2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference


Energetic Forum  

Go Back   Energetic Forum > Energetic Forum Discussion > Renewable Energy > Water Fuel
Homepage Energetic Science Ministries Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Water Fuel This forum is for discussion on any water fuel topic dealing with electrolysis, Stanley Meyer, hho, Brown's Gas, Puharich, etc...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2010, 10:07 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
I further realize that a Patent is only worth the funds you have to defend it and this I have experienced as I was lucky enough to have a grandfather that was a very good inventor that was ripped off from all he developed by individuals that felt theft was a better income than honest work. In the US my grandfather was the inventor of a number of patents, of which the following was for the crook a multimillion dollar device.
@Doc:

Good to see that you appear to realize that patents are basically a big lie. They are not there to protect "the inventor", they are there so the big companies can rip the inventor!

A good example is the story of Edwin Armstrong, as can be found in Lawrence Lessings' "free culture":

Free Culture - Introduction (by Lawrence Lessig)

Quote:
Edwin Howard Armstrong is one of America’s forgotten inventor geniuses. He came to the great American inventor scene just after the titans Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. But his work in the area of radio technology was perhaps the most important of any single inventor in the first fifty years of radio. He was better educated than Michael Faraday, who as a bookbinder’s apprentice had discovered electric induction in 1831. But he had the same intuition about how the world of radio worked, and on at least three occasions, Armstrong invented profoundly important technologies that advanced our understanding of radio.

On the day after Christmas, 1933, four patents were issued to Armstrong for his most significant invention—FM radio. Until then, consumer radio had been amplitude-modulated (AM) radio. The theorists of the day had said that frequency-modulated (FM) radio could never work. They were right about FM radio in a narrow band of spectrum. But Armstrong discovered that frequency-modulated radio in a wide band of spectrum would deliver an astonishing fidelity of sound, with much less transmitter power and static.

On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meeting of the Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in New York City. He tuned his radio dial across a range of AM stations, until the radio locked on a broadcast that he had arranged from seventeen miles away. The radio fell totally silent, as if dead, and then with a clarity no one else in that room had ever heard from an electrical device, it produced the sound of an announcer’s voice: “This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on frequency modulation at two and a half meters.”

The audience was hearing something no one had thought possible:

“A glass of water was poured before the microphone in Yonkers; it sounded like a glass of water being poured. ... A paper was crumpled and torn; it sounded like paper and not like a crackling forest fire. ... Sousa marches were played from records and a piano solo and guitar number were performed. ... The music was projected with a live-ness rarely if ever heard before from a radio “music box.” ” [3]

As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong was working for RCA. RCA was the dominant player in the then dominant AM radio market. By 1935, there were a thousand radio stations across the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by a handful of networks.

RCA’s president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong’s, was eager that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So Sarnoff was quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device that removed static from “radio.” But when Armstrong demonstrated his invention, Sarnoff was not pleased.

“I thought Armstrong would invent some kind of a filter to remove static from our AM radio. I didn’t think he’d start a revolution—start up a whole damn new industry to compete with RCA.” [4]

Armstrong’s invention threatened RCA’s AM empire, so the company launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one author described,

“The forces for FM, largely engineering, could not overcome the weight of strategy devised by the sales, patent, and legal offices to subdue this threat to corporate position. For FM, if allowed to develop unrestrained, posed ... a complete reordering of radio power ... and the eventual overthrow of the carefully restricted AM system on which RCA had grown to power.” [5]

RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew impatient, RCA began to use its power with the government to stall FM radio’s deployment generally. In 1936, RCA hired the former head of the FCC and assigned him the task of assuring that the FCC assign spectrum in a way that would castrate FM—principally by moving FM radio to a different band of spectrum. At first, these efforts failed. But when Armstrong and the nation were distracted by World War II, RCA’s work began to be more successful. Soon after the war ended, the FCC announced a set of policies that would have one clear effect: FM radio would be crippled. As Lawrence Lessing described it,

“The series of body blows that FM radio received right after the war, in a series of rulings manipulated through the FCC by the big radio interests, were almost incredible in their force and deviousness.” [6]

To make room in the spectrum for RCA’s latest gamble, television, FM radio users were to be moved to a totally new spectrum band. The power of FM radio stations was also cut, meaning FM could no longer be used to beam programs from one part of the country to another. (This change was strongly supported by AT&T, because the loss of FM relaying stations would mean radio stations would have to buy wired links from AT&T.) The spread of FM radio was thus choked, at least temporarily.

