ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

The question, or perhaps I should say the challenge, which is most often fired at me, is: "If the VLB engine is so good, how come other engine companies aren't pursuing it, given that they are actively exploring all sorts of alternative technologies?" It's a fair question, but it does show a lack of 'real world' understanding.

For a start, whilst we were in the initial stages of developing the VLB engine, we attended meetings with a number of important and significant technical representatives of some of the major vehicle and engine companies. Those too far away for us to visit, communicated in writing. In other words, they were extremely interested.

We developed the engine in a relatively small workshop, farming out the components to various engineering companies, and generally running a very low profile programme. I should be amazed if we were the only ones to do so. Secondly, this website has revealed far more information than was ever given to anyone before, yet still I doubt that we have divulged enough to enable a VLB engine to be built and run successfully, without a substantial development program. And even if other companies have built one, and it was successful, why would they tell anyone?

The engine companies (who were open with us) made it very clear that they would rather just gently tickle their existing technologies, and work their way towards improvement, in nice easy, very safe, steps. No way could anyone 'evolve' a stock engine to the point of getting it to run in an acceptably stable, wide enough power band, 'arc initiated adiabatic' mode. Believe me, the immediate advantages that would have opened up to us, if I could have succeeded in pulling off such a stunt, were such that it was a very sad day when I admitted defeat and called for a major configuration revision. (My backers were extremely upset with me, to say the least).

Not only do the engine producers not want to 'gamble' with major revisions, they would be terrified of being placed in a position of being forced to release new technology into the field – a single 'oversight', leading to the recall of huge numbers of 'faulty' engines, could bring them to their knees. I'm afraid that I have to admit to being (albeit reluctantly) on their side on this issue. My estimate was that it would take not less than three years to introduce a limited number of closely monitored VLB based vehicles onto the public roads. Five years would see the first mass production efforts, and probably ten years to get the whole "integrated concept" into regular use. The problem is that the "clean air brigade" tends to be as irrational in their quest for perfection, as are the engine builders in their fear of change. Unfortunately, once a clean technology is revealed, the public will be easily stirred into demanding unrealistic schedules.

Of course, the ten years have already passed, and if the engine companies had worked with us, instead of shooting us out of the skies, we would all now have our cleaned-up air.

I have worked with many large companies, and have had first hand experience of new technologies or procedures (which were not welcome, but which could not be flagrantly ignored) being dealt with. It's very easy to engineer an investigation project's failure. Firstly, one selects a team of people who "can be spared", clearly not the ones who are pursuing important objectives. Then they are given insufficient time, facilities, and funding. Of course they will fail to ratify the new technology or procedure! Their report will usually make it reasonably clear that certain 'avenues' were not pursued. That report will be edited down to the essentials, posted into the filing system, and forgotten. Later, if anyone asks why the idea was not implemented, there is a record of 'good intention', sufficient to exonerate all parties. Right across the world - this is happening - every day.

The engine industry is spending very large sums of money on alternative energy and pollution reduction research. But none of these high profile projects present any real threat to the standard engine! That does not mean that the research is phoney, or not worthwhile. It doesn't mean that the people working on the research are not entirely honest and worthy, and genuinely seeking to benefit mankind. All it means is that practical and viable options are not being pursued. The VLB engine falls into this category.

I do not propose, at this time at least, to offer any 'technical' criticism of the hydrogen fuel IC engine, or the electric 'plug into the mains supply' vehicle, except to say that neither is set to become a significant reality in the foreseeable future. However, I do accept that both could play a reasonably significant and important part in our future - perhaps. The fuel cell, in itself, is very important and significant, and it would be wrong to discourage its development. If the prospect of fuel cell vehicles motivates such research, I'm all for it. But such a vehicle isn't a viable alternative to the standard engine at the present, and it may never be. In other words it is another safe development area. The flywheel vehicle is a complete joke. Just how it ever managed to get any funding at all, amazes me. Every scientific fact one needs in order to demonstrate the clear and unarguable failings of this technology, can be found in any public library. Ergo, that is a very safe area of development indeed!

The reality is, that if any of the above technologies were introduced into the mass market, there would be an outcry, and rightly so! But don't worry, the engine companies know better than most why these technologies are not viable, so they won't be putting us at risk.

It's just simple economics. The engine companies are investing money and working hard to 'clean up the planet' and that is all we can expect them to do. If they did nothing we would probably be storming their barricades by now - so they have to do something.

The very last thing any government wants is to have its economic policies disrupted by dramatic changes in our need for fossil fuels. Therefore, we can not only rely upon them to support the above 'deceptions', we can rest assured that they will fight "tooth and nail", and pull out every trick in the book, to maintain the status quo - Even, to surreptitiously legislating against clean air.

From your point of view, would it not be reasonable to say that: If the VLB engine is not viable, there will be thousands of people who can offer evidence of this? Don't listen to, or accept, polemics – demand scientific proof. I am anticipating some rational argument, but let's face the fact: I shall not lose the battle on an honest technological front. That cannot be possible, because the VLB engine does work.

John Allen