Frank C. Earl wrote:
> > > I'm certainly not advocating just giving away free energy technology
> > > so as to not make any money. I just want to know what everybody thinks
> > > about the issue. You know, what's the driving force...
>
> 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. Earl
> Earl Consulting Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pursuant to USC 47, there is a $500 per incident charge for each
> and every piece of Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) sent to this or
> any of my other addresses. Sending UCE's to any of my addresses
> implies general acceptance of these terms.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@dallastexas.net>
> with the body text: leave keelynet
> WWW based join and leave forms and KeelyNet list archives
> are at http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/
> -------------------------------------------------------------