Armstrong resisted RCA’s efforts. In response, RCA resisted Armstrong’s patents. After incorporating FM technology into the emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents invalid—baselessly, and almost fifteen years after they were issued. It thus refused to pay him royalties. For six years, Armstrong fought an expensive war of litigation to defend the patents. Finally, just as the patents expired, RCA offered a settlement so low that it would not even cover Armstrong’s lawyers’ fees. Defeated, broken, and now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then stepped out of a thirteenth- story window to his death.
Interestingly, some of Armstrongs earlier patents were used in the 1930's (IIRC) by multinational Philips to crush small producers of radio equipment, amongst which was the company of an uncle or grandfather of Theo de Raadt (Theo de Raadt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), founder and leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, and a founding member of the NetBSD project. There was a patent fight, and eventually the small businesses, operating together under the name "BORN" ( Bond van Ondernemers in de Radiobranche in Nederland - Wikipedia - Dutch ) won the litigation, because a famous radio engineer Idzgerda (who was the first broadcaster in The Netherlands The first Kurhaus radio-concerts ) found a way to work around Armstrongs patents.

However, even though they won the litigation, they lost. Philips was the only company that produced the bulbs they needed and simply refused to sell them anymore bulbs. And that basically ment the end of independent production of radio equipment in The Netherlands.

Also interesting is the story how Philips was able to build up their company, exactly because in The Netherlands we had a patent-less period between 1869 (IIRC) and 1910:

Royal Philips — Vrijschrift

The conclusion by Eric Schiff about the usefulness of patents to actually stimulate innovation:

Quote:
All in all, the results for the two industries surveyed are in line with the tentative findings previously obtained for the Dutch economy as a whole. Industrial progress as such was not stifled by the absence of a patent law; in the case of the two particular industries it is, in fact, difficult to avoid the impression that this absence has, on balance, furthered rather than hampered development. Specifically with respect to technical improvement during the period when no patents were granted, the history of the two industries reveals that energetic and often successful efforts in this direction were made by the producing firms. Whether these efforts would have been even more intensive under a patent system it is difficult to say. But, with the possible exception of the 1911 episode at Eindhoven where the anticipated operation of the new patent law apparently did have some advance impact, the impression gained from the two examples is that in industries where technical talent of high order was available, there was no need for the stimulus of expected patent protection to translate its potentialities into achievements.

Last edited by lamare : 02-10-2010 at 10:18 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2010, 11:58 AM
carbideTip carbideTip is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 39
Again, a supposed OU device shelved because of "possibility of litigation".
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:26 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbideTip View Post
Again, a supposed OU device shelved because of "possibility of litigation".
@carbideTip

This statement by you can't be farther from the truth. What you need to say is that the technology is just not being made publicly available. I hope no one really thinks I missed what this is do you?

@All

A full spectral analysis of the flame has been conducted as well as thermal output measurements. It is fully understood as far as this is concerned. It still is open on why a SEC Exciter is so effective at doing it.

As far as protection or proof of first development, that was taken care of long before the 2008 video's were ever posted. There is nothing that gets me more upset and stirs the creativity and defense.

Patents are a joke, but they are part of a process no matter how flawed and they must be considered as part of a important technology.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2010, 03:06 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
That is a good idea and many banks have employees that are public notaries
and they notarize paperwork for free - if you have an account. So print
it out, go get a free notary (they record it in their book with date and
description) and then make a copies and mail it to a few trusted people.
Tell them not to open it but just store it. They can be willingly subpoenaed if needed at a later time.

Then you'll have personal record, you'll have friends that received copies
of your notarized copy and the notary public will also have a record in
their book of the notarization. And of course anything mailed will have the
postal stamp with date.
Hi Aaron,

Printed copies of notarized documents are not legally valid, unless the same notary public notarizes each of the copies after they are printed.
And a word about postal envelopes - a canceled stamp and date, or even a certified receipt mean absolutely nothing as proof that the present contents are actually the contents which were mailed. There are ways to open envelopes and reseal them (steaming is one way, and freezing is another). And as far as patents go, I believe the rule is that the first person who applies for a patent will win out regardless of how many people can prove they developed the same concept earlier, but failed to submit a patent application.

Oh, and regarding US patent application searches, yes, you can only search ten years back, but of course that covers scads of patents. You could probably go back even further in the apps if you know the app #, unless they toss out applications that are not approved for a patent. At WIPO(International Patent) search, you can go back quite a ways. I know that, for example, the original Reed magnetic motor application (WO 90/10337) is dated February 1990, and the publication date is September 1990, 7 months later.

Rick
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2010, 05:37 AM
Michelinho's Avatar
Michelinho Michelinho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Quebec, Canada.
Posts: 232
@DrStiffler,

So you have watched the flame under infrared? The biggest part of the flame is in the invisible range? Nicely done with just 2 watts.

