January 9, 2006
To Whom it May Concern:
My name is Ted Carnes. I have been a Professional Engineer in the State of Texas for more than 20 years. I received my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1976.
First, allow me to apologies for the length of this “statement”. Dante’s work encompasses over 42 years of work, I understand and I have been involved for over 15 years of that, and what I experienced couldn’t be told in twenty times this text, and knowing that both professional and lay people will be reading this, and because I am the historic recorded PhD. of ME., I have tried to tell the truth as I experienced it, tell that which is the most scientific important, and then for the sake of 
, (in my opinion a worthy organization) and to the importance of their work and success of such, I felt compelled to explain that which I believe is the most important part of the 15 years association with Dante and the science and the worth of the GIFT, the science behind it, and the reasons I formulated my professional opinions, ergo this lengthy text.
I do not speak for the entire scientific community and especially I do not consider myself an expert in Physics, but with that said, my education in engineering and my experience with machines like the GIFT, which Dante calls the “Ellitilever Power Plant” lead me to knowing more than most about the science of these claims.
I believe my achieved education level, my 20 odd years at being a Professional Engineer and near 30 years at being a Mechanical Engineer, my work on invalidating two other men’s work in the same general field of what Dante claims, my performing an exact kinematics analysis of his model, which is in the controversial, so called “impossible” realm of science, my intelligence, my calculated even handed, engineering skepticism, and my years living on the face of the Planet, all qualify me as one of the best in the World. I do not say this out self-glorification, but rather as facts to be considered by those who may want to challenge Dante’s work. I also know the on going controversy of this type work, and the negative science that pertains to them, although I now know it is misguided. I also know what the physics professor had to say about Dante’s work, which in itself, should put all questions aside.
It is my opinion, that those in the scientific community that feel they know better than I, should ask questions of Professionalism and not Cynicism. As I understand it, Dante has been bombarded with cynics, and I am sure it will not stop, and I am here to say, his work is not only valid, but revolutionarily new and dynamic.
I have agreed to be the Mechanical Engineering spokesperson for and will answer any questions that first, and this is the most important condition, the question has to benefit and not just a personal desire for information, which I will give to the Engineering community, as I am now in the process of writing a scientific paper on certain of Dante’s discoveries, and secondly, they are asked in a professional manner. I have agreed to perform these duties without receiving any compensation from .
My expertise in machines and devices that supposedly go over unity, started in 1989, when I invalidated a mans claims concerning a device he showed me. Once again in 1990, another man came to me and once again, I invalidated his claims.
But, in June 1991, a man named Dante A. Donatelli Jr. came to me, and stated his case for a machine he invented. Although I had serious reservations about his claims, as I felt I could invalidate them as well, the way he stated his case to me and the fact he didn't ask me to validate his claims, but rather to invalidate them, I took on the task of analyzing his machine.
I went to his home, spent about three hours listening to his claims and witnessing a dynamic model he showed me that he claimed he had discovered the Third Use of the Bernoulli’s Principle and what he showed me and my interaction with the machine, was that the proof was right there in front of me. He asked me how long it would take for me to invalidate everything he showed me, and I stated a week to ten days, as I was sure I could use the same methods I used to invalidate the other two men’s work on Dante's work and I would achieve the same results of invalidation.
I spent almost four weeks analyzing his machine. What I found were more questions than I had answers for. After 30 days or so I asked Dante if I could take another look at his dynamic model and he agreed. At this time, I felt that the actions I was witnessing, an airfoil designed path of solid matter travel, was due to the "looseness" of the mechanics of the device. Dante insured me that no, what I was witnessing, even in my Kinematics Analysis of same, was actually the "Power Path" of "Power System Two", as he called it, of the use of the Third Use of the Bernoulli’s Principle for solid matter in motion.
Now, I have a cursory education in Physics and the science of Physics is not my expertise, as most engineers are not, and because of this, and because I did kinematically analyze one system of the three "Power-Systems" of his total machine, (as the others were too advanced and foreign to me, to even try to analyze, and I didn't even try), I had printed out the physical results of my analytical work and gave them to Dante, but I was very skeptical of Dante's explanation of same, which he gave me about six months later, simply because it went against all I knew and what engineers and physicists state is “improbable”.
I admit, I was more than skeptical of his explanation, since I do know the laws and principles of physics as well as any engineer would, but I know the engineering formulas better and although he used the basic horsepower formula that I was familiar with, and physics not being my expertise, I had reservations even about my own work, simply because I knew what science claimed about such work, that it was mechanically impossible to achieve.
Dante, in his pursuit to get the facts known to me, had another Mechanical Engineer, who had a Masters Degree and who worked at an Advanced Robotics Institute, perform the exact same analysis on the very same system of his machine, and this analysis used 80 points of reference, as his software was state of the art, to track the path of travel of the solid matter, as I only used 8 points of reference.
The results of this collaborating piece of analysis work totally convinced me that Dante was right in his claim, and yes, my work showed it as well, and after Dante took my advice and sought out a physics expert, a Professor, physics book author and CHAIR of a University physics department, he as well confirmed that what Dante had discovered was the Third Use of Bernoulli’s Principle and his machine, at least the "Power-System Two", of the "MINI Power Plant", as Dante called it, and as I validated.
I immediately recommended to Dante that he get a Dynamic Analysis of the device and as I understand, so did the physics professor recommend same. Dante’s response was: “I believe if the science that my work contains is that new and scientifically impossible to achieve, then the old science that science bases their “impossible opinion on is and is used in the present dynamic analysis software, it certainly cannot analyze it. Old never proved the New right or wrong.” To make his point, Dante told the story of Galileo, and at that time in history, the Book of Aristotle was used as the proof Galileo was wrong, and everyone knows that Galileo was right as he proved 2000 years of belief, wrong.
