 |
There are currently, 153 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to the people?
| Discl., patent, $, res. theory, product (Bearden) |    5.52% (8) | | $, no patent, product, secret parts, discl. (GWE) | 47.59% (69) | | Disclose, raise $, patent, product (Greer) | 8.97% (13) | | Patent, disclose, raise $, product (Lutec) | 6.90% (10) | | Put plans in the public domain (Adams) | 28.28% (41) | | Other (comment) | 2.76% (4) |
Total Votes: 145
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls ] |
|
| "What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to the people?" | Login/Create an Account | 15 comments |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
prototype (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 @ 12:40:28 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | None of the options included a step for building a working prototype.
1 - Build a prototype of an anomolous energy device
2 - Get someone else test it under NDA
3 - Pattent
4 - Promote
5 - Let someone else worry about the theory
6 - Raise funds (Sell stock, dealerships, or licenses)
7 - Sell products, kits, plans, or classes
Anyone who does not start at step one is not doing it right. GWE, D Lee, J Newman and the classic cons start at 6. 7 might get you thrown in jail. I don't understand why some people start at any of the other steps. Bearden goes straight into not following step 5 as if the rest did not matter. Greer starts at 4 then keeps going back. |
|
|
Re: What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 @ 12:51:42 UTC | If someone is convinced that they have a working OU device, the best way to ensure that the technology gets "out" is to do just that - FLOOD the internet with plans (easy to follow, where to get parts, and not be cryptic), be proactive in helping others reproduce the effects, and be forthcoming with answers to questions from the public! People WILL try and reproduce it - and if they're successful, the device will speak for itself. Make sure to put your real name on it though - that way if anything "happens" to you, everyone will know.
The worst thing you can do is keep it secret and try and patent it or sell it or attempt to get investors. That's when it will disappear. Every other model has this flaw. GET THE DAMN THING OUT! There's allot of smart people that will build one, if your device is real, and then it can never be surpressed. The info will be released amongst the public, and will be impossible to contain.
Why are these "inventors" so afraid of just putting it out there for free? They'll get credit for inventing it (if they put their name on it first) - most definately. That person would probably win the nobel prize, and be one of the most famous people in history. Isn't that enough? What is with all the secrecy??? After all we're working towards a common goal right? Let's work together on this, and bring it out for the world then!
And even if you don't get credit for it, because some rat bastard sticks his name on your plans, and happens to get into the spotlight before you, so fu*King what! The world will now have the technology! You can safely sue his ass afterwards :) (just make sure and document and DATE your research, that way there will be no doubt as to who invented it).
Just my .02
-Ryan |
Re: What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to (Score: 1)
by bender772 on Sunday, April 20, 2003 @ 18:17:21 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message )http://www.suppressedscience.net | | This is exactly the problem I have with Bearden. When people tell him to just publish the plans for the MEG, he responds that one cannot seriously expect him to give a lifetime's work away for free. Please! TV appearances alone would make him a wealthy man if the device turned out to be legit. |
]
|
|
Re: What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 @ 13:21:05 UTC | | It seems the popular method is to disclose the plans and let everyone build their own OU devices. Why can't a company like GWE make money off of what they claim to have? Everyone has a motivation to discover the perfect OU device so why not benefiet from it and make money. |
GWE has no working prototype (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 @ 13:38:18 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message )http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | If they did they would have had it tested under NDA by a serious lab and published those results. They have a parlor trick that looks like a working device for a short time. A battery in disguise. If anyone starts by first selling stock and licenses, without getting independent testing their prototype, then they are not going about things the right way. No working prototype + no independent tests + lots of hype and business activity = scam.
But Ryan does have a point above. If anyone does invent a low-cost AE-FE device, then the economy is going to change so much that the money one might give up by not fully enforcing IP will not seem too important.
|
]
|
|
Re: What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to (Score: 1)
by Rob (rob@zpenergy.com) on Thursday, April 17, 2003 @ 15:17:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | If I had a device able to power a little scooter indefinitely I would do the following:
- 1. Sell the scooter as a new efficient kind of scooter with a very large, but software imposed range, say 100 miles? No talk of OU or anything.
- 2. When enough people have bought it, the website announces a "software upgrade to V2.0" which removes the software imposed range limit.
That would be very, very hard to suppress if a couple of thousand people have bought it...
- Gregory
|
Re: What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, April 17, 2003 @ 22:15:26 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message )http://www.zpenergy.com | Good thinking Greg...but you're not the only one. Joe Newman accused a major Japanese company of doing just that when some of his former partners left him to work for them. It's not just software that can do the trick...electro-mechanical adjustments can be easily done to make a device "normal" and then removed through a recall or disclosure of the trick. This site proposed this from the beginning.
Vlad |
]
pretty good Gregory (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Thursday, April 17, 2003 @ 22:54:08 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message )http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Also add some other feature update such as enhanced navigation. I'll never install an upgrade just for the Anomolous Free Energy feature. ;-) Strategies like this have been usedin the software industry.
To Vlad - You can't honestly believe Joe Newman. |
]
|
|
Re: What is the best model for bringing a real OU device to (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, April 18, 2003 @ 13:03:13 UTC | | I think the real question here is wether or not GWE has independent lab test. Their site states that licensees will receive independent test results as part of the package. now your calling them a scam because they are not publishing those test results to satisfy your skepticism. Do you have concret evidence that they do not have Independent lab tests.....No....you have no concrete evidence of any of your claims just speculation. Dosent matter anyway. From the latest news on the NDA's going out to accepted licensees we shall soon find the answers to end this debate. I personally have faith in the GWE group and im sure they have a revolutionary product. |
] Re: gwe couldn't READ an independent test (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, April 18, 2003 @ 14:31:38 UTC | | a clue? so your saying that your concrete evidence of GWE NOT having independent lab test is GWE's own site? You have to do better then that. |
] you still read as poorly as you write (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Friday, April 18, 2003 @ 20:25:33 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message )http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Check out the GWE article on the front page for a comment that contains news of an independent test confirming GWE's claims. Just for you.
|
] Re: you still read as poorly as you write (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, April 21, 2003 @ 11:19:38 UTC | | When was that article written? |
]
Re: you still read as poorly as you write (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, April 21, 2003 @ 14:43:01 UTC | | What is that garbage, PeatNBarley, you still havent answered the question on having proof of no lab tests.....your accusations are as hollow as you claim GWE's to be. |
]
|
|
|
|
