The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tusk]

But I guess I'll get off the "open source" soapbox as this thread seems to be headed in some other direction.

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.

[Liberty]

Good question, but...

It seems to me that if you are going to investigate, study, examine anything in an open forum on the internet, there is no possibility of any guarantee of any such protection.

I've posted my "invention" all over the internet in the hopes that someone would "steal" it. I don't care. Please do. with this one stipulation. Nobody gets an exclusive anything. It is for the benefit of all.

As far as incentive.

A better world and a better future for my kids is enough incentive for me.

Apparently that is not enough incentive for investors who want to see a monetary return on their investment. I think that is a shame. Isn't the prospect of living in a world without all the energy related concerns and problems we have now incentive enough for anybody?

My main concern has been how to ensure that my idea cannot be patented.

Patent something and it can be bought and sold and buried, if not by the energy monopolies by the government.

Anyone here read "The Sun Betrayed" ? Very informative read.

Photovoltaic panels for example could be made DIRT CHEAP. If the patents on such processes had not been bought out and buried. If photovoltaic panels were available at the price they SHOULD BE, you wouldn't have to wait 20 years to break even on your investment. More like six months.

"Protection" is publication, in as much detail and as far and wide as possible, so there is no possibility an idea (or its originator) could be buried IMO.

But I guess I'll get off the "open source" soapbox as this thread seems to be headed in some other direction.

I understand your perspective.  However, we need to understand that money is needed for people to live in society.  Money is also needed if you ever hope to bring a device to manufacture.  Also the inventor could be benevolent and give his device away and save the world, if he/she already had his/her family provided for financially now and in the future.  Unfortunately, the realities of this world system does not allow philanthropy at this time.  It is easy to avoid a patent on your device.  Sell one.  It then becomes prior art.  Actually I favor a Trade secret over a patent.  No cost.  Just lease the devices with a contract that protects the tech.  That will probably give you as good of a head start as a patent would.  You probably couldn't protect the patent anyway.  Just ask J.P. Morgan and Mr. Westinghouse.

[Tom Booth]

On a real device, there would need to be investment and profit involved to be able to manufacture and promote the device, and reward the inventor for work that was invested by the inventor for free.  Open source would not work to bring forth a device to manufacture, or reward the inventor.

I beg to differ. Proof? Consider the medium through which we are currently communicating through. One guy, so it is told, "invented" it and gave it away as "open source". Everything that powers the internet, the routers, servers, web browsers, most of the programs etc. are primarily "open source". This has led to all kinds of manufacturing. True, Tim Berners Lee did not get extremely rich but the whole world is richer due to his contribution.

Anything that could be proven to actually work would certainly find investors and manufacturers but its being open source would ensure nobody had exclusive rights which would ensure competition and fair prices.

Really, should one guy, one inventor or one company have exclusive rights to "Free Energy". Even if I was that guy to reap all the reward I would say no. If the World Wide Web was not "open source" it would have NEVER HAPPENED. There would not be this virtually unlimited access to virtually free communication and information. I think the same is true of "Free Energy". No mater what form it takes, if it isn't "open source" it most certainly won't be free.

[audiomaker]

Hmmm... well,

From the last few posts since I was in here last, I'm beginning to think I misunderstood the intent. It seems the idea isn't so much to forward promising ideas or potentially workable inventions so much as to investigate probable hoaxes.

<snip>

Well that is a matter of perspective Tom.  In a world where the ratio of hoaxes, frauds, and mistakes likely outweigh genuine OU or FE machines, one has to approach submissions from the point of first proving that a submission isn't a hoax, fraud, or mistake.  If it is none of those, then it passes a bar which gives it a major push towards forwarding, funding, and recognition.

It's a glass half empty/full equation.  The idea isn't to prove it is a hoax, it's to prove it isn't....or...hmm?  Motive really doesn't matter, only result.

I'm not suggesting a witch hunt, but witches do exist and must be looked out for when searching for Puritans.  Does that make sense?

[audiomaker]

@ audiomaker

I think your proposals thus far offer a very good 'rough draft' (or better) for a workable solution. Might I suggest that due to the various types of devices likely to be under scrutiny, including but not limited to variations in size, weight, complexity, therefore some might lend themselves to being replicated for less expense than the cost of even a single airline ticket (and let's not forget that if TK was on the field team we would need to hire an aircraft for which he holds certification). It seems a little extravagant to send a team of investigators when the device might be smaller than a shoebox and cost only a few hundred dollars to replicate - always assuming the necessary information is provided for replication, which I think it should be as a matter of course.

<snip>

I don't think so because you then end up with the same ol' "Well it works here".  Besides, we're not absolutely asking that an inventor give up all his secrets to open source, just showing that our own team of experts couldn't find any evidence that it doesn't work as stated.  If I were an inventor, that claim (or certification if you will) would be a huge advantage.