< = back | = > Magnocraft (overview) < =

Blue links lead to the fully translated html versions of the page, purple links lead to pages whose start pages (as well as introductions and tables of contents at least) are already set up, green links lead to extern sites, grey means that no file is available yet).

/Notes in this color and between two / are from the operator of the German mirror site and translator/.

Copyright Dr. Eng. Jan Pająk

Magnocraft: a new concept for a magnetically propelled starship

Part #J: How wasted was probably the only opportunity to have my Magnocrafts built in Poland back in the 20th century:

#J1: When and why I attempted to undertake the construction of the Magnocraft at the TBM Institute of the Wroclaw University of Technology:

/Translation with DeepL from Polish original, as this has received a newer update in the meantime./

From 1970 to 1980, Wroclaw University of Technology was a very different university than it is now. At that time, a large portion of the graduates of my class - who showed great creative enthusiasm and one of the best professional preparations in the world - entered its scientific ranks. At the time, the university also had a creative atmosphere unparalleled elsewhere, combined with unusual resilience, professional experience and performance capabilities. As I later established on the basis of my wanderings through the universities of the world and openly explained in item #E1. of a separate page called Yearbook, using the "quality of education of its graduates" as an evaluation criterion, in the years 1960 to 1980 the Wroclaw University of Technology was one of the best, if not the best, technical university in the world (for a comparison with its situation today, see also item #J2 below). For example, its Institute of Machine Building Technology had at its disposal at that time everything that, in my estimation, would be required to build a prototype of a working Magnocraft.

This is because he had an enthusiastic and highly creative staff of some of the world's highest-qualified engineering scientists, cooperated intensively with industry (for example, I myself, in addition to working at the university, also worked part-time in industry as a scientific advisor at the "Elwro" computer factory and the "Polmo-Jelcz" truck and bus factory). - Thus, its scientific staff was experienced and firmly on the ground, it maintained an uncommonly high creative atrmosphere and professional ethics, it had well-equipped research laboratories, it had excellent prototyping facilities with a performance capacity unparalleled at other universities, and it had access to extensive libraries and fast and effective technical, technological and scientific information. The only thing its leadership lacked at the time was self-confidence and knowledge of the capabilities of its staff, as well as a project such as "the construction of the Magnocraft" that would have made him realize what the true creative and executive potential of the institute was.

In 1986, I published my first Polish-language monograph [1], comprehensively describing the Magnokraft. It bore the biographical data: Pajak J.: "Theory of the Magnocraft (monograph on a discoidal spacecraft propelled by a pulsating magnetic field)". 1st edition, Polish language. March 1986, Invercargill, New Zealand, ISBN 0-9597698-5-4; 136 pages, 58 figures. (This monograph is referenced at [1] and [1Fc] in the list of supplementary literature from Chapter Y and from subchapter F10 of my latest monograph [1/5]. In fact, it was the "prototype" for the descriptions of the Magnocraft in my present monograph [1/5]).

Having already published that monograph [1], still in 1986 I officially approached the Scientific Council of the Institute of Machine Building Technology of the Technical University of Wroc³aw for permission to open in that institute a postdoctoral dissertation the topic range of which would include the construction and operation of the Magnocraft explained by the content of that monograph. Unfortunately, in 1986 the Scientific Council of that institute I-24 rejected the Magnocraft as qualifying for the thematic scope for my habilitation thesis and denied me the right to open a habilitation thesis at that institute. And that is a great pity.

After all, if at that time I would have been allowed to undertake there the research and development work on the construction of this vehicle, by the end of the 20th century the Magnokraft would certainly have already been built in Poland. In turn, by today I probably would have already built and put into the service of Poles an even more advanced version of the Magnocraft capable of time travel and of shifting us back to the years of our youth after each reaching the old age, which version of the Magnocraft, on a separate web page named Immortality, is described under the name "time vehicle". The reasons why I am so sure that that my personal attempt to build the Magnocraft at the Wrocław University of Technology would be successful, is explained in the content of item #J3 below on this web page.

