> Yes, I can certainly understand it. However, there is no other
> way to accomplish our goal, which is actually quite simple. See
> if you can follow this...
I think we can follow. There's a problem with the goals you're
espousing though. Not to say that it's not "right" or that you've
not a right to have them- it's that it's risky, what you're doing.
VERY risky.
> Let's first establish the facts (whether recognized as such or
> not)...
> 1) We have one TRUE answer to free energy (there are other
> true answers but we have at least one of them).
Which is *COOL*. I can't wait to see it run. I look at the skyline
of my town daily and look at the increasing smog (Hey, wasn't that
"reformulated" fuel supposed to cut down on that?). Dallas and Fort
Worth used to have a lot clearer skyline- and we didn't have "ozone
action days" here. I think anyone in Dallas can relate to this. And
it sickens me to think that this is the case in most of the major
metropolitan areas in the whole world. We're BREATHING this crap.
Something usable for free energy could change that dramatically.
> 2) We are absolutely determined to see our technology developed
> and marketed within the next few years.
And there's the rub with all of this. I can ASSURE you that if you
go and work within the system that is already there, YOU WILL FAIL.
I know I'm going to sound like a paranoid loon for saying this, but
it's sadly and frightenly true. Everything in this world is
controlled by a group of individuals that control the access to our
natural resources. Especially energy. To offer something that
provides power without financial control over the people consuming it
will threaten to destroy several empires. It has been shown in the
past that the people that worked at this and had something workable
got hammered off the face of the earth for their efforts. Tesla was
crushed by Morgan and Edison. Moray was crushed by numerous
interests. All throughout the history of overunity and alternative
energy research this has happened in some form or another- they were
bought out, they were discredited and bankrupted, or they simply
disappeared. To look for the sort of backing you're looking for is
to look for the elimination of your technology from the picture of
things. It's WHY we don't seem to have something in the F/E arena.
It's WHY Jerry and others (incl. myself) are trying to tell you that
all of this isn't such a good idea for you or the technology you've
discovered.
> 3) The chances are VERY high that the F/E community will be making
> one or more major revolution-starting breakthroughs in the very
> near future.
Yes, that is the case- but wouldn't you like to be the catalyst that
pushes the rest of the world into looking for the others? Strike
whilst the iron's hot man! If *I* discover something, I'm going to
give it to the world gratis. Why? One, I don't want to experience
what the others in the field before me did. Two, if you succeed, the
only way you're going to attract investors is if and only if you can
provide patent protection. Any successful (as in, as good as or
better than the current sources of energy- coal, gas, other petroleum
fuels, or nuclear fission- will be suppressed as they will use the
"threat to national security" clause of the patent law and classify
your device as being top-secret. You'll not be able to sell it.
You'll not be able to discuss the ideas with anyone. To do either
means facing at leas 10k in fines AND 10 years in Levenworth or
similar institutions. Public disclosure for the first device out the
gate is the only possible course of action that will result in
something financial coming your way.
> 4) We have specific charities that we believe should benefit the
> most (financially) from our discoveries.
As nice as that is, if you pursue the route you're taking, they're
not going to benefit- as you'll make no money off of it unless you
get bought out.
> 5) The only way to insure those charities benefit the most over
> all other charities and "good causes" is to take advantage of
> our strategic market position NOW to develop and market our
> free-energy
Your "strategic market position" doesn't exist. If you don't have
patents, I doubt you'll have investors give you more than the time of
day. If it DOES work, and you attempt to patent it, it'll get
snarled up in red-tape in the form of being classified as top-secret.
You'll not even be able to discuss the principles of the device at
that point. If you're serious about strategic market positions, try
to get a warehouse of the things built and ready to sell. People
generally don't want to make things for themselves- they want other
people to do it for themselves. Personally, I think most of the
populace has gotten too lazy and specialized for their own good, but
the fact remains that unless it's being sold at "Wal-Mart" or
somesuch like it, they're NOT going to bother with it. It's my plan,
if I get successful in my endeavors for alternative energy, to give
it away- with a whole damn warehouse of the things and a production
line to replace what I sell of them. It's the ONLY way you're going
to see ANYTHING out of a overunity discovery. As another respondent
said to you, this is as dramatic a change in the structure of things
as Prometheus bringing man fire- and you'll get hammered just like
he did unless you're careful.
> 6) Since we do not have access to the financial resources necessary
> to develop and market our technology, we need to locate and
> convince someone who does to help us "get to market" first..
Sadly, almost every investor wants PATENTS for things like this. To
patent it, is to stifle or kill it outright. I wish you the best of
luck in finding an investor- but, I fear you won't. By the way,
announcing it like this is a circus- if you've got something, you're
drawing unwarranted attention to yourselves.
> This is our plan... AFTER we've given our FIRST choice a chance.
I hope you can see that this isn't going to happen. 10 weeks is
definitely not enough time to locate someone with enough money to
make it happen the way you want to that doesn't want a patent to
"protect" their investments.
> Number 1) is our choice #2,
> Number 2) is our choice #1 and
> Number 3) is NOT AN OPTION, not for us, not for mankind!
Number 3 is what might happen if you're not careful. There's a
fourth option that Jerry missed. I fear that this is the one that
will happen if you get what you seek.
Number 4:
You get the backing that you're looking for in #2, but they
insist on you patenting the device to "protect" their investment
in your company that you're trying to start around the technology
you've come up with. Since, the device is demonstrably overunity
and therefore a threat to the current energy industries as a
whole, it is deemed a threat to National Security and is
classified top-secret and you're slapped with a gag-order by
the USPO, indicating that the device, and all it's theories
are not to be discussed with anyone that is not cleared for
the same by a government official. The device, now effectively
silenced and covered up, fades into obscurity.
Be **SURE** of what you REALLY want for yourselves and mankind before
pursuing the next course of action on this.
In any event, I wish you the best of luck in whatever you choose-
and I can't wait to see a demonstration of what you've found.
-- 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.