World's first real Free Energy Flashlight - no shaking - no batteries! No Solar

[Satyam108]

In Re: Aaron and Farmhand

If they're working with Baziev, that gives it a lot of credibility in my opinion.

Thanks, Aaron - I looked ALL over the web and could find nothing on Baziev, though Ivchenko says at the beginning of the video I linked that he found his (Baziev's) website, and "that's what got this party started," as Uncle Jack said. Do you have a link(s) to more info? NOTHING about him on Wikipedia - even the Russian one. The stuff he was saying about electrinos and their quantity and ubiquity is "DOPE" as my oldest son, Brian, would say, as is what he said about speed of light being different for different wavelengths.

"Jabriel Baziev" sounds more middle eastern name to me. Iranian Russian, maybe?

And thanks to you too, Farmhand for pointing out the lag time and possibility of it all being vaporware. I've decided to withdraw my offer to get one and deconstruct it - primarily because if I duplicate it - as I intend to if it's possible and I'm right in thinking that the ELFE Accumulator is based on Wilhelm Reich Orgone Accumulator - then if I had peeked under their patent skirts as it were - reversed engineered it, then I could be guilty of patent infringement.

I take it you're Down Under mate? Anywhere near Sydney where you could see if their presence in Oz is real or just a mail drop for what may be an essentially Russian operation?

[Aaron]

Baziev

Thanks, Aaron - I looked ALL over the web and could find nothing on Baziev, though Ivchenko says at the beginning of the video I linked that he found his (Baziev's) website, and "that's what got this party started," as Uncle Jack said. Do you have a link(s) to more info? NOTHING about him on Wikipedia - even the Russian one.

I don't know what that first name is, but I believe the correct name is D. H. Baziev, D. Kh. Baziev or Dzhabrail Kharunovich BAZIEV. I don't know anything about the Russian language so not sure why some places it is D. H. and some places D Kh.

That J spelling looks like a phonetic of Dzhabrail - they're all a variation of Gabriel most likely.

Anyway, search those D H and D Kh variations and you'll find plenty about his model, the electrino etc...

In my opinion, it is an aetheric model and the electrino is looked upon as a very tiny fractional charge, which of course conventionally doesn't exist, but we know they do. In any case, by any other language, it's the aether in my opinion.

Baziev's work goes hand in hand with Andreyev's work in regards to Autothermia and that is why I know about Baziev. It goes beyond water fuel - it's using air as fuel but the Russians aren't the only ones that have figured it out. It was in Nazi Germany, it's in Australia and a couple Americans are working on it that I know of.

[Farmhand]

No I'm nowhere near Sydney, I was going to buy an ELFE but the lag time to
dispatch threw me. I see no need for it so it makes no sense to me and I don't
spend money when things make no sense. Pity, they look good and if they
work they would be worth the money in my opinion.

Not that recharging batteries bothers me, but the convenience of a torch that
recharges on it's own and is well constructed (well above what I can make at
home) would be good.

In reality the cost of the energy to recharge a regular rechargeable torch is not
very much probably less than $100.00 over 5 years.

So in my opinion it is purely a convenience thing and overall cost would
probably be comparable to conventional.

[bistander]

Infringement

..... then if I had peeked under their patent skirts as it were - reversed engineered it, then I could be guilty of patent infringement.

Infringement occurs when you sell the thing which incorporates a claim from an issued patent. You are free to copy and make the item and to use it. In fact that was an original goal of the patent office: To publish and disseminate knowledge so that people could practice the art.

I am not an attorney and not giving legal advice. This is just my opinion based on having over ten US patents issued showing me as the inventor and working on many other patents with lawyers and the USPTO.

[Aaron]

value of the novelty

In reality the cost of the energy to recharge a regular rechargeable torch is not
very much probably less than $100.00 over 5 years.

So in my opinion it is purely a convenience thing and overall cost would
probably be comparable to conventional.

It would only cost me a couple dollars over 5 years to recharge a AA or AAA for a little flashlight - I pay 7.5 cents per kwh.

It isn't a fast ROI the company is offering, but a novel product that isn't available anywhere else and that is where the value is for anyone that wants one - not that anyone will save any money.

