The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tom Booth]

I don't think it is Tom, at least not exclusively. There seems to be a desire to investigate all claims, with a hope that one or two genuine examples will present themselves in the open source environment. At least that's how I'm reading it. And I agree with your comments re open source entirely; unfortunately even a promising idea once disclosed beyond any possibility of a patent claim, big business may very well lose interest. A topic for discussion in it's own right.

Well, to that I would say good! If you are talking about something any good tinkerer could build in their garage, or a small company could manufacture. Certainly "big business" i.e. Current energy monopolies would do anything but loose interest. They may not INVEST in something that would certainly lead to their own demise, and that they could not control, but I don't think they would loose interest.

I think if a working device is out there and available with no strings attached businesses will develop and grow around it.

You can't get an exclusive patent on an internet router or an automobile and have exclusive rights to that technology, that doesn't keep big businesses from manufacturing those devices or from obtaining patents on their own "better versions" or particular models of those devices because the demand is there. If free energy were a reality think about the demand there would be. Think about the innumerable possible applications, who wouldn't want to get in on it even if they don't have exclusive patent protection for the original technology. Any significant modification or improvements or new design can still be patented.

Personally I think such a thing as a new free energy source is too important for any one company to have exclusive rights to the technology.

[Tusk]

just showing that our own team of experts couldn't find any evidence that it doesn't work as stated

Good point. But isn't that crossing a bridge before we come to it? I would think that with reasonable communications between the two parties, such problems could typically be resolved in time.

Anyway I definitely think you have something going here audiomaker. Personally I think it's worth the effort of thrashing out a method, then post it under a new thread and see what everyone else thinks. If you get enough support (and I'd do that here prior to starting the new thread) you might be able to proceed without weeks or months of second guessing. After all, it's not going to do much damage if your first take is imperfect, better that than have it stillborn.

[audiomaker]

Well, to that I would say good! If you are talking about something any good tinkerer could build in their garage, or a small company could manufacture. Certainly "big business" i.e. Current energy monopolies would do anything but loose interest. They may not INVEST in something that would certainly lead to their own demise, and that they could not control, but I don't think they would loose interest.

I think if a working device is out there and available with no strings attached businesses will develop and grow around it.

You can't get an exclusive patent on an internet router or an automobile and have exclusive rights to that technology, that doesn't keep big businesses from manufacturing those devices or from obtaining patents on their own "better versions" or particular models of those devices because the demand is there. If free energy were a reality think about the demand there would be. Think about the innumerable possible applications, who wouldn't want to get in on it even if they don't have exclusive patent protection for the original technology. Any significant modification or improvements or new design can still be patented.

Personally I think such a thing as a new free energy source is too important for any one company to have exclusive rights to the technology.

...and I don't disagree with that.  However, I cannot control the actions or motives of others.
I don't think anyone can demand that a project be open source.  Remember, taking baby steps, we have to start with the knowledge that something actually works.
Like other examples in this thread, having the right data or results is not the defining factor in something "working", neither is the motive of the inventor.  Works is Works is Works...or not.

I would say though that having an open source investigation is better than nothing, and by it's nature doesn't exclude potential working machines based on the inventor's feelings about giving it away.

?

[Tusk]

How about prioritising the list? Put open source at the top. If someone has a 'patent applied for' type device, cloaked in secrecy, put them down the bottom.

[audiomaker]

How about prioritising the list? Put open source at the top. If someone has a 'patent applied for' type device, cloaked in secrecy, put them down the bottom.

Because the only qualification is if it works as stated.  Working isn't based on morality or social responsibility....or even wanting to drive a Lambo'.

That said,  I would think in some cases a non-disclosure agreement might be required for the team members.

Yes, we all want to know 'how' it works, but in the end, what is more important is 'if' it works.

Remember folks, if I'm not mistaken, TK made the claim more or less that he had never seen a genuine OU/FE device in his estimation, and I'll bet he's not alone.

So... how many devices are we talking about here?  100's, 10's, none?

I'd love to see the device that all of you in this thread could not disprove in person, and that alone would be open source.   Even an open source verification is miles ahead of the risk of something being overlooked, or bought out and buried by whomever the inventor did approach (sans us).

Ok...so we get in first.... It looks genuine, it tests genuine.  It's gonna be a lot harder to bury even if we don't know exactly what miracle is driving it.  I don't really mind that the inventor wants to hold out for a patent.

What would we KNOW at that point?  That a device exists that we have video of, that 3 trusted experts from this board put under scrutiny in person and could not debunk.

That's HUGE!

If on the other hand the the fraud, hoax, or mistake is found, it's (thankfully) off my radar right then and there.

By the way, as far as patents.  I believe demonstrating an invention in public (dated) has weight in the courts.  On the other hand, some believe the patent office is monitored by the "evil powers" anyway.   Point is, having a verification team endorse your advice publicly could possibly strengthen your patent claims if that is the road you choose to go down.