The Aquapulser website is live

[magpie]

Amigo, no offense but I am dissapointed that you posted such a blunt and demanding post that is very discouraging of any effort in this field.

As the Aquapulser spokesperson said, they are a group of guys who have JOBS, and they are good enough to have worked this hard develping this technology in their SPARE TIME. Have you watched the videos? Their device performs, and a lot better than most machines fabricated by the average experimenter.
These guys are not stealing a (expired) patent but have taken a concept and put their own know-how and hard work into it to create a complete unit that is ready to be used with no hassle putting things together (the connecting diagrams on on thos forum), not only that but they have made it work well.
As I hope you know, it takes a LOT of effort to go from a concept in your head to designing a fully functional circuit and then a quite different a printable version of thecircuit, ESPECIALLY one this complicated! They have not just thrown together a simple circuit, they have worked hard to make MAJOR progress at THEIR expense.
Their price is pennies for the work they must have put in, they are not asking a ridiculous price for a magic free energy device, they are trying to cover costs and the least you can do is to respect that and not bellitle their hard work.
Take a look at the RPG4700, it looks nice, all the connectors are ready and it is basically plug and play, just their website alone must have taken a good bit of work, it is very clean and all the photos are high quality and well placed.
As they have demonstrated, the RPG4700 works and produces large and energetic plasmoids. I should also point out that their website says that the RPG4700 is a proof of concept - as in, if they have the money and means to do so they can do better and go further !
I am happy to be the guinea pig and will buy one if I can bring together the funds, the thing is though, their videos prove that their device performs much more powerfully and efficiently than anything else publicly known and THEY CAN DO BETTER, they just need the financing and buying their product will allow them to do so.

Please think twice about bellitling someone else's hard work (especially when it works) as doing so does the exact opposite of what this community wants and discourages any progress, how would you feel if a group of people verbally flattened you when you contributed something big like this?

EVERYONE: Please try to remember that there is a difference between OPEN SOURCE and DEMANDING that someone work for FREE and at THEIR EXPENSE.
Expense and little or zero payback is part of open source, but if someone goves you a complete device on a silver platter and asks if a few people could chip in and buy a few to help them contribute more to the entire community, it is the most beneficial and polite thing you can do .

They talk about "Open Source Energy Movement" R&D on the front page and then the next thing you know they have a "product", to sell most likely.
I'm sorry but that's bullshit, if they are Open Source then why don't I see the full design and schematics for their "product" so I can build it myself?
Further more, who knows if they appropriated some one else's design, which *was* Open Source and now are selling it as their own?!
Open Source licensing has specific terms that dictate anyone must contributed back to the community if they have taken from it - not make proprietary products based on if/what they have taken away freely.

[amigo]

I am sorry that we do not agree on the premise of Open Source. I would not call something "Open Source" if it was not really Open Source in the spirit it was intended to be. Anyone profiting based on possible violations of the Open Source license is no better than the gangsters that run the World today (Industry, Banksters) and are profiting on misery and suffering of everyone else.

A "bunch" of guys with JOBS should surely not mind to make something for FREE then, if it's Open Source? They already have jobs and thus do not need the money, no? Or they need a bit more money on the side to supplement their income? Well, which one is it and what do they want after all?

This World needs a paradigm change, not just a new bunch of people who want to make money on new discoveries, just like the old bunch did.

For further study, please Google "altruism."