A $350 3D printer right now would have cost several thousand dollars just several years ago. If this Elfe light takes off, over time, I'd hope the prices will drop significantly. Especially if this kind of harvester does indeed start making it to cell phones and other wireless items. It could take off like wild fire just like the 3D printer market did with everyone jumping on board.

[Aaron]

patents and personal use

Infringement occurs when you sell the thing which incorporates a claim from an issued patent. You are free to copy and make the item and to use it. In fact that was an original goal of the patent office: To publish and disseminate knowledge so that people could practice the art.

I am not an attorney and not giving legal advice. This is just my opinion based on having over ten US patents issued showing me as the inventor and working on many other patents with lawyers and the USPTO.

You're partially correct.

It is true that the original goal for the patent office was to transfer protected intellectual property to the public domain, but only AFTER the protection period of the patent, which is typically 17 years (in the USA).

35 U.S.C. 271 - Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

I'm not giving legal advice either but I have talked to attorneys about this particular issue because it came up in conversation when I was getting council on other issues relating to patents. And my reference is of course only for the USA - not sure what the deal is elsewhere.

It is not legal to make or use anything in a live patent for personal use. That has been one of the biggest if not the biggest misconception for patents in regards to people thinking they can benefit if it is only for personal and non-commercial use. If you ask your patent attorneys, they will tell you the same thing.

The problem is that it is virtually impossible to enforce this because we don't have patent police knocking on everyone's door (yet), to see who is making and using IP from live patents. Basically, it's not worth the time, effort or money to actively pursue people using IP for personal use.

People think Bedini's circuits are all public domain, but they're not. They're patent protected still but he has obviously given his blessing for people to experiment and learn from his circuits as long as nobody sells it or uses it for other commercial purposes. I see people infringing on this all the time. The little easy spin motors and countless other variations are actually all protected by the claims in Bedini's patents - they are all monopole motors regardless of how people alternate the polarity, put coils in parallel or series, etc...

[bistander]

Correction--- thanks

.. whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

If he purchases the product through the proper channels, he is given a license to use it, correct? Looks like that passage is pretty specific. It was a long time ago when that corporate attorney told me what I related, and I should know better than to believe a lawyer. Oh well. I contend once you have purchased and taken delivery of the product, it is your property and you can do with it what you darn well please, short of taking other people's money for it.

And for heaven's sake, don't consider what I write here as legal advice. It is just my opinion.

Anyway, thanks for posting the law,

bi

[Aaron]

agreement

If he purchases the product through the proper channels, he is given a license to use it, correct? Looks like that passage is pretty specific. It was a long time ago when that corporate attorney told me what I related, and I should know better than to believe a lawyer. Oh well. I contend once you have purchased and taken delivery of the product, it is your property and you can do with it what you darn well please, short of taking other people's money for it.

And for heaven's sake, don't consider what I write here as legal advice. It is just my opinion.

Anyway, thanks for posting the law,

bi

By purchasing a patented item, it doesn't automatically give you a license to my understanding unless a license agreement is presented that you have to agree to ahead of time.

[Farmhand]

Innocent until proven guilty I say. Regardless of what I do, until such time as I
am convicted in court I am innocent. Therefore if I build a patented device for
personal use I am guilty of nothing until convicted in court. So that means I can
build and use a patented device legally until such time as the patent holder
deems it a breach of patent, which is that patent holders prerogative.

A cease and desist notice would be required I think from the patent holder to
the person or entity the patent holder deems to be in breech of patent.

Nothing is set in stone, even if the patent holder is aware of you building and
using his patented device unless he takes you to court and a conviction results
you are guilty of nothing. How can it be any other way ? People are not guilty
of breaking man made rules until they are prosecuted and convicted.

Further if the patent holder is aware of you building and using said patented
device and does not prosecute for breech of patent then the patent holder is
allowing you to do it and therefore it is legal.

It is entirely up to the patent holders what and who they allow to do
whatever with their patented devices. Public permission is not required.
No one else gets to decide if a patent holder can allow people to build and
use their patented devices without paying.

All of the above is what I consider to be logical reality.