#J2. Renoma Politechniki Wrocławskiej, a uszeregowania uczelni według ich jakości:

As I revealed above, my comparisons made during my wanderings "for bread" through the universities of the world, allowed me to determine that, using the "quality of education of its graduates" as a criterion for evaluation, in the years 1960 to 1980, the Wrocław University of Technology was one of the best, if NOT the best, technical university of the world - which I justify in more detail in item #E1. of a separate page called Yearbook. However, I am NOT the only one who makes comparisons of the quality of the various universities of the world.

This is because at the moment when the spread of the "Internet" opened to everyone the possibility of publishing what he or she considers appropriate or what can benefit him or her, various institutions in the world also took up the subject of compiling their own lists of universities of the world ranked in terms of "quality" (unfortunately, typically in a not very clear understanding and definition of this "quality" by a given publisher - which immediately raises the suspicion that the majority of these lists, instead of objectivity, are guided rather by political, nationality, or benefit criteria). Therefore, at the moment there are already quite a few such lists which indicate the opinions of their authors as to which universities in the world occupy which positions in terms of quality. In order to get an idea of how many different such lists have already been compiled, all you need to do in some search engine, such as google.com", type keywords: world university rankings.

For example, one of the institutions compiling such lists of universities is a newspaper in the UK called The Times Higher Education Supplement. This is because for many years this newspaper published quite profitable employment advertisements emanating from the various universities of the world. So it got to know these universities relatively well from the side of the staff they employ. (No wonder that this newspaper includes in its list practically only those universities in which some subjects are taught in English, and thus which employ or employed English-speaking lecturers found with the help of this newspaper. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that this newspaper uses various criteria for evaluating these universities, it is difficult to resist the impression that the position occupied by any university on its list depends on the number of job advertisements which this university has published in this newspaper). Unfortunately, the list of this newspaper is quite clumsy and not very well worked out - for example, in September 2011 it still lacked a search engine that would allow one to find the universities or information that one is looking for.

The most widely recognized and cited list of the positions of the world's individual universities is published in an English-language report produced annually (starting in 2004) by an institution called QS Ltd. (i.e. Quacquarelli Symmonds Ltd.). The institution's report is called "World University Ranking". In September 2011, the institute published the first part of this report containing the first 300 universities of the world (the positions of the remaining universities were to be published at the end of 2011).

A short article [1#J2] about this institution and its evaluation of Malaysian universities, titled "UM among top 200 varsities" (i.e., "Universiti Malaya within the top 200 universities" - note that "UM" is the university at which I too taught from 1993 to 1996), was published on page 18 of the Malaysian newspaper The Star, issue of Monday (Monday), September 5, 2011.

Unfortunately, the evaluation of individual universities of the world is carried out by this institution according to criteria which prove to be the most important from the point of view of maintaining the currently existing "status quo" - while which are completely useless from the point of view of inducing further "progress of human science, technology and quality of life." For example, fulfilling the criteria of this institution guarantees the continuation of the hitherto progress-destroying "monopoly on knowledge" held by the old so-called "atheistic orthodox science" - described in more detail, among others, in item #A2.6. of the web page named Totalizm, in items #C1. to #C6. of the web page named Telekinetics, or in item #B1. of the page named Tornadoes.

Indeed, these criteria include reviews (censorship) of the university's papers by academics from other universities, the reputation of the university in question among its employers, the ratio of local lecturers employed at the university to foreign lecturers employed there, the percentage of international students, the number of students per lecturer, and the number of foreign publication citations per lecturer. If one examines these criteria more closely, then it turns out that all of them have an anti-progressive effect, because each of them increases intellectual inertia, discourages research in novel directions and topics, supports pressure and influence from other scientists on what a given scientist is allowed to research and what results he or she is allowed to publish, kills creative and unconventional thinking etc.

In other words, this institution (similarly to every other present institution which draws up such lists of universities), does NOT use for the evaluation of individual universities criteria which would be essential for the "progress of knowledge, technology and quality of life on Earth" - that is, criteria postulated as essential by the new so-called "totaliztic science". "totaliztic science" described in more detail, among others, in items #F1. to #G2. of the page named God exists. For example, it does NOT take into account the emphasis that universities should place on instilling in students moral and ethical behavior and conduct - after all, "morality" is the "key to everything" (for details, see item #B4. on the web page named Morality), the level of discipline and conscientiousness developed at the university (illustrated e.g. by the by the ratio of the number of students who, given a choice of several terms, voluntarily passed on the first term - to the total number of students, or by the ratio of the number of projects issued to students to the number of projects completed and submitted on time, or by the ratio of average attendance at non-exam lectures to the number of students enrolled in a given subject), the level of difficulty in getting into the university (illustrated, e.g. by the ratio of the number of applicants seeking admission to the number of applicants admitted to the university), the level of professional and academic requirements (reflected, e.g., by the ratio of the number of students beginning their studies at a given university to the number of students graduating), the creative level of students or graduates (depicted, e.g., by the ratio of places won to the participation of its students in international competitions or creative events, or, e.g. by the ratio of the number of patents or trademarks that its students or graduates obtained to the total number of students), the creative level of its academic staff (illustrated e.g. by the ratio of the number of world-class discoveries and inventions made at a given university to the number of lecturers employed there), respect for truth and tolerance for different views that are the driving forces of progress (for details see item #F1. of the web page Totalizm or item #K1. of the page Morality), methods and level of lecturing that induce their own judgments and thinking in students (illustrated e.g. by the percentage of subjects which contain presentations of mutually contradictory theories explaining the same phenomena or events - as examples of such contradictory theories, consider the "origin of the universe" described by the old atheistic and orthodox "big bang (bang) theory" and by the new so-called "dipolar theory", which is the "theory of the universe" - Concept of Dipolar Gravity; both these mutually opposed theories are compared, among others, in item #C2. of the page Food handle or in item #C12. of the page named Bible) etc.

Meanwhile, many of these "totalizing criteria for evaluating universities" decided at the Wrocław University of Technology precisely the world-class quality of the graduates of my year - for details see item #E1 of the page Yearbook.

As a result of the adoption of non-living criteria for evaluating universities, in fact, for example, my personal evaluations of the quality of the universities in which I taught are the opposite of these official evaluations. This in turn means that something is drastically "wrong" in these official evaluations. After all, there is NO better evaluation of any universities than that which comes from lecturers who lectured both at the given universities and lectured in other universities compared to them - and thus who thoroughly learned the quality of both groups of students. And it so happens that I lectured both at Malaysian universities described in the above article [1#J2], and at New Zealand universities described, e.g., in the article [2#J2] entitled "Professor predicts brain drain after university rankings fall" (i.e., "professor predicts brain drain after university rankings fall"), from page A13 of the New Zealand newspaper called Weekend Herald, edition of Saturday (Saturday) September 10, 2011. And according to this my personal assessment and comparisons of universities in the two countries, Malaysian universities churn out about twice as many graduates as New Zealand universities (i.e., they are about twice as good). Meanwhile, Malaysia's official university ratings cluster around their numbering around position 200 on the list of the world's best universities. At the same time, the official ratings of New Zealand universities group them around number 100. So according to these official ratings, New Zealand universities are about twice as good as Malaysian universities - which is the exact opposite of the facts.

In 2011, the first places on the list of "best" universities in the world in the report of this QS institution were occupied by:
1. Cambridge University (UK)
2. Harvard University (US)
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
4. Yale University (US)
5. Oxford University (UK)
6. Imperial College London (UK)

"Universiti Malaya" from Malaysia is ranked 167th there. Unfortunately, in 2011, none of the Polish universities were no longer listed in those top 300 positions. Does this mean a further decline in the quality of Polish universities and their "drifting in place" instead of moving forward? After all, e.g. in 2010 the Warsaw University of Technology appeared in this list on 228 positions, while the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering of the Wrocław University of Technology appeared there on 351 positions. (Of the entire Wrocław University of Technology, only the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering was rated there at the time - does this mean that only it still shows the highest quality in the whole of that university?) Thus, one can get the impression that since I studied and worked at Wroclaw University of Technology, either the university has taken a big leap downward (or gone backward), or the whole world has degenerated and lost its understanding of what really counts in university graduates. In either case, however, it is high time to get our act together and start some vigorous and effective initiatives to improve the academic quality and reputation of this university.

