Originally posted by dancer
I'm a little surprised at the answers, I was sure that some one would have said to collect the pay off from Big Oil or someone. It does give me some
hope for mankind.
Well, keep in mind that ATS is a different kind of crowd. Most of us wouldn't even be on this site if we were the kind of person willing to help Big
Oil get a stranglehold on "free energy". That said, hypothetical responses are always more altruistic than the reality.
It's easy for me to say "I would donate it to the public domain" because I'm not holding the billion dollar check in one hand, and the plans in
the other, with my wife staring at me with that "you SAID we were going to Italy one day" look on her face.
Still, I like to think that, even given the temptation of more money than I could ever spend in my lifetime, that I would do the Right thing, and
donate it to the public domain. Some things, like free energy, are just flat out more important than wealth.
Originally posted by dancer
The Nobel Prize money is a nice gesture but a million bucks isn't what it used to be.
Anyone who can't make a comfortable life on a million-dollar windfall in today's age lacks both restraint and financial acumen. Even a modest
money-market account yielding a 4% interest rate would return $40k/year in interest. That's a better salary than most people make (about $20/hr) that
you don't have to do anything for. Combine it with your day job, and you've got yourself some serious wealth-building potential.
Many people make the mistake of thinking wealth happens as the result of one quick windfall landing them in the high life of luxury. True wealth is
built over time, with savings, investment, and careful money management. With an extra $40k/yr on top of my current salary, I could turn that into
tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars by retirement age. Possibly billions if I just happened to have extremely good timing and judgment.
Originally posted by dancer
I was shown the idea on paper, and I can say that on paper it does work.
Well, man, I hate to say this, but we've
all had that piece of paper before, sitting in the IHOP at 3am at a table littered with creamers and
sugar packets used to illustrate physics concepts to one another.
Until you have an experiment, with quantifiable, duplicable results, what you have is called a "coffee house dream". So-called because these great
ideas are constantly being dreamt-up in coffee houses (or IHOP, or Denny's) and then nothing ever happens from them, and eventually it fades away.
If you and your friend truly have found a way to generate relatively free energy, or at least energy that is outside the carbon-based fuels, then more
"power" to you, but instead of taking 60 to 90 days to figure things out, it should receive your full priority attention to the exclusion of
anything else except, possibly, your day jobs as you will need food and shelter and supplies for the experiements.
You then need to set about documenting the experiment. Start just like you would in high school, with the research, the ingredients, the plan, and the
hypothesis, and then set about recording every step, via video, photos, notebooks, etc, quantifying every datum. If you get a good result, repeat the
experiment to make sure it can be duplicated. Do it again, and again. Don't let tweaking the numbers or thumbing the scales enter the picture, and
make absolutely, completely certain the results can be duplicated.
I cannot stress that enough, if the average scientist cannot duplicate your experiment using the steps you provided, with no input from you, then
it will, quite simply, fail. This is what happened with Cold Fusion. It wasn't any sort of conspiracy on the part of Big Energy, it was that
the people who originally made the claim didn't make certain the result could be duplicated before announcing it to the public. If you announce it to
the public OR patent it, before you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can be duplicated, your process
will fail.
Second, hiding a "miracle process" behind a veil of secrecy will not protect your product, all it will do is ensure that less people try it, and
that you do not receive Peer Review (another crucial factor in acceptance of any new technology). It is only when you make the materials, process, and
expected results public that you can hope for other scientists to carry it to the next level and beyond. Hiding it from prying eyes will only ensure
that most of them never attempt it and the ones that do will more than likely just steal your work.
Donating it to the public domain is the only responsible choice, but don't do so until you can prove it works, over and over again, and someone else
can prove it works that isn't you and your lab partner.
Originally posted by dancer
On one hand is the complete destruction of the oil industry, some heavy damage in the Auto Industry, Etc.
Seriously doubtful. You don't make tens of billions a year based on a company that can be "completely destroyed" by one idea on a piece of paper.
It might cut into the gas and oil power-plant industries, but much of it goes into fertilizers, plastics, lubricants, feedstocks, and various other
products.
Also, consider that an industry that powerful will not be overthrown overnight. It would be a slow, gradual process of first denial by all the car and
oil industries. Then assuming your process is duplicable and proven, it might ride the coattails on an Alternative Energy bill, where it is presented
as an option alongside others such as hybrids, solar, hydrogen, etc, and perhaps, if there is enough consumer interest and demand, one prototype model
will be produced, and barely advertised, with the worst possible budget, worst advertisement, and the worst placement, in hopes that no one purchases
the vehicle (this is what happened with GM's Electric Car). They will do everything in their power to prove the car is unsalable, while at the same
time working on the sidelines to prove it isn't safe. One of the two will work out.
If a company does manage to actually embrace the technology and sell it, it will, within a matter of a year or so, be subject to a hostile takeover,
assuming that the competitors do not succeed in crushing them. Once that company is bought out, the option you speak of will disappear into corporate
ownership as leverage in some back-room negotiation over a couple of percentage points with OPEC.
This is the fate of your product if you do not donate it to the public domain.
Originally posted by dancer
With ATS Copyright Policies, I don't know if posting it here would be acceptable, (Don't want to start any legal problems) however I do not see a
reason why it couldn't be linked in.
Copyright isn't the same as a patent, but you might want to U2U Crakeur just to make sure. Regardless, remember the golden rule of science: if it
can't be duplicated, it's not science.