Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Best way to submitt a overunity research to public  (Read 17857 times)

wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Best way to submitt a overunity research to public
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2013, 02:54:36 PM »
@JEJEHO

We get asked that question a good many times in a year.

If you want to make sure your idea is yours even if you put it out on open source, which I recommend if you want to both give something of true value to the world (we need it quick) and also make sure you are credited for the idea, try this.

Get all your proofs, materials, docs, videos and put them in printed form and or a combination of printed form and a burned CD, then mail this to yourself by registered mail and never open the mail when you get it. Send a copy to a lawyer or notary or any other person you may know that has any credible status and ask them not to open the document.

Once you have that in hand, you have now a recognized time stamp and should you ever need to fight someone else that is stealing your idea, this is the best proof. Make several copies and send them to more people you know by registered mail.

Then just open source it here by asking the moderator to open up a thread for which you have moderation rights that you can then decide to keep the thread locked for your disclosure requirements and open up a companion thread so @members can discuss it on that thread.

Just know one thing. Justifiably, it will be dissected to its most minute parts in order to qualify it. Some will scoff while others may go into an irrational level of treating you like a God. It all does not matter because that is part and parcel of the process.

The main thing is to know where your invention lies in terms of overall complexity.

a) If it is so simple that a 13 year old can build and use it, then this is the best form.
b) If it requires any specialized building skills like metalworking or other craft related expertise, then this will slow down the propagation of the idea since only those equally specialized can partake.
c) It is requires rocket science level to make it work, this is the hardest ideas because very few will be able to both understand and apply it.

Any of the above can go open source, but the speed at which the idea will expand into the world will be different. You can search this site using my username plus open source or other key words and you will get much more detailed info. hehehe

But if you decide to show it in a badly done video and keep your secret until someone comes along to offer you 20 millions dollars for the idea, then please go somewhere else because you will fail, fail miserably and waste so much of your time and our time. For me, if you do not open source, you do not exist since all the secret keepers in the past have and you will not be any different.

Trying to make money of free energy machine only leads to no money and no free energy. The only way to do business with free energy is anti-business. All the anti-business models are safe. The standard business model where you attract an investor to help you spread the deal will kill it right away because once you have your first investor, you can no longer talk about your device in order to protect the newly agreed investor rights. From that point onwards you are condemned to keep your mouth shut until a major deal is struck but that major deal will never happen.

wattsup


conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Best way to submitt a overunity research to public
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2013, 05:02:32 PM »

If you want to make sure your idea is yours even if you put it out on open source, which I recommend if you want to both give something of true value to the world (we need it quick) and also make sure you are credited for the idea, try this.

Get all your proofs, materials, docs, videos and put them in printed form and or a combination of printed form and a burned CD, then mail this to yourself by registered mail and never open the mail when you get it. Send a copy to a lawyer or notary or any other person you may know that has any credible status and ask them not to open the document.

Once you have that in hand, you have now a recognized time stamp and should you ever need to fight someone else that is stealing your idea, this is the best proof. Make several copies and send them to more people you know by registered mail.

Then just open source it here by asking the moderator to open up a thread for which you have moderation rights that you can then decide to keep the thread locked for your disclosure requirements and open up a companion thread so @members can discuss it on that thread.


I do not know what is meant by "put it out on open source". If it means that one has no valid patent protection, it is for sure lost. The person who has "put it out on open source" has no more rights on it.

The silly envelop sent by registered mail will not help to protect an invention. Who cares about who has invented it once it has been "put out on open source".

People, please get it once and for all, if you have no patent you have nothing. And even if you have a patent, it will be taken away from you in case it is really important.

Do you think any military of any country will hesitate one second to exploit OU if they can get it? And nobody will care how they get it. Steeling, killing, every sin is permitted.

Do you think any one powerful can ignore OU if he can just take it?

Do you think any one will give you money for something extremely important if he can just take it?

In case something is really important, every moral issue is thrown out. Patents, prior rights, prior knowledge, all that will not matter any more.

How could you have prevented the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Great Britain and France from building an atomic bomb? By sending registered mail to yourself? Stop kidding! Nobody ever doubted that the USA have ignited the first atomic bomb. Everybody else just sent out their spies and built it themselves. And so it happens with all important "inventions".

