> At any rate, one angle to consider are the
> security issues and need-to-know access that
> previously classified materials or even currently
> classified materials entail outside military
> protocol. . . Military Research and Development
> methodology is not an excessively public domain
> with easy access. Nor am I one to write the book
> on it presently. . . With projects outsourced,
> there’s often a vetting process that occurs.
> Socio-economic, management of industry, financial
> support of manufacturing / fabrication and, in a
> capitalist based economy, there’s patenting and
> profits to consider as well as eventual public and
> adversarial exposure of product spinoff
> development from unique resources. . . One should
> include staff personnel or employees also. . .
We considered this angle and I think it's probably the security issue that keeps the government from allowing these items to be further tested in academic labs.
> It will affect economy based investment procedures
> and expectations on global markets. They [private
> enterprises] often need to input an initial sum to
> continue research and development as well as see
> to their employee wages. The military
> establishment does seek potential
> developments of military utility geared toward
> their mandate – National Security. . . The
> military cannot seek a profit based outcome, but
> one should expect and allow private enterprises
> that privilege in a free and democratic society.
> The military does not necessarily claim
> originality, either, of initial ideas or back
> engineering observations from captured source
> materials. Credits stay with the private sector.
Except here's the thing. You'd think that somewhere along the line, we'd put that technology to use. We haven't. If it exists, why haven't we done anything with it?
> One angle, maybe two, regarding element
> identification might have to do with currently
> known elements and isotopes to those hypothesized
> which, as I recall Prof Stephen Hawking
> theorizing that there might be 200 elements, or
> so, to fill the period table of elements. Another
> source less contemporary suggests that there are
> 266 elements. Laird Scranton has elaborated
> on that angle and is a member on the forum boards
> where his input can be searched. He’s also
> written books on related material.
I would love to know where Hawking gets that from. For all his brilliance, he's like Fred Hoyle. He can really go over the cliff sometimes. At anything over 137, the periodic table, which is based on electron orbitals, breaks down. See the Dirac equation. The superactinide series allows for elements 121-157, but after that it gets really messy. The upper limit may go to around 173, but that is entirely theoretical.