Problems with Revenue and Open Sourcing

[RedRightHand]

Hello Everyone,

I was hoping to start a new thread about a topic that I have been spending some considerable time contemplating as of late.

The 'free energy' open source researchers are slowly peculating into mainstream now. Their ideas are catching on and interest is growing every year. We have many big players in the field now (many posting here), some of them might disagree with each other on some points - but the one thing that appears to unite them is their desire to open source their technology and give it back to the world.

Most, but not all, of these Big Players or Leaders are now selling products online and/or have websites which create a decent advertising revenue. Basically they have turned a hobby, into a full time job and now receive a revenue from people like us visiting their web pages or purchasing their products.
I must first state, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this! If these guys had to work 9-5, then their research would be minimal and breakthroughs would be few and far between.

I guess my concern is we may be start to receive some information from these people which, is more business orientated then in the true spirit of giving back. Information that is provided only to produce hits or sell products.
Where do we draw the line in the proverbial sand?
How do we know when one of the Leaders has crossed that line?
When should we stop listening to one leader, and start listening to the other - when they disagree?

I will use Sterling Allan, of peswiki.com as an example, I apologize in advance to Sterling, you are by no means the only one, but as you moderate the most popular website of this type you are the ideal example.

First of all, Sterling you do an amazing job, please keep doing what you are doing!
A small critique though,
While you do report very well on all things free energy, you are a journalist working by commission and are prone to a fatal flaw. If there is no news you sometimes might make small news look like BIG news. I can understand, you got a family to feed, you needs hits or they might take your house.
The problem lies in that you may in fact be fracturing the free energy community, sending people off on wild goose chases - when their time and expertise would be better used on a sensible open source build.

I suggest a few things:

1.Don't publish a new device until you have at least entered into direct correspondence with the inventor or company. This means you will be able to ask questions and not just be another repeater of information circulating on the internet.
2. Follow Up! I see some follow up, but not enough. You need to show all further correspondence with them and WE DO want to know your opinion TRUE / HOAX. You are more then welcome to change your opinion, but knowing you honest opinion helps, because you were the one in direct contact with inventor.
3. Less is more. Less articles, but more in depth analysis I think is the key.


I would greatly appreciate any comments, ideas or suggestions on this topic, from both the Leaders and the Consumer-researchers out there.


Yours Sincerely,

Red

[jibbguy]

Sometimes we work on an assumption that we are "owed" something from the people here: Generally speaking, we are not.

You can take their claims at face value, or not. You can request they provide verifications. You can be skeptical after a reasonable amount of time... that is FAIR GAME.

However, there IS NO "Open Source Book of Rules". Information from a inventor or researcher can be given in any conceivable amount, in any percentage of "all/everything". Obviously, we would LIKE to see as much as possible, but that is neither here nor there; ultimately the burden of what they disclose fully rests on the shoulders of the supplier alone.

The vast weight and potential importance of what is discussed here, makes it pretty unique. In the commercial electronics business, corps can and sometimes DO play a surprising amount of "hard ball".. blatantly stealing ideas, hiring away engineers, infiltrating spy employees and "shill customers", working behind the scenes to get competitors bought -out and closed down, making deals with critical suppliers to get the competition "black balled" so they can't produce enough, price fixing and Trust deals between competitors behind the scenes to take over markets and screw other competitors, etc.. And all that is at stake, is next years' profits for that company. I have personally seen examples of all of those.... about fully conventional electronic devices that no one even remembers today, lol... Just GREED.

The stakes are rather higher here, lol... so the games that are sometimes played in the Free Energy genre, could make that conventional electronics "hard ball" look like "nerf ball"

Consider, for a moment, that some of these folks have other issues and concerns that they are not talking about here that tempers their behavior. I have found this is often the case. I am not suggesting these are "bad" concerns, just private ones.

Not everything is as it may seem here. Not everyone is "free" to discuss all they know; whether it be via some sort of "suppression" (perhaps "gag orders" or something similar in their past), or via commercial Non Disclosure Agreements. Sometimes they are simply tempered by a healthy amount of what could be called "fear", or maybe just "being careful".