..

P.S. I would have no intention of disassembling the torch if I bought one. I
might look to see how it works. Just to get some new idea's if they are using
anything new that is.

..

[SilverToGold]

People think Bedini's circuits are all public domain, but they're not. They're patent protected still but he has obviously given his blessing for people to experiment and learn from his circuits as long as nobody sells it or uses it for other commercial purposes. I see people infringing on this all the time. The little easy spin motors and countless other variations are actually all protected by the claims in Bedini's patents - they are all monopole motors regardless of how people alternate the polarity, put coils in parallel or series, etc...

Hi Aaron, which patent of John specifically covers the Easy Spin Motor?

The ONLY part of the patent that the US patent office cares for is specifically the claims part. What is disclosed in the body has practically nothing to do with what is protected in the claims. You do not get patent protection from what you disclose in the body of the patent outside the claims!!! And if the device in question does NOT infringe on the 1st claim, it does not cover the device that is suppose to be infringing upon in that patent. Which I do not believe the Easy Spin Motor does.

From what I've looked at in regards to John's patents, they ONLY really covers a capacitive dumping into a battery. That is it, that is the meat of John's patent from the legal view of what his patent actually protects.

John's patents DO NOT cover dumping a coil straight into a battery. It does not cover the Easy Spin Motor since there is no capacitive dumping into a battery. I know you guys believe it to be so... but from what I've read of John's patent, I am sorry to report that is not true. I do not argue that they probably got ideas from John - but that has nothing to with legal patent protection. The patent is the CLAIMS! That is all that matters legally, what the claims are.

Now maybe you guys have a patent of John's that I have not seen but I believe I've seen all of his patents. I could be wrong....

And I use to be a patent clerk so I know how the patent office operates and how they view patents. I am not trying to be difficult but I just wanted to share what is actually protected in a patent. If you want I can go over any of John's patent and tell you specifically what is covered.

Also, I remember when I was a patent clerk that my boss and the training I got said that people are allowed to use a patent for personal use unless they make money from it. So are the patent office wrong or are personal attorneys? Also, it's been a while, maybe the laws have changed?? I am not giving legal advice here, do your own due diligence in research. Just sharing my experience.

Kindest Regards

[Aaron]

claims

What word did I underline in my post?

The person at the patent office that told you people can use the patents for personal use is wrong.

Here is an example of one that you apparently have not seen and there are others - just addressing your mention that the cap method is all that is claimed in John's patents:

Hi Aaron, which patent of John specifically covers the Easy Spin Motor?

The ONLY part of the patent that the US patent office cares for is specifically the claims part. What is disclosed in the body has practically nothing to do with what is protected in the claims. You do not get patent protection from what you disclose in the body of the patent outside the claims!!! And if the device in question does NOT infringe on the 1st claim, it does not cover the device that is suppose to be infringing upon in that patent. Which I do not believe the Easy Spin Motor does.

From what I've looked at in regards to John's patents, they ONLY really covers a capacitive dumping into a battery. That is it, that is the meat of John's patent from the legal view of what his patent actually protects.

John's patents DO NOT cover dumping a coil straight into a battery. It does not cover the Easy Spin Motor since there is no capacitive dumping into a battery. I know you guys believe it to be so... but from what I've read of John's patent, I am sorry to report that is not true. I do not argue that they probably got ideas from John - but that has nothing to with legal patent protection. The patent is the CLAIMS! That is all that matters legally, what the claims are.

Now maybe you guys have a patent of John's that I have not seen but I believe I've seen all of his patents. I could be wrong....

And I use to be a patent clerk so I know how the patent office operates and how they view patents. I am not trying to be difficult but I just wanted to share what is actually protected in a patent. If you want I can go over any of John's patent and tell you specifically what is covered.

Also, I remember when I was a patent clerk that my boss and the training I got said that people are allowed to use a patent for personal use unless they make money from it. So are the patent office wrong or are personal attorneys? Also, it's been a while, maybe the laws have changed?? I am not giving legal advice here, do your own due diligence in research. Just sharing my experience.

