This is a copy of my comment to you in response to your comment to me on my paper's page on Mar. 21, 2020.
Dear Martin,
The high frequency radiation is produced by electricity and the electricity is produced by solar energy collection. Since solar energy collection does not generate pollution and since the burning of hydrogen gas also does not produce pollution, but only produces water, the whole system produces pollution free energy. The amount of solar energy collection just has to be enough over the amount that is immediately needed to supply current electrical grid usage to allow for the production of enough hydrogen gas to supply hydrogen gas powered electrical generators to produce electricity when the solar energy is not available like at night or is reduced below the amount needed for the grid like on cloudy days, etc. In addition to this, enough hydrogen should also be produced to power all motor vehicles. It would not be a bad idea to build nuclear power plants to supply electricity in case of a meteor strike or some other problem that would cause a lack of solar energy collection on a large scale for a long time, but they would not need to be completely implemented unless such a thing happened. In such a circumstance they would be preferable to use of fossil fuels that would make recovery time much longer due to their pollution production. Of course, there are other more advanced ways of producing electricity and motive power, but they are now considered secret and may not be allowed to be used by most people.
I looked at your paper. Generally, less than one hundred percent decidability, computability, and predictability, result primarily from one of two sources. The first is the current state of advancement of observational abilities. The ability to observe things with ultimate accuracy has not been achieved and likely will never be attained. As you mentioned the noise factor is one of many limiting factors that contribute to this problem. Over time observational abilities have increased based on new conceptual advancements, but could only reach one hundred percent accuracy if we get to where we know everything. That is not likely happen any time soon. The other problem is the incompleteness or the inclusion of errors in conceptual understandings. As an example, in Quantum Physics The observations of the various outcomes to particle collisions and their probabilities compared to each other have been mathematically coded to create a model that is very accurate, but it is not based on any understanding of the internal structure of the particles or of their external interaction mechanisms between them. This has led to much confusion and even the belief by many that it is impossible to ever know these things. It should be apparent to anyone that the theory is greatly lacking in its understanding of why only the certain outcomes can happen and why each outcome has a certain probability of occurrence. This is due to two problems. The first is that man currently does not know how to observe the particles in adequate detail to understand their internal and external behaviors. The second problem is that man has not looked adequately at existing observable information to allow for the formation of an adequate hypothesis to allow for the development of new observational equipment that can give a better observational look at the particles structure. This second area is where the conceptual work needs to be done in order for man to make further advancements. This area is what I am currently working on. This is much like developing a molecular theory before molecules could be observed or like the development of atomic theory before atoms could be observed. Some of the things contained in the early theories turned out to be wrong or lacking in details, but they ultimately led to a better understanding of those structures. Currently the same thing needs to be done concerning the structure of fields, energy photons, and matter particles that make up the next level of structure.
Sincerely,
Paul