And, obviously, not everyone is "genuine"... even in Open Source. One has to wonder "why bother" when they don't appear to profit in any way from deceptions... But there are OTHER possible goals besides direct "money gain" here:

> Misdirection to keep rivals away from a tech that is waiting to come out "once the political climate changes" or while a Patent is Pending.

> Deliberate professionally-done psy-ops games to discredit the entire genre'; to get people working on these things to quit by themselves; and make it so others' will discount anything related in the future (the "Mylow" game for instance, imo).

> Ego or "crazyness" of the person(s) doing it... Some are simply deluded or misguided.

To what extent others besides the thread starters/inventors are involved in some of these more elaborate deceptions; is the most difficult question... people who support it can be fooled, and are only the victims of liars the same as everyone else. Or they could be part of it; we nearly always just don't know (although we may harbor suspicions)... and trying to start some kind of witch hunt is not productive at all, and damaging to the entire genre. Some people forget that simply being behind a computer screen does not give them "States Attorney Immunity": and making potentially false accusations is very a bad thing to do with potentially Legal consequences; it should always be done the same as if facing the person in real life, imo.

However, i would state that in the "Ideal" at least, Open Source IS THE BEST POSSIBLE method of all of rooting out deceptions.... as long as we stick by our guns for reliable Verifications and Replications... and use critical thinking

[Farmhand]

The 'free energy' open source researchers are slowly peculating into mainstream now. Their ideas are catching on and interest is growing every year. We have many big players in the field now (many posting here), some of them might disagree with each other on some points - but the one thing that appears to unite them is their desire to open source their technology and give it back to the world.

Hi RedRightHand and all, Yes I would aggree with the statement above. And another thing I have noticed is that there may be a certain amount of idea poaching going on, which doesn't particularly bother me because I share everything anyway, I see idea poaching as a good thing as it corfirms validity of idea's. I just hope that people aren't put off sharing because of the want to be recognised for being the one that came up with some paticular idea.

One thing I have noticed is that people are rehashing idea's from people who came before them who were themselve's rehashing others idea's and calling them thiers. Even tesla did not disclose where some of his idea's came from, some of Nicola's designs seem to be based on work by others before him.

I myself have thought of things, just through idea's I get from looking at a recent "Invention" only to find out that what I thought of has already been done by others who claim it as thier idea, even though I didn't get my idea from them.

So this makes me think there is an older inventions people are getting idea's from. Which is all good and how it should be, I just don't like it when it is obviously everybodies right to use all idea's made public by anybody, just seems to me I shouldn't have to worry about what somebody will say when I put two and two together and come up with a working circuit that just happens to be already thought of. I'm a bit sceptical of the video and book thing I am not against it in any way, I just think it would be a real shame if all of us decided to only release what we discover by selling video's. I actually have the first volume of energy from the vacuum, I found it very helpfull.

I also think we should be thinking of new stuff using the work of those before us for inspiration and idea's. I think for myself at least I study the work of others not to replicate or prove thier work for them but to learn and get idea's on how to solve problems, and be "inventive". Every now and then I find something I would like to build for myself to use and so that go's on the list of to do things.

I guess my concern is we may be start to receive some information from these people which, is more business orientated then in the true spirit of giving back. Information that is provided only to produce hits or sell products.
Where do we draw the line in the proverbial sand?
How do we know when one of the Leaders has crossed that line?
When should we stop listening to one leader, and start listening to the other - when they disagree?

I think there could be some pointing of some people to which direction "they think" others should go, which can be very helpfull, however it also makes it easy to point people in the wrong direction if they are directionless to begin with, or may be encroaching on thier "ground".

Lastly I will say that, " Principals are discovered not invented" no one can patent or protect a "principal" or an "effect" only the "method of utilising" it or "Producing it". There is only one way to "protect" a "Principal" and that is to keep it hidden, or make it obscure.