[magpie]

Greetings amigo,

Firstly, as they pointed out, at $350 for a unit they will NOT be PROFITING, they will barely be covering their costs and the $350 will certainly not cover the cost of the hours that they have put in. It is basically covering their COSTS for components and maybe fabrication, this is not much to ask, would you honestly expect a company to charge you for materials only? The company would cease to exist, charging for materials only is equivalent to sponsorship, that alone is generous enough.
Secondly, having a JOB does not mean that you have excess money, it means that maybe you may be able to cover your cost of living, or in many people's case, just go backwards financially more slowly. A "bunch of guys with JOBS" putting in time working on something else that contributes to mankind on top of the time put in working for their employer, is generous and a lot more altruistic that you prove to be.
Regarding your other scenario of wanting to earn some money on the side; what would be so sinful about that if it were fact huh? They are not saying "give me $$$ and we'll show you how to build a magic device, no refunds", what they are saying  is more like "if you cover our basic costs for materials and fabrication, we will give you a fully operational device that works and does not require countless hours of tinkering to get working because we have already done the legwork".
On top of that, THEY have put in the time to make sure that it works as well as possible and are NOT charging you for all the time and money they had to put in to design, prototype, tune, machine, and produce the unit, read the info on the site.
It  cost them...
Would you expect Boeing to build you a 747 and only charge you for the materials? "Nuff said.

For further study, please study the difference between altruism and downright charity. Why should they?

Regards...

I am sorry that we do not agree on the premise of Open Source. I would not call something "Open Source" if it was not really Open Source in the spirit it was intended to be. Anyone profiting based on possible violations of the Open Source license is no better than the gangsters that run the World today (Industry, Banksters) and are profiting on misery and suffering of everyone else.
A "bunch" of guys with JOBS should surely not mind to make something for FREE then, if it's Open Source? They already have jobs and thus do not need the money, no? Or they need a bit more money on the side to supplement their income? Well, which one is it and what do they want after all?
This World needs a paradigm change, not just a new bunch of people who want to make money on new discoveries, just like the old bunch did.
For further study, please Google "altruism."

[amigo]

Hi Magpie,

Then you obviously do not understand what Open Source means, nor the word "free" in these contexts.

As I also see you are confusing altruism with charity...

But it's ok, it really does not matter, everyone can do what ever they please and so these people can go ahead and charge any amount of money they see fit for their "product." I just think they should not have "Open Source" or "free" associated to it.

[jeffc]

Hi Magpie,

Then you obviously do not understand what Open Source means, nor the word "free" in these contexts.

As I also see you are confusing altruism with charity...

But it's ok, it really does not matter, everyone can do what ever they please and so these people can go ahead and charge any amount of money they see fit for their "product." I just think they should not have "Open Source" or "free" associated to it.

I have to disagree with your assumptions about Open Source.  Open Source has never, and will never refer to a specific license or set of terms.  It is only a general concept. 

You are probably thinking of the GPL, authored many years ago by Richard Stallman for use in the software industry.  But the GPL is far from the only license type in the world of Open Source. 

There are many types of license which are less restrictive examples being BSD, MIT, Sleepycat, W3C, and many, many variations which any inventor can adopt for themselves but still fall under the basic concept of Open Source. 

The idea of Open Source not being for profit just doesn’t have any basis in the history of the concept.  Open Source has been centered around the software industry in an attempt to further progress in developments and enable customized installations of the software users.  Much of this centered around Unix (and variants) developments and the desire to improve the computer as a tool for scientific research.

But commercialism has been a part of the process from the beginning and of course today very large companies (IBM, Sun, Red Hat, Oracle, even Microsoft) are part of the community.
Open Source heroes like Linus Torvalds (invented Linux) and Richard Stallman have their careers centered around  making money out of Open Source.  Even Richard (RMS, author of the GPL) has always said “Free as in Freedom, not as in Free Beer”.

I don’t have an opinion about this particular company on the web.  But I do think you need to consider that the only obligation anyone has to live up to the core concept of Open Source is to share the details of any inventions they make -- meaning enough detail for someone to replicate who has the ability, materials, and tools.

If you've decided a more narrow definition of Open Source is your preference, well that is your choice, but I wouldn't assume all others here have made the same choice.

Edit: I do understand your concern about "products" being sold to help with Open Source projects.  But in making any attempt at overunity you buy parts and tools that are from commercial providers and worse many of those have patents.

Regards,
jeffc