Mike Carrell writes:
> Wise remarks from Hoyt. Jed is a programmer, and in his logical world one
> can reverse engineer code, in fact there are programs that will give one a
> good start.
Of course I realize that machines or experiments can be much more difficult
to reverse engineer than software,
My point was not that any machine cannot be reverse engineered or even that
the theory behind construction of devices could be kept secret for a long
time. It was that a working machine correctly demonstrated to the right
people (that is why I suggested that Mark should give Jed a few) would
unleas
> From: Mike Carrell
>
> >From: Steve Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> > I googled "Tastatika machines" and was directed to one link
> > containing an interesting interview on "free energy" device
> > between Hans Holzherr and Stefan Hartmann. I presume this device
> > has already been discussed at some len
Steve wrote:
>
> I googled "Tastatika machines" and was directed to one link containing an
> interesting interview on "free energy" device between Hans Holzherr and
> Stefan Hartmann. I presume this device has already been discussed at some
> length within vortex-l?
I just read the same interview
Hi Mike,
> From: Mike Carrell
> There is also the case of the 100 monkeys. Naturalists observed that
> monkeys on an island developed the habit of washing their food before
> eating it. On a nearby, but isolated, island monkeys did not wash their
> food -- until suddenly they all did, as if t
Stephen wrote:
> Nick Palmer writes:
>
> > As long as you keep the THEORY behind the construction of the machines
> secret
>
> In various "psi" experiments, rats on one side of the world were trained
in
> how to escape a particular maze. Miraculously (or not, depending on your
> viewpoint) other
Wise remarks from Hoyt. Jed is a programmer, and in his logical world one
can reverse engineer code, in fact there are programs that will give one a
good start. An added note about one of Hoyt's examples:
> Rolls Royce bought the design of an automatic transmission from an
> american company.
> T
> Nick Palmer writes:
>
> > As long as you keep the THEORY behind the construction of
> > the machines secret
>
> In various "psi" experiments, rats on one side of the world
> were trained in how to escape a particular maze. Miraculously
> (or not, depending on your
> viewpoint) other rats in
Nick Palmer writes:
> As long as you keep the THEORY behind the construction of the machines
secret
In various "psi" experiments, rats on one side of the world were trained in
how to escape a particular maze. Miraculously (or not, depending on your
viewpoint) other rats in other parts of the wo
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Mark Goldes wrote:
> I'm surprised at your rant.
Well, I'm suprised that you're suprised (and I'm also suprised that you're
confident that OU development is just another example of normal inventions
and normal patent procedures.)
> Companies and inventors who have not releas
Steam engines were developed before the science of thermodynamics. In
fact, as I recall,
thermodynamics was a result of the steam engine.
I have worked on several projects where reverse engineering would have
been unlikely.
There are many subtleties of some devices that are almost impossible to
Nick Palmer writes:
> People like Bill and Jed retain their scepticism for a very
> good reason. They have had experience, or have knowledge, of how literally
> hundreds of "free energy" type schemes have worked out.
Yup. Bill's essay is excellent. The Manning book describes many examp
he vortex list.
K.
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 11:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Secrecy for a short time, it might be wise.
Nick Palmer writes:
> engineerable" by a competitor but this is not import
Nick Palmer writes:
> engineerable" by a competitor but this is not important. As long as you keep
> the THEORY behind the construction of the machines secret (unless it would
> be very obvious to infer it from the machines themselves) . . .
The machine would be an expression or embodiment of the t
At 10:08 am 05-07-04 +0100, you wrote:
>Sorry about the capitalisation later on...
>
>Bill Beatty wrote to Mark G
>opinions you express here are a rare lack of good judgement>>
>
>Hi Mark,
> People like Bill and Jed retain their scepticism for a very
>good reason. They have had ex
Sorry about the capitalisation later on...
Bill Beatty wrote to Mark G
<>
Hi Mark,
People like Bill and Jed retain their scepticism for a very
good reason. They have had experience, or have knowledge, of how literally
hundreds of "free energy" type schemes have worked out. They are
p
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