Take care,

Michel
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2010, 07:37 AM
1NRG24Seven's Avatar
1NRG24Seven 1NRG24Seven is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickoff View Post
Hi Aaron,

Printed copies of notarized documents are not legally valid, unless the same notary public notarizes each of the copies after they are printed.
And a word about postal envelopes - a canceled stamp and date, or even a certified receipt mean absolutely nothing as proof that the present contents are actually the contents which were mailed. There are ways to open envelopes and reseal them (steaming is one way, and freezing is another). And as far as patents go, I believe the rule is that the first person who applies for a patent will win out regardless of how many people can prove they developed the same concept earlier, but failed to submit a patent application.

Oh, and regarding US patent application searches, yes, you can only search ten years back, but of course that covers scads of patents. You could probably go back even further in the apps if you know the app #, unless they toss out applications that are not approved for a patent. At WIPO(International Patent) search, you can go back quite a ways. I know that, for example, the original Reed magnetic motor application (WO 90/10337) is dated February 1990, and the publication date is September 1990, 7 months later.

Rick
Rick, Then what does the phrase "public domain" mean?.....24
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:56 AM
1NRG24Seven's Avatar
1NRG24Seven 1NRG24Seven is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 205
Dr Stiffler you mention in video number three the bubbling inside the flame, could it be simply that since the water level was at or just above the funnel that your wick was getting wet and so the flame would be mixed with non split water vapor causing that action? Try it again with water level just below funnel so no chance of water wicking up into the the cotton and fiberglass packing material, see if you still observe the same bubbling in the flame. Or maybe you have already tried that and might be willing to comment on it here.

Just a thought....24
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 12-10-2010, 09:31 AM
Rod74 Rod74 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3
re:

Hello Dr. Stiffler,

I've only been a reader of this forum for awhile and this is my first post. I was disabled retired from the military and became unable to work..the only thing that has kept me sane is Lidmotor and Jonnydavro and I've been watching their videos teaching myself circuitry since I can't do anything anymore.


This technology you are working with, the US Navy is currently working on. They have someone in California under a Navy Contract using the John Kanzius method of turning salt water into burnable hydrogen. They are trying to use the Fischer-Trospche process to turn those carbons (CO2)/hydrogen into jetfuel/diesel. I suspect the new Ford Class Aircraft Carrier may use it's nuclear reactors and make it's own jetfuel using the process.

I have been following this technology and there have been 2 explosions at the labs where people are working on this in California.

I do not think you would be able to patent anything in this realm since the Navy is involved (National Security). Be extremely cautious. I would no longer discuss this technology in the public forum.

Read the bottom of this link:

Fischer–Tropsch process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Be careful Doctor. This sort of technology has many enemies foreign and domestic and would threaten peoples wealth.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2010, 02:55 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod74 View Post
Hello Dr. Stiffler,

I've only been a reader of this forum for awhile and this is my first post. I was disabled retired from the military and became unable to work..the only thing that has kept me sane is Lidmotor and Jonnydavro and I've been watching their videos teaching myself circuitry since I can't do anything anymore.


This technology you are working with, the US Navy is currently working on. They have someone in California under a Navy Contract using the John Kanzius method of turning salt water into burnable hydrogen. They are trying to use the Fischer-Trospche process to turn those carbons (CO2)/hydrogen into jetfuel/diesel. I suspect the new Ford Class Aircraft Carrier may use it's nuclear reactors and make it's own jetfuel using the process.

I have been following this technology and there have been 2 explosions at the labs where people are working on this in California.

I do not think you would be able to patent anything in this realm since the Navy is involved (National Security). Be extremely cautious. I would no longer discuss this technology in the public forum.

Read the bottom of this link:

Fischer–Tropsch process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Be careful Doctor. This sort of technology has many enemies foreign and domestic and would threaten peoples wealth.
Hi and welcome, I would be interested if you know anything more of the experiments that the navy are doing as this may be involving the work I have been doing for many years. If you do not want to post anything here please PM me on this forum with an e-mail address so as we may talk. If you want to see what I am talking about go to the none electrolytic splitting of H2O thread.

The work of Dr. Stiffler is on a similar basis to mine, similar on the basis that we use HF to break the water molecule and not electrolysis.

Mike
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2012, 05:17 AM
DanDMan DanDMan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
Has anyone saved these videos

I lost my drive to a crash which had a copy of these videos and I noticed they have been removed. Might any of you guys be kind enough to link me to another copy of the videos with the flame burning?

I know the value of this from the second I saw it and hope to recompile this important info.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved