Muller Dynamo

plengo · June 21, 2011, 12:51:37 AM

Quote from: wattsup on June 21, 2011, 12:01:21 AM
.
.
.

^{I ask the members of this forum a simple question: Do you guys want this kind of arguments on this particular thread? Yes or No.

I think I gave enough space for Hoppy, Wattsup and many others to criticize Romero just for the sake of argument. Repeating the same message is non-sense and disrespectful in my opinion.

What do you guys think?

Fausto.}

chrisC · June 21, 2011, 12:58:05 AM

Quote from: plengo on June 21, 2011, 12:51:37 AM^{I ask the members of this forum a simple question: Do you guys want this kind of arguments on this particular thread? Yes or No.

I think I gave enough space for Hoppy, Wattsup and many others to criticize Romero just for the sake of argument. Repeating the same message is non-sense and disrespectful in my opinion.

What do you guys think?

Fausto.}

^{Fausto:
Some time ago it was decided this is a thread for replication and getting help from Romero. Why are we still letting people like Wattsup to act as if he is the one to be believed? He can always open up a new thread for unbelievers. Did we not agree?
Respectfully, I think he should be kicked out of this thread and placed somewhere else without having to read this constant unsubstantiated crap because he cannot see where the wires ended! I want to learn and contribute something here and not have to listen to some persons wearing blinders on. Thank you.

chrisC}

Magluvin · June 21, 2011, 01:12:27 AM

^{I would say that debunkers with SOLID PROOF can stay. But I only see speculation, not enough for me to lean to the dark side. ;]

Like Milehigh. He speculates. He does not know exactly what processes are happening just by looking at it, yet he beats and beats till he is on read only. Nobodys fault but his own for not having SOLID PROOF, yet fills page after page.

And thirdly, there is a reason for a moderator, and he should have a gavel. ;] And asking others, as in a vote is very respectable.

I vote ban, on the basis of circumstantial evidence presented by persistent debunkers. no solid proof but a lot of crap to read. ;]

Mags}

EMdevices · June 21, 2011, 01:21:42 AM

^{Fousto,

Your doing a good job moderating. I personally don't like people repeating the same wimpy poorly thought out conclusions, but if they have something of substance by all means they should get a chance to ask it once and we'll decide. Having said that, wattsup has not debated this enough with the rest before accusing romeroUK publicly and directly. That I don't appreciate, and to make him feel heard, I'm trying to debate him right now over at OUR, but he ran over here to make trouble. I'm just shaking my head, he's a good guy but too rash.

EM}

chrisC · June 21, 2011, 01:39:05 AM

Quote from: bolt on June 21, 2011, 12:33:44 AM
^{RUK said "I was interfering with others on the same project and we have a 'understanding'... if you look around you will probably find out soon who comes out with the same build and with a patent on it too."

I think they have a big problem to patent this. There is a ton of information freely available of OU devices already as open sourced. Just because a patent search doesn't spot anything they leave it up to the patent holder to argue the facts in court...at great expense of course the the patent holder going to lose. It only needs the info to be date validated as prior art and its game over!

SO it better be some technical detail that NO ONE has ever lay claim to before and i doubt that very much. Open source public information IS prior art. As Kone said, back-end magnet biasing is public information for years, so is coil shorting, series cap tweaking, VARS for BEMF cancellation, resonance and tuning to scaler for ZPE and probably anything else they can think of.

Not to pass judgement here In this case i will presume you SOLD the device to them thus the reason never to speak about it so they can patent it to recover their "investment". Must have been a tidy some of money as i know you turned down the first few offers. I am surprised you are still in the country Romero i would have packed up and left weeks ago.}

^{@Bolt
Most of what you wrote about patents is generally true. Two of the most difficult issues of getting a patent granted is to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C 103 (Unobviousness - including prior art) and then of course, 35 U.S.C 102 (Novelty). Notwithstanding the issues of costs (around $25K on average per patent) and the time - around 3 years or more.
Then push came to shove, the costs of defending the IP rights and if that meant going to court will cost an average of $1M per year in tech. litigation costs. Technology patent fights average 3 to 5 years before a settlement is reached.

Good patents are truly worth their weight in gold. I myself hold half a dozen U.S patents and several more pending. I've also been through the entire scenario - even taking B$ companies to court and eventually settling out of court for > six figures. It's not for the faint of heart! Romero has been very kind in sharing his findings but I hope he will be able to patent his new findings and be rewarded for his hard work. Thanks Romero for showing the way.

cheers
chrisC}

Muller Dynamo

plengo

chrisC

Magluvin

EMdevices

chrisC