His response of 1993, was born out in 1994, when a certain retired physics professor took $200.00 of his money and never performed the analysis as I approved and Dante directed, whether willfully not wanting it to succeed or because the software could not do what needed done is not sure of. This person in 1994, did, however, make a perfect analysis of just one side of the model, as we asked for both sides to be analyzed, dynamically, together, and, if one reads the one side perfectly, and calculates what the opposite side is doing, one then can get nearer to the truth, it does in fact work as Dante stated.
Then again, in 2002, Dante drove to Iowa, with his second design, which I also approved of, as to what the analysis should contain, and after 8 hours at a well respected Dynamic Analysis software suppliers, with a witness at his side during this encounter, the performing engineer couldn’t even model a simple action that happens everyday of the year, presently, and also couldn’t prove to Dante he was RIGHT in his advice to Dante, or that Dante was wrong. Dante concluded, the same thing could have happened here, that the software just wasn’t able to perform as we wanted it to, or that the performing engineer had a bias against it, but in EITHER CASE, Dante figured that if he was wrong, the engineer should have been able to prove him wrong, since he had the analyzing tools at hand. I also concur with this, as I have been witness to more of the technology than most, and the more I see the more I believe it cannot be analyzed by present software. A software package has to be reconfigured to allow what Dante has discovered to be brought forth. I fully recognize the resistance in the engineering and scientific community to not validate what is obvious, simply because it makes what they believed in for so long, wrong or different, and most have a hard time handling this. Today, 15 years after I met Dante has given me a new insight into the entire matter, including the GIFT.
I tried, in 2005, to see what software was on the market and even I was amazed at any software’s ability to analyses Dante’s New Science.
Now, the GIFT is a completely different use of his New Science technology, but on my professional examination I find that it will work as claimed. Click On to “The GIFT”, as Dante has placed the best description he could, as well as a little scientific history of his discovery and the GIFT that anyone, scientific or just lay person can understand, etc.
To my understanding, no one can take away from Dante, the fact that he has been VALIDATED concerning, what the first recorded physics professor stated in one of his reports to Dante: “when proven, it will rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century” and I, being the first mechanical engineer to VALIDATE same. This has been recorded in history as fact.
This validation took place 21 months after I met Dante, as even though I had an open mind, I had strong skepticism as any engineer would concerning the subject of his Technology. Today, almost 15 years later, I have great respect for Dante's work, and I believe that he has discovered what no other human in history has discovered. He calls it "SOLID-POWER" Technology and I have no reason to disagree with this term. Since 1991, Dante has revealed a total of SIX of his 10 Power Plant designs, and every time he shows me one, as he didn't show me the second design until January, 1995, the third and fourth were not exposed to me until June, 2005, and the fifth and sixth were not shown to me until August 2005, I am more amazed.
Every design and the models, which he has revealed to me, prove better from design to design. The first design, which I validated just one part of, happens right before your very eyes, and no one can question the fact once he or she witnesses it. His second design, will in fact develop as much horsepower as anyone in the world would need or want, just limited by the size of bearings and the size of all that would make up a Power Plant. His fifth design defies Old Science physics, right in front of your eyes. His sixth design, is what science has been looking for, for centuries, and Dante found it. The GIFT, being the fourth design I witnessed, is so simple it amazed me. Most of his designs are simple, but innovatively complicated, New Science ways of using Old Science technology.
I cannot elaborate anymore on the workings of his designs, models and explanations, simply because most of what Dante showed me is proprietary information.
I truly believe that Dante has in fact discovered, not only machines that defy conventional scientific wisdom, engineering principles, and Old Science physics, but a totally New Science, as well, as each design and model he showed me uses the Old Science in ways that are revolutionarily new and novel.
In closing, my professional opinion and as I personally believe it to be, of the future of the GIFT, is that it is the most promising, as relates to engineering and science concerns, new technology to come along in decades.
As far as science is concerned, I believe the physics laws and principles pertaining to such will have to be revisited and reformulated to encompass the obvious, at least those that I and most engineers depend on to make rational, professional opinions. For instance: When I first analyzed Dante’s first offered to me machine, I had more questions than answers for. I used certain laws and principles on the other two that I invalidated, but couldn’t apply them to Dante’s. These, I feel have to be altered to accept the obvious New Science Dante discovered.
In my personal and professional opinion, the GIFT and it’s New Science technology are real. They will certainly change the future of mankind, in as far as Electrical Energy is generated, and the cost of such both monetarily, health issues concerning such and the suspected Global warming it presently produces. The GIFT is truly a remarkable Power Plant, as it will be the first Power Plant of its sort that ever operated on Earth, by my understanding, and the “fuel” used has never, as well, been used on Earth for the purpose it accomplishes.
I base these opinions on what I have validated, as fact, and what I have been exposed to by way of other Power Plant designs, models and explanations of such.
I can say with some authority that the GIFT along with the supporting technology it contains of the New Science Dante discovered, is all what Dante claims it to be.
I am here to make witness that Dante A. Donatelli Jr. has in fact discovered a New Science technology and if anyone, who benefits ’s needs, has additional questions, and please remember I am not at liberty to give away secrets, or at liberty to operate behind the organizations back, or capable to only answer simple physics question, I would be more than glad to converse with you.
