hartiberlin i think you should have a section here at overunity.com where people can see that we are for open source projects/ideas/funding/etc...

To me Open Source means the total sharing of all information related to a specific project or projects.  This is very good on many levels but the best thing about it is, on this site there are many intelligent and creative folks who may look at my idea, and add one of theirs and then another adds their input...etc.  The end result is essentially a group effort.

Take the Joule Thief topic.  All one has to do is to read it and see what open source is all about and what it can accomplish.  ***EDIT***  Obviously there are many other topics on here that exemplify the open source spirit as well.  To me, open source is the only way to go.

Bill

I want to state what "open source" in this forum means for me personally.

Let's suppose an "inventor" publishes his beloved work in one of the threads at overunity.com and to make it easy, let's say he disclosed everything there is to know, so that complete replication really is possible. And to make it even more straight forward, let's assume that the "inventor" has not patented his "invention" (or that the patent has expired).

The following things might then happen and the "inventor" must be prepared to accept this stoically:

- some one else might falsely claim that it is his work (only bad people will do that, but it can happen, there are strange folks around)

- some one else might "steal" the "invention" and will become stinking rich while the "inventor" gets nothing, not even recognition as "inventor" (very unlikely, but it could happen)

- some one else might attack the "inventor" and threaten to sue him because he allegedly has "stolen" the idea (very unlikely, but every "inventor" publishing something here should be careful not to infringe on prior rights)

- by publishing his "invention" here, the "inventor" can never patent it in the future, because it was turned over to the public (by the act of publishing it in an open forum)

- the "inventor" can of course try to sell products based on his "invention", but every body else can do as well (the "inventor" has given away all rights and can not exclude anybody from exploiting the invention)

This sounds all very negative, but I nevertheless think that one should give away ones "inventions" for free, because "the little guy" can not become rich with an "invention" any way. And specially if it is a very good invention one will be pushed aside by big business.

So, if you want to share for free, publish here. If you want to become exclusively rich or famous with your  "invention", please stay away and shut up. Specially do not tease people by alleging to an "invention" without giving away all details.

And by all means, be prepared to accept criticism, specially when you make strong claims without backing these strong claims up with real physical evidence. You may talk about your "thing" without evidence, but please state immediately, repeatedly and clearly that you have no evidence. Speculation has to be clearly marked as speculation, otherwise you will be accused of having illusions or worse.

(Attention: This is my personal opinion and might not be the opinion of the "owners" of this forum.)

Greetings, Conrad

"open source" to me, means fully and freely sharing the entire subject matter at hand.

Teaching everyone who reads it, what it is, how it works, and how to build their own from the ground up.
There is no room for possession, assets, property rights, ect when it comes to open source.
---------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, i think there should be some degree of social and moral standards when it comes to open sourcing energy projects.
You wouldn't want to teach everyone how to build a specific-gravity centrifuge and harvest their own uranium.

or teach people how to create a massive exothermic chemical reaction in their back yard.......

While other things are perfectly acceptable, such as plans for small-scale steam-engine that runs on scrap-wood and twigs.

or user #x's magneto-twirlie-gig, that outputs 1.4 watts of electricity.

So,. deciding what and how to open source something, has not only Materialistic factors involved, but also social, moral, and legal factors as well.
The end result is ultimately, a random mixture of the varying degrees of "open source" interpretation and implementation, for every possible "reason" a person can come across on their journey.

This guy wants to make a buck, that guy sole the other guys idea, these two people came up with it on their own, but one got a patent, so the other cant open source it. this girl wants to open source but is scared of the M.I.B.'s,  this guy told that guy not to mix powdered chlorine and brake fluid and the kid down the block accidently blows up the pool house. Or maybe this guy just wants to hold onto that one piece of information that makes his entire puzzle complete,  you know, for security reasons, or just to be a *#@!!. 

Open source can be a very good thing, when it is used properly.
the power of having hundreds of brilliant minds at your disposal day and night, is truly amazing. and who knows, maybe you can help someone out on their open source idea too.

@ bill

theres nothing that can be done, except to trust that most people that are smart enough to be dangerous, are of sufficient moral ground to be cautious with their knowledge.

a good chunk of what floats around in my head would have to come with a "dont try this at home kids", and an even larger chunk that i wouldnt share (and some that i would probably get in serious trouble if i did).

