View Single Post
 
Old 02-02-2010, 01:47 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Until I was in receipt of Harvey's email - referenced above - I had no idea that you, Glen or anyone was actually seriously proposing that because you did not get the COP>17 that you did not actually replicate. I'm only sorry you did not bring this to my attention before. I would have departed from this collaboration much sooner.

An experimentalist usually attempts to evaluate the truth of a thesis. As a rule they do not claim ownership of the thesis but of the eloquence to which they test the thesis. In other words - how close to the argument does the experiment go? Is is substantially proven in one way or in another way? Or is it proven at all? Their interests therefore are academic. And, correctly, the only reward is academic recognition.

Far be it from me to attribute motives here. But I would have to be particularly naive not ignore some obvious facts. If this is not a replication but an independent discovery then truly the invention is yours. But why this need to claim ownership? Ownership of discoveries are usually only advanced to protect intellectual property rights. And intellectual property rights, in turn, lead to some serious considerations relating to patenting options. Now. Would it therefore work in your best interests to claim that it's a replication? Indeed not. In fact your best interests would then be to ensure that you never reach the dizzy heights of COP>17. In effect your own best interests would thereby be better served if you, in fact, did not investigate the effect more thoroughly. Which puts paid to your objectivity as an experimentalist.

But then I also need to ask myself this. Why this late need to deny that there is any association with the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit? It is plastered on your schematics. It is everywhere on your posts. It's even referenced off this forum. All over the place. I stress that I do not know your motive. I am not in your head. But you'd have to be more than mere mortal not to consider some of this. Are you becoming increasingly aware that without a handle on the intellectual property rights you can't secure some potential benefit in the technology. The original COP>17 claim proved entirely due to your abilities - your skills at experimenting and yet no personal enrichment? you've released it to the world courtesy your replication, but you still have to compete with the rest of the world to sell the technology? That hardly seems fair? And indeed it's not.

So here's hoping that you're still reading. The thesis suggests that the hidden energy source on electric circuitry is in conductive and inductive components. Counter intuitively - it requires thick wire as opposed to thin. But that's all it says. It does not say how thick, it does not say what materials to use at the core, it does not stipulate the best shape, size or material of any of these components. It does not identify which element to use and where and with what material. it does not say what is the best way to apply it to lighting, to fridges, to stoves, to hot water cylinders or to household heating systems. It does not say how it could be applied to motors, to cars, or lawn mowers or anything at all. Or even the circuit arrangement that would most promote it. It actually does not even touch on motors. And to the best of my knowledge those detailed components need to be determined and registered and patented. What is in the public domain is simply the knowledge that this switching circuit is able to reduce the consumption from the supply. So. No authority can apply a blanket surcharge for using the energy that Nature gives us freely, in the material of circuit components. And the knowledge of this is in the public domain. But, by all means, patent those parts. That's got to be good to encourage investors and investment. And that's good cause for research. But don't ever try and patent the use of the system. That's been out there for nearly 8 years and climbing.

So if all this this contention is based on the requirement to enjoy some fruits for your skills the opportunities here are boundless. And it is entirely yours to exploit and enjoy. I have NO claim to such knowledge. God forbid. As it relates to the thesis, I've said my say. There is no way on God's earth that I will allow anyone to zap some sort of preclusion to the use of a simple system to reduce the consumption of electricity if I have breath in my body and fight in my soul. Just will not. I'll fight it with all that I've got. And I absolutely therefore refute that you've stumbled on a discovery. What I suspect you have not yet realised is the patent potential still associated with this discovery. What I find strangely comforting is that you might want this ownership at all. It speaks volumes to the credibility of the claim which would, otherwise, have been lacking. And it is just so easily within your grasp as you evidently have more than enough talent to discover these things. And no-one can deny you the fruits of that intellectual knowledge. Just can't be done. It's yours to patent or to give. Just as you please.
__________________