And if you "put it out on open source", everybody will just take it (in case it is valuable). And if it is important it is a good thing that everybody just takes it. Who cares about the inventor? The inventor has just made a tiny little step in the right direction, 99.9999% of the knowledge necessary to do it he has taken from others.

For all slow people:

- "putting it out on open source" without valid patent protection
- publishing it anywhere without valid patent protection
- showing it around without valid patent protection

just means to give it away for free. And this is exactly what you should do. Because if it is the real OU, it will be taken from you in any case. And if it is a delusion, you will see very soon that you are an idiot.

If you want to be recognised become a rock star, a super sports man, a politician or a religious leader. If you want to make money sell something normal like cars, apples, beans, beautiful whores, potent drugs, and so on.

Greetings, Conrad

Ghost

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • OpenSourceEnergy.NET
Re: Best way to submitt a overunity research to public
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2013, 06:36:19 PM »
this is a good read on Open Source vs Patenting.
see:
http://www.overunity.com/1821/open-source-vs-patenting

wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Best way to submitt a overunity research to public
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2013, 07:08:05 PM »
@conradelektro

You seem to equate a free energy device (FED) to be the same thing as having invented a new screwdriver or whatever commercial product out there. This is where all guys go very wrong. A FED has nothing to do with any other product in this world. Will your screwdriver change the world? No other product will change the world like the device we are working on and no other way will work to put it out there besides open source. Proof is in the past experiences.

There are only two factors to introduce a FED to the world. How complex is it to replicate and how stupid is the inventor when it comes to dealing with the public.

So far, all we have seen is bad news because guys just want some money, money and always money but the minute that first dollar is taken, the game is already over and the inventor has no other choice but to abdicate his god given intelligence, creativity and good will to the whims of those holding the money. That's where it will die a long and painful death. Just look around you to all these big brains and how they got sucked in by business, greed, irrational expectations, ignorance to the real hardships of any commercial enterprise, etc, etc, etc. I could keep on going for hours like this.

Inventors think with their little OU gadgets they will make billions of dollars, when the reality is that once the device is either disclosed, or kept secret and sold one by one, once the first units hit the market, the original will become obsolete within 6 months MAXIMUM. That is because once the principle of operation is understand, there will be an exponential growth of the usage and if inventors think they want or can control all this with their little company or even with their big fat multi-national corporation, they are very mistaken indeed. There is only one way free energy will grow and that is if it is left free to grow.

So inventors should know that if they talk about a FED device, they will get so much stories of so many money guys telling them "follow me and you will become rich beyond your wildest dreams". This is like putting a nice fat juicy worm in front of a large mouth bass. The inventor will bite on that because he is usually very hungry and yearning for money, but right there is where they make their first and only mistake. The next day they are no longer their own man, but they become a simple commodity that the money guys will control.

So anyways, nuff said.

wattsup

conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Best way to submitt a overunity research to public
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2013, 07:33:52 PM »

 Open Source vs Patenting.


I might have given the impression, that I am against Open Source.

I just want to make clear that "Open Source" is not a way to protect an invention.

By "protecting an invention" I mean

- being recognised as inventor or
- prohibiting others from exploiting it.

Once something is "Open Source" everybody can use the ideas behind it. Everybody can use an "open sourced idea" to make money without having to give the "original inventor" anything. Who cares about who has presented the idea first, who cares who was the "inventor". There is no law that protects ideas which have been published without patent protection.

There is "Copy Right", but it applies only to "copies" and does not protect you from "reverse engineering". In case you write a book, I can not sell a copy of the book (because of the automatically invoked copy write), but I can take the ideas from your book an do whatever I want. I can in principle write the same story, I just have to spin it differently.

In case of "Open Source Software" it might be prohibited to sell a copy of the code, but because the "source code" is visible, everybody can reverse engineer the ideas in the code. Just by seeing and using a program (even if the source code is not visible) one can reverse engineer it, it just might take more time and effort. You might know how to "disassemble computer code", it is tedious, but it reveals key algorithms.

