It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

page: 13
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by LightFantastic
 

So what you are telling us is that you did all this testing, but have nothing to show for it. No data, no documents, no footage, nothing. Absolutely zero evidence or proof of your claims.
Isn't that what people usually accuse the inventors of?


I might be able to find the reports but that isn't the point. I wasn't testing these systems as a hobby like JLN, I was contracted to produce confidental reports as an independant engineer. As a professional engineer I can't make these reports public.

I don't need to back up my claims. If any of the known devices worked as claimed I'm pretty sure the device and its inventor would be pretty famous.




[edit on 7/1/2010 by LightFantastic]




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
I don't need to back up my claims.







If any of the known devices worked as claimed I'm pretty sure the device and its inventor would be pretty famous.


Famous, like John Bedini is?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Famous, like John Bedini is?


I woudn't call him famous at all. Infamous would be much too strong as well.

Feel free to build a system and I will come and test it under my usual terms: No charge if it is OU.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Only if you agree to do all the tests and take all the measurements on camera for the whole world to see, so that you can't later fudge the data or weasel out of it.

Be prepared to state your real name, background, education, and qualifications on camera. And be prepared to have entire teams of debunkers and gang-stalkers throw everything but the kitchen sink at you in order to try to discredit you.

No, I'm not kidding.

Still up for it?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

NDA's are sacred. I would be extremely concerned if LightFantastic were to disclose any information he was contractually obligated to hold private.

LightFantastic: is that an open, standing offer? And what are your fees?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


No, no NDAs as far as the testing and measurement data is concerned, or my offer to contribute funds is off. If the inventor wants an NDA to protect his or her schematics and intellectual property, fine.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Famous, like John Bedini is?


I woudn't call him famous at all. Infamous would be much too strong as well.

Feel free to build a system and I will come and test it under my usual terms: No charge if it is OU.


Don't want to be in direct competition with you, but I also want to make an offer
Here it is:

I won't charge any money for the construction and testing of the prototype -- which I will undertake only if I deem the device viable -- but I need to be listed as a co-author of a publication in a major peer-reviewed physics journal. I'm an experienced science writer, so I'm willing to make the effort to write it up as well.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, now that I've had a lot of time to think this through...... the idea is not to build something from scratch, but to pose an "overunity challenge" to the inventors who claim to already have something that's overunity. Bedini, Bearden, Lindemann, Kapanadze, Steorn, Keppe, etc etc.

The one I'm most interested in is the device John Bedini demonstrates in EFTV II, that he claims can power that huge array of 100W light bulbs. But failing that, there are plenty of other inventors who are also rumoured to have something.

An NDA could be signed with the inventor to protect their schematics and intellectual property, but all the testing data would have to become the property of ATS for the purpose of posting for everyone to see.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

The whole aspect of an NDA is to make sure the information about the device is not deemed 'public domain' nor is stolen by someone in a position to beat the inventor to the patent office (as in every major technological corporation in the US). It is nigh-impossible to publish all the testing data without compromising that.

That said, there is an alternative. Patent protection begins the moment an application is officially filed with the Patent Office. An offer to cover patent costs in return for the open publication you desire should be acceptable to any inventor. I know it would be for me. The only delay would be that I would require confirmation of the acceptance of the patent application prior to public publication of the results.

This would be something similar to what I imagined you had in mind with the ATS offer previously made.

Buddhasystem: be careful what you ask for; you might just get it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

No, no NDAs as far as the testing and measurement data is concerned, or my offer to contribute funds is off. If the inventor wants an NDA to protect his or her schematics and intellectual property, fine.

Sorry, I just saw this post...

No NDA prior to patent = no deal on anything patentable. Sorry, but that's a deal-breaker.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
No NDA prior to patent = no deal on anything patentable. Sorry, but that's a deal-breaker.


I'm not sure what you mean by this.

A lot of Bedini's stuff already is patented. Bearden's MEG is patented.

Anyway, I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer here! I just want ATS to be able to publish/present the testing data and be able to do it in such a way that the tech team can't be accused of faking/fudging the results either way..

I'm positive something can be worked out here. But the staff would have to actually start communicating with the inventors



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Anyone who develops a true overunity device and attempts to patent it, in my humble opinion will either have their patent seized due to "national security" or be "eliminated".

Too many people, governments, and corporations have too much to lose to allow such a device to get out. I think it will happen eventually, but the person that does it will have to just give the secret away to the whole world in order to stay alive and depend on manufacturing and distribution to make the big bucks.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Major Todd Hathaway has a nice list of inventors here:

altenergy2012.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

If a device is patented,then there is no need for an NDA. Perhaps an explanation of what an NDA is would help:

An NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) is a legally binding contract between collaborators on an invention. It specifically prohibits the parties from disclosing the invention in any part to outside parties unless authorized by the inventor. In a court of law, violation of an NDA can lead to penalties in excess of the value of the invention covered.

For example: let us say that you wished to fund an invention I was working on. I would require, before any information is disclosed, an NDA between us (and I have an NDA here that I typically use, drawn up by an attorney who was very familiar with patent processes). That NDA would include all available information on the invention as an addendum. It would preclude you from discussing or disseminating information on the invention to anyone not either included in the NDA or authorized myself as the named inventor. If you violated that NDA, I could sue you (and probably win, if the NDA was written properly) for the entire amount you received from the violation, the money I lost by not being able to patent the invention, and punitive damages as well. NDA's are serious.

Without such an agreement, however, I as the inventor have no legal expectation that you would not take the information and sell it to a company for a fast buck. It would be akin to giving you the information without any restrictions. One post of the invention in any publication or on the Internet places that invention in the public domain, meaning it can never be patented and can be built by anyone, any time, without any permission from anybody. In other words, it becomes useless to the inventor financially.

Once a patent is applied for, and that application is officially accepted by the US Patent Office, there is no longer any need for an NDA. The patent will be awarded to the first application received, so no one can rush in and take the patent away at that point. If you look on many products, they contain the phrase "Patent Applied For", meaning that even though no patent has been issued, one has been officially applied for and should it be issued, anyone who is selling such a device would be in violation of that patent. In common English, it means "if you try to make this, you can probably be sued or forced to stop production later."

What this also means is, before the official application is accepted, someone with 'inside connections' could get an application accepted earlier and take the patent rights. This does and has happened.

So if you are interested in working with unpatented, non-public-domain inventions, you will have to sign NDAs. There is no other way. Attempting to talk to an inventor without first signing an NDA is akin to saying to that inventor "I'll only help if you give me everything and leave nothing for yourself." It's like only agreeing to rent an apartment if the owner gives you the apartment complex first. Good luck with that.

Now, if you are talking about something on youtube, it is either patented or public domain and therefore not patentable. If the inventor did not apply for a patent before publishing it, the invention is public domain. It has been published.

If you are talking about a patented invention, then people are free to build one for their own personal use or testing but are not permitted to engage in any type of commerce based in whole or in part on that invention without permission from the patent holder. The same applies if the patent has not been received, but has been applied for, with the exception that legal action cannot be taken until the patent is received.

I will say, however, that if one really wants free energy, it likely will not come from youtube. It is more likely sitting in someone's garage. Those you will not touch without an NDA. You would, however, probably be able to get the open public disclosure you want after a patent application has been accepted.

I hope this clears things up.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Glad you guys are still making it happen in this thread... here is the latest test from an outside builder. This is the best run I have seen online so far... please note that this is not yet OU and still in the testing phase... but after only 3 weeks this is very impressive... also please note...




The true Hz figure is 91, not 182, which was a double count from the counter.





posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Only if you agree to do all the tests and take all the measurements on camera for the whole world to see, so that you can't later fudge the data or weasel out of it.

Be prepared to state your real name, background, education, and qualifications on camera. And be prepared to have entire teams of debunkers and gang-stalkers throw everything but the kitchen sink at you in order to try to discredit you.


I would definately do everything on camera and give all my information if the device was OU. I don't have anything to fear in my background.

Now you mention it, would I want to end up on YouTube testing some device that could be considered 'crackpot'? I'm not sure that would be good for my future.

