To Eric: I'd like to ask you what you think the costs of the attempt
of trying to charge for a "free energy", ZPE, overunity, et. al.
device? Think long and hard about it before answering. Realize that
there have been other overunity, devices in the past. Not gimmicks.
Not tricks. Do we happen to have a single overunity device? No.
Is it because they aren't possible? No. Is it because the inventor
took their secrets to how the things worked to their graves, trying
to make a buck off of the device? Most definitely. Look at Tesla.
Look at Moray. Look at Sweet. Look at the host of others out there
that have little snippets here and there on the Keelynet archives.
WE HAVE NOTHING. To chose the path you advocate is to doom the idea
and discovery to eventual obscurity.
They'll think that it's a fraud or a scam- because there've been so
many other scam artists that have come before you to pollute the
situation for you.
> Personally I don't believe much money can be made from selling F/E
> devices, and I probably wouldn't try to make money by selling them.
I don't know about that. You're not going to sell the devices until
you give the _whole_ secret out so that people can independently
verify it for themselves without needing to pay you any money. In
theory, you could develop the devices to a provable state and then
release the info. You'd have a leg up on the competition that would
follow to make the things- you understand the devices completely.
Believe me when I say that there's a LOT of people that wouldn't
bother with building their own- they'd rather have one made for them,
preferably from the best. You could position yourself as that. The
only drawback to all of this is trying to manage the disclosure- wait
too long and you'll do a Tesla or a Sweet (take it to the grave...),
move too early and it may not work out as well as you planned. Me, I
plan on disclosing as early as I can and making sure that more than
just my immediate family have my information throughout- I'm NOT
going to let what I find be lost with my passing.
> I do think the use of F/E devices could greatly lower production costs,
> and stuff like that, but in general I think the basic technology
> should be given away.. On a large scale, it would benefit everyone
> more than selling it. I've been researching this stuff for almost
> 2 years now but have only done a few simple experiments, and my
> main "driving force" is a better society.. Millions of dollars would
> be nice, as it could finance other things, but I'd rather live in
> a better society with an "average" income than have a lot of money
> and live in a society like we have today.
This is my sole motivation for my researching and collecting of
information in the "free energy" arena. I look at the Dallas skyline
every day and I feel ill- the smog. I try to picture what it'd be
like without all that crap in the air- for us to breathe and see
crystal clear air. I like the picture so much, that I do my level
best at trying to make it possible. I've done small experiments
that have produced nothing. But, having seen what the giants before
us have accomplished, I know that it is possible- it's only a matter
of time before someone, perhaps even myself, will find one of the
secrets that the others before us found- and we'll benefit from it.
But only so long as the knowlege itself is shared.
> Hmm.. you could patent something and still give it away, correct?
Yes.
> Some income from royalties would be nice, but I guess it would depend
> on what the device actually is.. eg. simple new type of coil
> winding for a generator/motor, or a complex electronic device..
Royalties are nice- but not needed. All you need is backers if
you've got something that works- you can manufacture it yourself and
sell it yourself. Marketing it is what would be your problem.
> Anyway, I don't have anything to patent, so I hadn't really thought about it.
Patents are *EXPENSIVE* and are mainly the tool of big corporations
to crush their competition in this day and age. You'd be better off
releasing the thing to the public domain and be done with it.
> The best situation, in my opinion, would be for everyone to stop using
> money, and have a "free" society, based on sharing of resources..
> yeah I know, not likely to happen any time soon.. but it's a nice
> thought. ;)
That will only happen when people quit hoarding- and that won't happen
when we've got limited resources (and we've that on this planet).
The only way we're going to achieve that sort of utopia is to become
a major spacefaring species- not unlike what is portrayed in Star
Trek or Babylon 5.
-- Frank C. EarlEarl Consulting Services----------------------------------------------------------------------Pursuant to USC 47, there is a $500 per incident charge for eachand every piece of Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) sent to this orany of my other addresses. Sending UCE's to any of my addressesimplies general acceptance of these terms.