In item #E3. of the page named God exists and in item #A2.1. of the page named Totalizm is explained the finding of "philosophy of totalizm", that in order to make "lying down on one's stomach" and "doing nothing" NOT the most moral human behavior, God immensely prudently established the so-called "moral field" which causes that those who neglect vigorous "acting forward" this "moral field" automatically "retreats backward". (Notice that this "moral field" is only one amongst a whole array of methods and tools which God uses for motivating and inspiring people - an example of other such methods and tools can be the educational method of God called "principle of reversal", and described, amongst others, in item #B1.1. of the page named Antichrist, or "the principle of extinction of the most immoral" described, among others, in item #B1. Among others, in item #G1. of the page named Free will.) Because of the workings of this "moral field," it would be of great benefit to the reputation and importance of the Wroclaw University of Technology (which is so dear to my heart) if its academic leadership would set the university on some ambitious, far-sighted and comprehensive research project, and then started to consistently implement this project in practice - for example, the project of becoming "the first university in the world which implemented the principles of 'totaliztic science'" - as suggested in item #E2. on the web page named Wrocław, or the project of becoming the "most moral university in the world" (e.g. in understanding the definition of "morality" provided in item #B5. from the page named Morality), or becoming "the first university in the world to undertake the project of realizing the Magnocraft" - after all, the idea of the Magnocraft originated at this very university etc.

#J3. Ludzie i środki konieczne aby zbudować pierwszy "Magnokraft" lub pierwszy "Wehikuł Czasu":

In my papers I explain that the first building of the vehicles which I invented, i.e. building either a "Magnocraft" or even immediately building a "time vehicle", is NOT such a difficult task for wysce creative minds - if the owners of such creative minds receive the required conditions for work and the required executive assistance. For example, already since 1985, means since the moment when I discovered how time works, I have been constantly propagating the truths described in chapter M of monograph [1/5] about the reality of building "Magnocrafts" and "time vehicles" and about gaining access to immortality with the help of these "time vehicles". In turn, truths about the reality of building only "Magnocrafts" I am propagating already continually starting from 1980. Also already in those distant times I could start the construction of "Magnocrafts" or "time vehicles" - if only I had received then the required support from other people. In such a case, by the present time, that is, after the passage of several decades, Magnocrafts and time vehicles would have been built long ago and would have been in common use long ago. After all, even much more complex programs, such as "Apollo" or "Manhattan", gave concrete results already after 8 and 4 years - as I remind descriptively in item #K2. of the page Immortality.

And it should be remembered that at the time when those construction programs were started, their final goals looked as distant and as impossible to achieve as today seems the first construction of a "Magnocraft" or the first construction of a "time vehicle". We should also remember that the knowledge on the subjects of those construction goals in the people who implemented those programs was, at the time of their initiation, even much lower to the level of my knowledge on the principles of operation of "Magnocrafts" and "time vehicles". Furthermore, the implementers of these programs did NOT have as obvious confirmations of the correctness of their ideas as these numerous confirmations which I described in subsections M1.3. to M1.8. and in volumes 14 to 17 of monograph [1/5], or in subsequent parts of this web page (while which I also summarized in items #D1. to #D7. of the abovementioned web page named "Immortality").