"Fudge the data or weasel out of it?" I take offence to your insinuations.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MajorDisaster
NDA's are sacred. I would be extremely concerned if LightFantastic were to disclose any information he was contractually obligated to hold private.

LightFantastic: is that an open, standing offer? And what are your fees?

TheRedneck


Correct, normally an NDA protects the inventor and his invention from other parites. Otherwise the invention could be considered 'in the public domain'. I have never required anything from the inventor / company, apart from payment.

Yes I think I could think more seriously about it. As I stated above I'm not sure if I want to be on YouTube testing a "fringe" device that doesn't do the job. The report has my name and qualifications on it. I charge GBP 440 per day + expenses, plus VAT @17.5% in the EU. The offer was mainly to Major Disaster, I cannot spare the time to be doing too many of these jobs due to commitments.


Originally posted by buddhasystem

Don't want to be in direct competition with you, but I also want to make an offer
Here it is:

I won't charge any money for the construction and testing of the prototype -- which I will undertake only if I deem the device viable -- but I need to be listed as a co-author of a publication in a major peer-reviewed physics journal. I'm an experienced science writer, so I'm willing to make the effort to write it up as well.


Haha bhudda. I didn't think you would have the time for OU
. However, getting published in a worthwhile journal would require the help of a current and already published physicist. Unless you want to get published in an engineering journal
It's worth a punt for the Nobel though eh?

Most of these devices have a lot of work in their construction, I gave up replicating them ages ago. You do get the benefit of having a shed load of Neodymium magnets though!


Originally posted by expat2368
Anyone who develops a true overunity device and attempts to patent it, in my humble opinion will either have their patent seized due to "national security" or be "eliminated".

Too many people, governments, and corporations have too much to lose to allow such a device to get out.


I think a lot can be done about this, just in case it is a real risk



[edit on 7/1/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Haha bhudda. I didn't think you would have the time for OU
. However, getting published in a worthwhile journal would require the help of a current and already published physicist.


I am one.

On a technical note, it doesn't take being already published. Everybody goes through referees anyway...


Most of these devices have a lot of work in their construction, I gave up replicating them ages ago.


True... There are participants here who have shops though...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Right.

Put it this way. I'd be prepared to dash out of my apartment (where I've literally been holed up for a week in fear, BTW) and transfer ATS a bit of funds tomorrow, if the staff are willing to then use their connections, PR firm etc to get in contact with Bedini, and maybe some of the other inventors I've mentioned, and see what they say about our "Overunity Challenge" concept.

I'm sure ATS has very, very good lawyers, so I'll leave all the legal issues to them to sort out


I'm sure the staff will also want to select the tech team themselves, and that's fine with me too. I totally trust your years of experience and judgement on matters like that.

Just, whatever happens, I'd kind of like it to happen quickly, please!!!! if you hear what I'm saying!




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
"Fudge the data or weasel out of it?" I take offence to your insinuations.


Sorry LightFantastic, I did not mean that about you.

Many of the inventors claim that they have had experts and specialists in to examine their systems, only to then refuse to publish anything or put their reputations on the line.

Rumor has it John Bedini once had a whole team of German engineers in, and they verified that his system works - but then they "weaseled out". They were afraid to publish their results for fear of being ridiculed by the scientific community.

Hence the concept of this challenge - to make it impossible for the tech team to weasel out like that.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Rumor has it John Bedini once had a whole team of German engineers in, and they verified that his system works - but then they "weaseled out". They were afraid to publish their results for fear of being ridiculed by the scientific community.


This is such a cop out... Rumor has it that real inventions, however unconventional they were, were quickly developed into working and highly profitable devices and businesses. Example are too many to list.

Airplanes threatened shipping business. Radio threatened telegraph. Smokeless powder threatened purveyors of sulfur etc. Fission of uranium nuclei could have been "ridiculed", except it wasn't -- the science community follows facts and experiments. It only ridicules those who believe in snake oil and tabletop contraption that purport to violate a certain law that has been verified 1000000000 times in much more rigorous circumstances.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join