On the topic of the MRA - a few years ago I followed the progress on this
device quite closely. I still find the system quite interesting in many
respects. Hal Putoff reported on his testing of the device and could find
no indication of O.U. after input/output power measurements. I was
wondering if you could comment on this and if you agree with Hal's finding
or not?
I've often wondered how one could patent any potential 'free energy' device
without threatening free public disclosure. It would seem that your
experience indicates that there are some serious problems with the patent
system when it comes to the need to claim priority on a concept AND give
that concept information freely to the public. Does this mean that it is
both futile and dangerous to attempt public disclosure AND patent an O.U.
device? What would be your approach after these experiences?
Regards, Bill.
At 17:22 14/08/98 -0500, Norman Wootan wrote:
>Hi! Frank: I have not communicated with you before but I will throw in a
comment
>regarding this thread. If you will go to the archive and dig out my 27
Mar.98
>comment to Jerry about the MRA project you will see that My and Joel's
intent was
>to share the knowledge with everyone in the world who has access to the
internet.
>This we did and was noticed by the U.S. Patent Office who contacted us and
almost
>demanded that we file a patent on the technology so that the U.S. would
control the
>technology if it proved out. We demonstrated the MRA to IBM engineers and
>Procurement executives who told us that they would not attempt to develop
it as a
>power source for lap top computers until such time as we had a patent on the
>technology. The only way a theoretical model can be turned into a product
is by
>investment of R&D funds on a large scale. We tried to do the right thing
and was
>stopped by some un-seen intervention by (I suspect, NSA) in the 11:59 hour
at the
>patent office. They requested a complete file on the project which was
provided
>to them months before the Patent Office action.