On the basis of my experience and estimations, I personally believe that if from the beginning of my research on the "Magnocraft" or on the "time vehicle" I had received the working conditions, financing and executive support required for this purpose, then even if I worked alone, still by the end of the 20th century Magnocrafts would already be flying, while by the time I undertook the writing of monograph [1/5], "time vehicles" would already be built and would already be operating. It would also be enough if my efforts were supported by even a small implementation capability, similar to the one that the Institute of Machine Building Technology of the Wroclaw University of Technology once had in the times when I worked there at the beginning of my scientific career, or when, already after I emigrated to New Zealand and after the invention of the "oscillatory chamber", I formally applied to its Scientific Council for permission for me to prepare in it my habilitation thesis on the subject of the construction and operation of the Magnocraft (unfortunately, this permission was then formally denied to me by the Scientific Council of the Institute of TBM of the Wroclaw University of Technology). In other words, I believe that both the first "Magnokraft" and the first "time vehicle", in a favorable atmosphere of support for creative work and with executive assistance in the construction of prototypes and test stands from the institution in which I worked, I myself would be able to build with the forces and resources that are available in a well-equipped university - such as, for example, the Wroclaw University of Technology was until about 1980. Unfortunately, in the course of my professional career, almost none of my superiors shared this professional opinion of mine. Thus, I never received a chance to prove the truth of such statements. Therefore, in this subsection I will explain on what I base these my estimates and how I arrived at such findings.

Everyone will agree that once the technology of making my "Magnocrafts" or my "time vehicles" is mastered, then the production of the hardware that will comprise these vehicles will be relatively simple. After all, these vehicles have almost NO moving parts, while practically the only slightly more complicated component of them are magnetic propulsors shaped like relatively simple chambers (e.g. cubes). Thus the entire art of acquiring the ability to build these vehicles boils down to the accumulation of the required "knowledge". Therefore, for example, any factory of the size of today's typical car factories, operating on the territory of any country, even such a small one as Poland or New Zealand, in the future will be able to flood the market with a whole mass of serially produced by it "Magnocrafts" or "time vehicles". Besides, already today we have an excellent illustration for this from the miniature South Korea, which is able to flood the entire world with its cars, successfully competing even with a superpower like the US.

In a manner similar to such a factory serially producing previously perfected designs of these vehicles, also the execution facilities which will support the first builder of these ships will not need to be some kind of technical miracle. Practically any well-equipped workshop performing quickly and on time whatever this first builder designs and orders to be done, will be completely sufficient. Thus, in terms of hardware support for the construction of the first "Magnocrafts" or "time vehicles", the capabilities of practically any well-equipped technical university, or any well-equipped institute of industrial research and development, are sufficient. Thus, even tiny island states located somewhere at the end of the world, from the technical point of view, could be tempted to build the first "Magnocraft" or the first "time vehicle" - if only their management and staff have the required faith in themselves and in their creative abilities.

Slightly more difficult than executive facilities, is the creation of appropriate working conditions, that is, conditions for the creative working out by some person or team of considerable knowledge necessary for the construction of the first prototypes of these vehicles. After all, these conditions do not only consist of a paid salary and an office building in which a given builder, or a given creative team, could work in relative comfort, but also the creation of the so-called "creative work atmosphere". In turn, such a "creative work atmosphere" depends on many factors, e.g. on the "morality" and "professional ethics" of the people who make up a given team (which "morality" and "professional ethics" in present "fallen times" almost everywhere are exceptionally low), on the attributes of character of the person who leads this team, on mutual "liking" or "disliking" of all participants of this team, on the absence in the team of "black sheep" who with their intrigues, humor and destructive procedures are able to spoil the work atmosphere, etc.

As a result, in order for such a creative work atmosphere to prevail in a given creative team, it is almost absolutely necessary that this team is led with a truly "iron hand" by one highly creative person, who not only is directly involved in the creation, but in addition also has the right to appoint or to eliminate any other member of his team. However, in my experience, today's team leaders not only are NOT directly involved in the creative work (i.e., they merely play "managers"), but for various reasons they are also deprived of the right to select their team members, and the right and ability to eliminate those team members who do not perform well. As a result, the typical creative teams of today are compilations of a random assemblage of participants, in which there always appear some "black sheep" which spoil the creative atmosphere of work with their intrigues and lack of harmony with the rest of the team, but whom, for various reasons, cannot be removed from a given team.

