At 03:21 pm 04-07-04 -0700, you wrote: >On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Mark Goldes wrote: > >> billb wrote: >> >If I was into gambling, I'd bet my life savings that we'll never see >> >anything real. Make no mistake, I'd HOPE that you have something, but at >> >the same time I'd stake major money in betting that the "free energy >> >secrecy rule" will do it's magic once again, and totally block any chance >> >of success. >> >> On the basis of what has surfaced to date, I would not quarrel with your >> odds. However, we are aware of enough to suggest other labs have also >> produced self-running machines. However, I have no wish to discuss that >> issue, and will not reply to queries. > >It doesn't matter how many groups have genuine self-running machines >sitting in the lab. It doesn't matter if you have one in your briefcase >at this moment. If every single company fails for whatever reason, then >the goal is not to develop or manufacture machines, the goal is to >discover the actual causes of all those failures... and then to counter >them. > >In my observations of history, inventor secrecy has been the guaranteed >death-knell of every company. So here I see another company with grand >dreams, yet ...there's that usual secrecy crap in spades. You think it >won't ruin your dreams, that "it can't happen here?" > >Yes, of course secrecy is effective... in other arenas. But where a >discovery is something ridiculed by conventional scientist, the inventor >encounters a huge barrier, and any secrecy makes that barrier ten times >higher. I'd expect modern ZPE inventors to learn from history, and to do >everything they possibly can in order to prevent the slightest hint of >secrecy. Yet you're doing the opposite. One kind of insanity is to >repeat past actions yet expect a different result. We'll soon see if the >Greg Watson Memorial Rule: "Secrecy Guarantees Failure," is real. > > >> We suspect Brady will have a hard time patenting. There is much prior art >> in magnetic turbines. If that proves the case, what you suggest may have a >> real world demonstration model. > >If "secrecy guarantees failure," then Brady is no threat to you, and will >never be a competitor. You can safely assume that he's already gone. > > >I'm convinced that it goes like this: > > 1. We have a very important discovery which can change the world. > > 2. It's OURS, and when the world changes, it will be US that did it. > > 3. If any outsiders discover the details of the discovery, then THEY > can reap the accolades and the billions of dollars instead of us, > and the fame will be shared with, or even entirely stolen by the > idea-thieves, just like Marconi defeated Tesla. > > 4. Therefore the primary threat is idea-thieves, and the primary goal > is to keep the discovery secret from all outsiders. Funding, > manufacturing, and sales are important but secondary. > > 5. But if we build and sell devices, any outsiders can back-engineer > them overnight... so patents are absolutely essential. > > 6. Now we find that the USPTO throws out every one of our applications, > since the discovery is not a part of conventional science and is > not associated with cutting-edge research at any university. And > now they declare it to be a "perpetual motion scheme" without even > bothering to look at test results or to test it themselves. > > 7. We're in deadlock. Our primary goal of secrecy REQUIRES that we > have patent protection before going forward. Yet we can't get the > protection. We'll try all kinds of other routes other than chancing > a release of the secrets. All of them fail. No way forward exists. > And no outsider has ever got hold of a working prototype. > > 8a. We all go on to other jobs. The hardware sits in storage until > years later it is lost in a fire, sold as scrap, stolen during > a break-in. Or... > > 8b. Because of how they treat us, the government, scientists, and the > public are all ignorant fools who DESERVE to die slowly in slavery > to oil companies while the world rots from pollution. We'll > destroy all evidence of our discovery and take the secrets to our > graves rather than let any slimeballs from outside reap benefits. > > 9. A new researcher makes a similar new discovery. Go back to #1 and > repeat. > > >The weak spot in this closed loop is obvious. USPTO incompetence? Yes, >but there's little chance of changing that! Therefore the real problem to >solve is the inventor-secrecy. Remove the need to keep secrets, and the >deadlock is broken. But preserve the need to keep secrets, and the >secrecy multiplies with the barrier of scientist/public disbelief and >erases any chance of success. > >See me and Zack W. from eight years ago: > > THE PROMETHEUS GAME > http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/prometh.html > >Also: > > Rules for Unconventional Research > http://amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html
That is really EXCELLENT advice Bill. I've saved the URLs for future reference. Ta! 8-) Frank Grimer