But we are not talking "computer programs" or "Open Source Software" or "Copy Right", we discuss "inventions" and in particular "OU inventions". We discuss, how to protect ideas. And the only mechanism in place in our society in order to protect ideas (to recognise the inventor and to stop others from making money with it) is the patent system.

The patent system has many draw backs (mainly its high cost, specially in the case of litigation), but it is the only thing in place.

The patent system can not really protect "ideas", it can only protect "specific embodiments of an idea". That might be too complicated for you. It just means that you can only protect a certain way of using the idea. If I find any other way, I can get an other patent.

Therefore it is impossible to patent "scientific discoveries", because one then can use this discovery in millions of ways, and in fact thousands of patents are granted based on a single scientific discovery.

An "OU invention" will typically be a "scientific discovery" and you might be able to protect  ten ways of implementing a device based on that discovery, but many others will think of different ways to do it.

I hope this is clear to everybody.

Even if you do not share my view "that for all really important things all protection is in vain", you might be able to see that "a new scientific discovery" can not be protected.

And you might be able to see, that a "good idea" can almost never be protected.

Greetings, Conrad

conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Best way to submitt a overunity research to public
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2013, 08:03:00 PM »
@conradelektro

You seem to equate a free energy device (FED) to be the same thing as having invented a new screwdriver or whatever commercial product out there. This is where all guys go very wrong. A FED has nothing to do with any other product in this world. Will your screwdriver change the world? No other product will change the world like the device we are working on and no other way will work to put it out there besides open source. Proof is in the past experiences.

There are only two factors to introduce a FED to the world. How complex is it to replicate and how stupid is the inventor when it comes to dealing with the public.

So far, all we have seen is bad news because guys just want some money, money and always money but the minute that first dollar is taken, the game is already over and the inventor has no other choice but to abdicate his god given intelligence, creativity and good will to the whims of those holding the money. That's where it will die a long and painful death. Just look around you to all these big brains and how they got sucked in by business, greed, irrational expectations, ignorance to the real hardships of any commercial enterprise, etc, etc, etc. I could keep on going for hours like this.

Inventors think with their little OU gadgets they will make billions of dollars, when the reality is that once the device is either disclosed, or kept secret and sold one by one, once the first units hit the market, the original will become obsolete within 6 months MAXIMUM. That is because once the principle of operation is understand, there will be an exponential growth of the usage and if inventors think they want or can control all this with their little company or even with their big fat multi-national corporation, they are very mistaken indeed. There is only one way free energy will grow and that is if it is left free to grow.

So inventors should know that if they talk about a FED device, they will get so much stories of so many money guys telling them "follow me and you will become rich beyond your wildest dreams". This is like putting a nice fat juicy worm in front of a large mouth bass. The inventor will bite on that because he is usually very hungry and yearning for money, but right there is where they make their first and only mistake. The next day they are no longer their own man, but they become a simple commodity that the money guys will control.

So anyways, nuff said.

wattsup

This is exactly what I said in other words. Sorry, I am probably not expressing myself clear enough.

Yes, a "Free Energy Device" is out of every norm.

Yes, a "Free Energy Device" is very different to a "normal invention".

But in my opinion this applies to every "important invention". I like to present the "atomic bomb" as an example. The "atomic bomb" changed the world, therefore the USA was not able to keep the secret. The same happened to "stealth technology", "radar system", "rocket technology" and many more "defence related inventions" past and present.

I know (by chance encounter with relevant people), that the Russians stole and exactly copied the 64 K Bit ROM, RAM and EPROM chips from Intel and manufactured and sold them in their empire, because it was so important at the time. Many people knew it, but the Russians flatly denied it, even when presented with copies. The Russians more or less said "so what, eat it".

"Giving away a Free Energy Device for free" (or "Open Source it" as many say) has big advantages:

The biggest advantage is that the "inventor" will see very soon whether he was delusional or really has found something. And in all cases so far, the "inventor" would have saved a lot of money and would have spared himself a lot of grief (because it was a delusion).

And in the very improbable case that it is a real "Free Energy Device", the world will be changed. It is even possible that the "inventor" will be recognised (at least by some, or in some regions of the world). But, so what? Who cares, "Free Energy" is beyond everything.

Greetings, Conrad