However, the most difficult part of building the first "Magnocraft" or the first "time vehicle" will be to provide the required contribution of "creative labor." This is because in order for these vehicles to become a reality, someone must put the required amount of creative labor into synthesizing the technical "knowledge" required for their construction, i.e. into working out their operation and design, and into figuring out and researching those bits of additional knowledge which are necessary for their construction, but which as yet are unknown to people. However, in order to be able to quantitatively estimate how much of this "creative labor" will be necessary for the construction of the first "Magnocraft" or the first "time vehicle", we first need to introduce and define for ourselves a unit which will later allow us to quantitatively express the contribution of someone's creative labor. We will call this unit "creative-hour" and mark it here with the symbol [th]. In terms of its meaning, we can compare it to the "labor-hour" well known to all of us from physical work. After all, knowing the "labor-hour" one can quantitatively estimate any physical work, e.g., determining that baking one loaf of bread with the availability of given working conditions and given tools, requires putting in, for example, 2 "labor-hours". In a similar way, having a definition of "creative-hours" we can calculate or estimate that, for example, designing a brand new car today with favorable working conditions requires putting in about 3,000 "creative-hours".

We can also calculate or estimate (which I have already done in the course of my research to date) that to develop from scratch the first "Magnocraft" in today's times, with today's level of technology and under the most favorable working conditions, would require putting into it about 1000000 "creative-hours" (i.e. about one million [th]), while to develop from scratch immediately the first "time vehicle" while meeting the conditions described here would require putting into it about 2000000 "creative-hours" (i.e. about two million [th]).

In defining the "creative-hour" [th], the definition of the "physical-hour" [gfh] used for estimating the amount of "moral energy zwow", while described and defined in subsection JE8. from volume 8 of monograph [1/5], becomes highly useful as a guideline. Thus, similarly as in the case of that [gfh], also this [th] can be defined as follows: "one unit of contribution of someone's creative technical work, called here a 'creative-hour' or [th], is such an amount of creativity that an average 1970 graduate of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering at the Wroclaw University of Technology was able to generate under typical working conditions in one hour of strenuous and undisturbed creative work". As a model of creative work I purposely, and for several reasons, use here the example of graduates of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering of Wroclaw University of Technology, the selection and course of education of which I described in more detail in part #E of the above web page named Yearbook. For example, I know of these graduates that they represented a large enough sample of technically highly educated people to give a good idea of the magnitude of the "national average" creative capacity of which my generation of residents of our country was capable. Moreover, I knew the creative level of my university colleagues best - after all, I spent the six most important years of my life with them. In addition, this particular vintage of 1970 ME-PW graduates, in my personal perception, represented the highest level of knowledge not only in Poland, but also in the whole world. Hence, I could then compare this level with the creative level of graduates of any other universities in the world in which I later taught.

Having defined "creative-hour[th]", I am already able to define how much creative work it would take me to complete certain creative activities myself. After all, I know that, for example, all publications that I myself have prepared up to the time of writing this subsection and item, so all my monographs, as well as all my web pages (and their number already far exceeds 200), contain within them about 4.000.000 (i.e. four million) of the previously defined "creative-hours". In other words, all my publications contain in themselves a creative input which is equivalent to my personal construction completely from scratch of both the first "Magnocraft" (according to my assessment requiring the input of about one million "creative-hours") and additionally also the first "time vehicle" (according to my assessment requiring the input of about two million "creative-hours") - and in addition I would still have a lot of "creative-hours" left for the preparation of publications and documentation describing exactly the operation, design, and technology of construction of these vehicles.

However, the problem starts to get complicated when one tries to estimate how many other creative people would be needed to build these vehicles. This is because the point is that creative abilities do NOT remain at the same level in every person and in every country. For example, I noted in my wanderings around the world, that in spite of their messiness, rebelliousness, and delighting in what is foreign while simultaneously neglecting what is their own (according to the saying "you praise others and do not know your own"), Poles still maintain a level many times more creative than many other nations (although there are also nations even more creative than Poles, e.g. Koreans). For example, w/ my estimates, the technical creative output of a typical American has already dropped to about 0.3 [th], while the technical creative output of a typical New Zealander or Australian has already dropped to about 0.1 [th]. (In combination with the currently intensifying harassment of creative employees in institutions of these countries, this drop in creative productivity causes that in recent times the world has ceased to hear about any significant technical invention developed and implemented by employees of any institution of these countries. The only inventions which are still being implemented there are those which could be realized by people working on their own account, i.e. people who are independent from the decisions and support of the institutions in which they work).