Cheers

[RedRightHand]

Thanks for your input folks!
@Farmhand I think your post was very astute and had some very good ideas contained within. Look forward to any more posts from you.

Sometimes we work on an assumption that we are "owed" something from the people here: Generally speaking, we are not.

We are not owed anything! But it is reasonable to assume, that if they give details about there device here, they are also open to questions, so we should ask. If they don't reply then that's our answer.

However, there IS NO "Open Source Book of Rules". Information from a inventor or researcher can be given in any conceivable amount, in any percentage of "all/everything". Obviously, we would LIKE to see as much as possible, but that is neither here nor there; ultimately the burden of what they disclose fully rests on the shoulders of the supplier alone.

You are right! Only when they start to sell a device, does the law require them to fully disclose whats in the box! Even then, there are some legal loop holes that allow you to sell a product without this information attached. Many of the Leaders here are using these educational and research loopholes to sell their products legally.

The vast weight and potential importance of what is discussed here, makes it pretty unique. In the commercial electronics business, corps can and sometimes DO play a surprising amount of "hard ball".. blatantly stealing ideas, hiring away engineers, infiltrating spy employees and "shill customers", working behind the scenes to get competitors bought -out and closed down, making deals with critical suppliers to get the competition "black balled" so they can't produce enough, price fixing and Trust deals between competitors behind the scenes to take over markets and screw other competitors, etc.. And all that is at stake, is next years' profits for that company. I have personally seen examples of all of those.... about fully conventional electronic devices that no one even remembers today, lol... Just GREED.

I agree our money orientated culture produces some very bad results, Free markets don't always look after you and me the consumer. This is why I don't believe free energy and profit should go together. If it is possible to get this tech out to the world without having to make a profit on it - then this is the ideal method. Unfortunately, I have grave doubts if this is even possible anymore.

Not everything is as it may seem here. Not everyone is "free" to discuss all they know; whether it be via some sort of "suppression" (perhaps "gag orders" or something similar in their past), or via commercial Non Disclosure Agreements. Sometimes they are simply tempered by a healthy amount of what could be called "fear", or maybe just "being careful".

This is obviously the case sometimes, but they should mention this in their answer - just been secretive and dismissive - makes people think its a SCAM. I sign NDA's almost daily, if someone asks I just say, "Sorry NDA". People almost always respect that, because they have all signed an NDA before.

To what extent others besides the thread starters/inventors are involved in some of these more elaborate deceptions; is the most difficult question... people who support it can be fooled, and are only the victims of liars the same as everyone else. Or they could be part of it; we nearly always just don't know (although we may harbor suspicions)... and trying to start some kind of witch hunt is not productive at all, and damaging to the entire genre. Some people forget that simply being behind a computer screen does not give them "States Attorney Immunity": and making potentially false accusations is very a bad thing to do with potentially Legal consequences; it should always be done the same as if facing the person in real life, imo.

I guess what I would like to do is get rid of this knee-jerk reaction to questions. We are all here to learn from each other, questions should never be taboo on any subject. The person always has the right to not answer if they don't want to. I also agree you should never say anything here you are not prepared to say to the persons face. Although talking online about a device and viewing the device in person with the inventor, are two totally different things. One you can 'kick the tyres' the other you have to rely on empirical measurements.

However, i would state that in the "Ideal" at least, Open Source IS THE BEST POSSIBLE method of all of rooting out deceptions.... as long as we stick by our guns for reliable Verifications and Replications... and use critical thinking

Verifications and Replications is the only way to move forward!
Most of all, a healthy dose of critical thinking is also required, hence why I started this thread. Thanks for your input!


Sincerely,

Red

[faramog]

I thought one of the long time issues was the MIB stiffling alternate research and patents. It also seems that the USA has a mechanism for 'stealing' patents based on some notion of national security.

Surely the way around this is more open source. Ultimately there would be plenty of dosh to be made in the implementation of anything commercial, but there is simply not enough verifiable data to make a case look commercial. (Or more likely there is and its sensibly kept quiet).

Just a thought !