Kindest Regards

[Aaron]

"Home Infringement" and Common Misconceptions

Patent it Yourself by David Pressman published by Nolo - recognized nationally as a leading expert on patent law...

Common Misconception: That which you do in your own home or for your own personal use will not infringe a patent that is otherwise applicable.

Fact: While “home infringement” may be difficult to detect, nevertheless it is a form of infringement that is legally actionable and can subject the infringer to paying damages and/or an injunction prohibiting further infringe-ment.

[Satyam108]

Are Electrinos Aether?

In my opinion, it is an aetheric model and the electrino is looked upon as a very tiny fractional charge, which of course conventionally doesn't exist, but we know they do. In any case, by any other language, it's the aether in my opinion.

Thanks for the Baziev info, Aaron. Have found some links to explore a bit later.

I agree with you that Electrinos may be Aether, Aaron, as at 1/150,000 of the mass of an electron and filling 99.8% of "any body," they would certainly meet Tesla's qualifications:

a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space

("tenuity" means thinness. A thinness beyond conception.)

[See three Tesla quotes below.]

The fact that Baziev said that he was working on equations and descriptions of gasses, and mentioned Mendeleev, who, I've been told, believed that two elements in his periodic chart would be discovered (and that he left "slots" for,) that comprised the Aether, and the work of Max Planck - also lends credence to this. If so, this is HUGE! Because Aether = Space = Akasha = Primordial Sound, and because Space is there even in the gaps between the parts, (between nucleus and electrons, between sun and planets, between galaxies, etc.) the ubiquity if not omnipresence of Electrinos, if Baziev is correct, certainly qualifies them to be the constituents of Aether.

WRT patents - because the ELFE light hasn't been fully patented yet - no claims or description or drawings etc. are published on IP Australia, and it's going to be December at earliest before anyone gets hold of one to take a peek at, I'm going to go ahead with my own research on "accumulators" (Wilhelm Reich is noteworthy in this regard if not notorious,) and see if I can make use of this knowledge, and I won't be guilty of any infringement. If I can get an accumulator (accumulates Electrinos circulating in Earh's magnetic fields?) to light an LED - even for a few seconds - I'll know I'm on the right track.

The Promised Saint Nikola:

"There is no energy in matter except that absorbed from the medium."

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. . . . Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."
-- Nikola Tesla addressing the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891

"There manifests itself in the fully developed being - Man - a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives. Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasa or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."
- Nikola Tesla, Man's Greatest Achievement, May 13, 1907

[Farmhand]

A few rough calculations can show around about what they claim ELFE can do.

On the shop page they state that ELFE can be used at peak levels for about 3 hours per day and they state that ELFE has a 3 Watt LED.

3 Watts for 3 hours is 9 Watt hours.

That leaves 21 hours left in the day for the accumulator to recharge.

Divide the Watt hours by the hours to recharge to get the Watts for recharging..
9 Watt Hours divided by 21 hours = 0.42 Watts continuous for 21 hours to recharge.

Then we divide the watts per hour by the voltage of the accumulator to get the charge current, lets say it is a 3.7 volt Li-ion battery.

0.42 Watts per hour divided by 3.7 volts= 0.115 Amp of charge current.

So we would need to supply at least 115 mA for 21 hours per day to a 3.7 volt
battery to get 3 Watts for 3 hours from that 3.7 volt battery. And that does
not account for losses, which there would be of course.
(Feel free to correct my calculations if they are wrong.)

..

And they claim that anywhere anytime.

I find that very difficult to believe. Unfortunately.
To be honest I would find it difficult to believe 15 mA or even 5 mA at 3.7
volts continuously from natural environmental input.

Could it be possible there is a consumable battery in the torch, it is possible to get some good charge current from a galvanic battery.

Would be a shame to buy the Torch only to have it consume itself and fall
apart after 5 years with no possible option of replacing the accumulator/battery.
..

[Farmhand]

The more I look at the other "concepts" on the site the more it all seems a bit
suspect. Take the "Uprail" system for example, it would be extremely expensive
to build and in my opinion an unworkable system, it's just a concept and not a
very good one at that. It's simply a rail network elevated on a "bridge" the cost
and technicality would be ridiculous.