Studies conducted on programmers show that the differences in creative productivity between a very good and an average programmer, when creating a not at all complex product such as an ordinary computer program, can be as large as 1:50. (These differences in the creation of a technical product with a much higher requirement for specialized knowledge, with many times higher complexity, and with an operation and technology of execution which previously remained completely unknown, i.e. a product such as a "time machine" or "Magnokraft", will certainly be even higher than 1:50. Only that for the "time machine" so far no one is able to measure the differences in the creative productivity of its implementers). In other words, a similarly working program will be executed by a good programmer in 1 hour, while an average programmer needs to consume as much as 50 hours of work on it - with both programmers having similar education and work experience. I have observed similar results in my creative work. For example, in the early stages of my scientific career, I myself prepared in a few months a completely new technical programming language called JAP (its name "JAP" was an acronym for "Automatic Programming Language" - see its descriptions on pages 175-178 in the Polish scientific and technical monthly "Mechanik" No. 4/1973), but on a programming language similar to JAP as many as two large institutions worked in Poland for several more years. (It is also known to me that when these institutions finally developed it, it turned out to be completely unusable.) On another occasion, which also stuck in my memory, I, in a few minutes, was able to correctly predict, indicate and explain to a colleague the exact distribution of stresses in a roller bearing, which the colleague had been toiling over for several months to study. In addition, I am the very inventor of the "Magnocraft" and the "time machine". Empirics, on the other hand, shows that an inventor by nature is many times more creative and more motivated in the affairs of his invention than other people.

Personally, therefore, I estimate that one hour of my creative work on my own invention and on other ideas of which I am the author, is worth at least about 50 "creative-hours," i.e. hours of creative input from other typical individuals of comparable power to that of the individual [th], working, however, on an idea that was suggested to them by someone else. In fact, I have become well acquainted with as many as several universities, each of which, as a whole, generated significantly less creative output than I generated on my own as a single scientist. Thus, taking into account this fact that my creative output is about 50 times higher than the previously defined unit [th], it is possible to easily calculate how many creative people would be required to build the first "Magnocraft" and the first "time machine", knowing that their construction would consume respectively
1000000 [th] (i.e. "creative-hours"), and
2000000 [th].
For example, a well-motivated development team of 100 people, each of whom would exhibit creative abilities of not less than 1 [th], working in an institution with the right "creative atmosphere" and having the required executive facilities, would be able to build a "time machine" in a period of about 7 years. In turn, if it were possible to assemble a slightly more capable development team in which each of its members is able to give 2 [th] out of all the hours of his creative work, then only a 50-member development team would be able to build the same vehicle in the same period of about 7 years, or a 25-member team - in a period of about 14 years. (I personally would not advise either shortening the execution time or increasing the development team excessively, because then the phenomenon of "killing oneself with shovels" begins to work. This phenomenon is best explained by the illustrative situation of digging a pit. Namely, "if one worker digs a pit the size of 1 cubic meter in one hour, this does not at all mean that 60 workers would dig the same pit in one minute." - After all, those 60 workers would "kill each other with shovels".

Therefore, I personally believe that the development team should be as small as possible, while the time given to them to make the project a reality should not be shorter than about 7 years, although it should also not be longer than about 14 years. After all, people are only human, and after about 10 years of working on the same project, they stop being creative and start acting routinely). Thus, as the above calculations show, in fact even single present universities or single present research and development institutions (e.g. located at present car or airplane factories from even the smallest countries) would be able to successfully realize the construction of the first "Magnocrafts" and the first "time vehicles". The only thing necessary for this to happen is for their creative and moral employees and principals to display unremitting faith, motivation and determination about their ability to achieve this goal.

= > #K.

Visitors since 15.12.22: (english sites)