I guess thats just my personal thing. I have no say or control over Peter or EnergyBlogger483, if they want to open source an HV-Plasma cannon that disentegrates physical matter.
am i to say wether that is "right" or "wrong" ? certainly not.
but if it was my plasma-gun, it wouldn't be in the hands of little 8yr old tommy jones whos daddy just bought him an electronics kit.

Pirate88179,
So think about this, what if a person says " I just love Open Source" and then does not want to give required info for replication. Also openly states that someone else is copying their research device AND stating that there are NO PATENTS AND if certain people try to ever market anything relating to their device they will sue them for the intellectual rights. Does this sound like a person who really UNDERSTANDS what OPEN SOURCE means? :

truthbeknown - I am definitely 'guilty as charged'.  But the fact is that open source also carries some innate risks.  Glen and Harvey publicly stated that their replication of our device technology was NOT a replication but a discovery.  Now.  Entertain that thought for a while. 

What Glen did was put an inductive resistor in series with a battery supply source and MOSFET - driven by a 555.  He then adjusted to the duty cycle until the unit 'fell into' that preferred oscillation mode.  At which point the duty cycle was overridden and the the evidence was that the battery was being recharged as quickly as it was discharging.  That is PRECISELY in line with our own published technology.  Then add to that, the hundreds of hours spent on the telephone organising appropriate machinery to measure, guiding him into the required oscillation - discussion on the materials to be used, the winding with the required spacing in that winding.  Add to that the apparent 'friendliness' of all parties - and the excitement of actually managing an OU number, albeit somewhat less than our own tests.    BUT - there was some minor variation to the switch - and there was some required variation to the resistor - this because this had been published with an error.  Both variations EXTENSIVELY discussed prior to the replication build.

Then consider.  Through the denials that it was EVER a replication - through the denials that the replication had anything to do with the thesis that predicted this effect - through the gross attack and unsubstantiated attack on my character - came the LOUD requirement that I sign an AFFIDAVIT allowing them the right to develop this technology?  Why should I want to advance this?  I was more than competent to do this myself - as is any member of any forum and anybody anywhere in the wide world.  Why should Glen and Harvey hold custody on further and future progress? 

It seems that precedents are established where inventors have successfully challenged prior art claims notwithstanding the lack of a patent.  I went to some considerable expense to establish this.  I then assured both Harvey and Glen that - should they choose to develop this technology then I will most certainly challenge them to pay royalties - should the claim be approved in a Court of Law.  And that promise persists.  There is absolutely NO guarantee that I will be successful.  But I will be glad to impoverish myself - if required - to get that claim tested.  I am entirely committed to the requirement that neither of them benefit financially from my own hard work.  Or if they do benefit - then I will hope to share in that benefit.  This thing has become really personal.

The simple truth here that needs to be known - is that Open Source carries innate risks.  These events are proof.  But I am also on record as assuring any member of the public that should they progress this technology to applications - and the potential here is very great - then there are NO patent restrictions and there will be NO claim for compensation - except in as much as it may relate to Glen and Harvey's interests.  I am a mere mortal.  I do not like them nor trust them.  In fact, it is my opinion that they are rogues.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary, from what I'm reading it appears that you're quite confused about the matters concerning patents and intellectual property in general. You're going back and forth at one point seemingly in favor of open source only to negate it by stories about how someone did something regarding your priority which you will sort out in a court of Law let alone you intend to seek financial relief from that person. Confusing indeed. I strongly suggest that you talk more to @pirate88179 who is very experienced in these matters and with @shruggetatlas, if she's around. They can straighten out some of this confusion which is obviously standing in the way of your work and is making you suffer. Things are much simpler than you perceive them once you decide not to file for patents and have all the results from your studies presented out in the open.

Maybe @pirate88179 and @shruggedatlas as well as other friends who have knowledge and experience in these matters can develop a strategy which you can follow which will ensure both protection of your priority and a genuine open source climate for presenting of your studies.

The minute you say 'prior art' that invokes patents. I know you are not filing for patents now. You told me that. And yet, you speak a lingo of a person who actually does care about patent rights while denying that in words. That's the confusion I'm talking about.