Dear Bill,
I'm surprised at your rant.
Companies and inventors who have not released results publically have patent lawyers who understand the law.
I assure you there will be no secrecy on our part once machines are in production and I believe that will be next year.
There is every intention of moving our work into the market as rapidly as practical, and we cheer on every other company or inventor who will do the same. The planet orgently needs the technology, and our team neither expects to corner the market nor has any desire to do so.
Your views of the patent system are understandable, but I do not happen to agree. My first job out of college was with Ampex. The tape recorders that built the company were reverse engineered by RCA, and put into production with only the nameplate changed. Ampex took them to court and RCA was forced to cease production and pay Ampex for every machine they had made. Ampex would have been out of business had RCA not lost the court case. The company went on to invent the video tape recorder. The failure to make it for homes was a management error. The Japanese were bright enough to take advantage of that fact.
Patents will be issued when a machine is demonstrated to work, even if refused until that occurs. Howard Johnson was one example. His rotary motor never did function, but three senior patent examiners in an appeal each were presented with one of the linear versions to play with, on a long table. His well known patent, issued about 1975, was the result.
Large firms are not often great at innovation, but they usually are quite good at manufacturing. They will not produce unpatented inventions. Rapid mass production of breakthrough energy devices requires billions of dollars in capital. The fastest way to achieve a major impact on the world energy problem is to utilize the patent system, flawed though it is.
Publication immediately destroys patentability in Taiwan and South Korea. These are both countries that have several companies that can produce in volume.
The path to overcoming understandable skepticism is Demo devices and toys. It will be pretty difficult to argue against a technology that is sitting on your desk producing sufficient power to turn a shaft and illuminate a few bulbs. Especially, if it is made largely of transparent plastic so it is obvious there are no hidden batteries.
Keep in mind that Americans are famous for getting their exercise by jumping to conclusions. This being Independence Day, it might be wise to leave room for the fact that cost competitive electric power requiring no fuel could be closer than you imagine. If so, a massive shift in closed minds may take place.
Your wonderful contribution in creating and maintaining vortex, suggests the opinions you express here are a rare lack of good judgement. May that prove to be the case.
Mark
From: William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Secrecy equals insanity? Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Mark Goldes wrote:
> billb wrote:
> >If I was into gambling, I'd bet my life savings that we'll never see
> >anything real. Make no mistake, I'd HOPE that you have something, but at
> >the same time I'd stake major money in betting that the "free energy
> >secrecy rule" will do it's magic once again, and totally block any chance
> >of success.
>
> On the basis of what has surfaced to date, I would not quarrel with your
> odds. However, we are aware of enough to suggest other labs have also
> produced self-running machines. However, I have no wish to discuss that
> issue, and will not reply to queries.
It doesn't matter how many groups have genuine self-running machines sitting in the lab. It doesn't matter if you have one in your briefcase at this moment. If every single company fails for whatever reason, then the goal is not to develop or manufacture machines, the goal is to discover the actual causes of all those failures... and then to counter them.
In my observations of history, inventor secrecy has been the guaranteed death-knell of every company. So here I see another company with grand dreams, yet ...there's that usual secrecy crap in spades. You think it won't ruin your dreams, that "it can't happen here?"
Yes, of course secrecy is effective... in other arenas. But where a discovery is something ridiculed by conventional scientist, the inventor encounters a huge barrier, and any secrecy makes that barrier ten times higher. I'd expect modern ZPE inventors to learn from history, and to do everything they possibly can in order to prevent the slightest hint of secrecy. Yet you're doing the opposite. One kind of insanity is to repeat past actions yet expect a different result. We'll soon see if the Greg Watson Memorial Rule: "Secrecy Guarantees Failure," is real.
> We suspect Brady will have a hard time patenting. There is much prior art
> in magnetic turbines. If that proves the case, what you suggest may have a
> real world demonstration model.
If "secrecy guarantees failure," then Brady is no threat to you, and will never be a competitor. You can safely assume that he's already gone.
I'm convinced that it goes like this:
1. We have very very important discovery which can change the world.
2. It's OURS, and when the world changes, it will be US that did it.
3. If any outsiders discover the details of the discovery, then THEY can reap the accolades and the billions of dollars instead of us, and the fame will be shared with, or even entirely stolen by the idea-thieves, just like Marconi defeated Tesla.
4. Therefore the primary threat is idea-theives, and the primary goal is to keep the discovery secret from all outsiders. Funding, manufacturing, and sales are important but secondary.
5. But if we build and sell devices, any outsiders can back-engineer them overnight... so patents are absolutely essential.
6. Now we find that the USPTO throws out every one of our applications, since the discovery is not a part of conventional science and is not associated with cutting-edge research at any university. And now they declare it to be a "perpetual motion scheme" without even bothering to look at test results or to test it themselves.
7. We're in deadlock. Our primary goal of secrecy REQUIRES that we have patent protection before going forward. Yet we can't get the protection. We'll try all kinds of other routes other than chancing a release of the secrets. All of them fail. No way forward exists. And no outsider has ever got hold of a working prototype.
8a. We all go on to other jobs. The hardware sits in storage until years later it is lost in a fire, sold as scrap, stolen during a break-in. Or...
8b. Because of how they treat us, the government, scientists, and the public are all ignorant fools who DESERVE to die slowly in slavery to oil companies while the world rots from pollution. We'll destroy all evidence of our discovery and take the secrets to our graves rather than let any slimeballs from outside reap benefits.
9. A new researcher makes a similar new discovery. Go back to #1 and repeat.
The weak spot in this closed loop is obvious. USPTO incompetence? Yes, but there's little chance of changing that! Therefore the real problem to solve is the inventor-secrecy. Remove the need to keep secrets, and the deadlock is broken. But preserve the need to keep secrets, and the secrecy multiplies with the barrier of scientist/public disbelief and erases any chance of success.
See me and Zack W. from eight years ago:
THE PROMETHEUS GAME http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/prometh.html
Also:
Rules for Unconventional Research http://amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
