations in, e.g. battery technology, or fusion reactor design, and so forth, are far too difficult for anyone other than a non-expert to evaluate.

qq1932: mircea_popescu: I can understand this but in this particular case the principles are no more advanced (by comparison) than the Watt steam engine at the time. It's a different field, this is an analogy.

qq1932: mircea_popescu: I disagree with you that it always takes much more than "highschool understanding" of any topic to recognize fundamental innovations that eluded people. In fact, this is the reason a lot of people think the "obvious" bar is too low and no patents should be granted . I had someone tell me that there is no fundamental innovation of any kind in the past 200 years that was not "obvious".