I am struck by the level of fear that exists that some "evil" corporation will acquire and bury this technology. This is not the first, second or third time that I have heard this theme on a T-P thread.
Does anyone have a documented case, say in the last 20 years or so, where a major corporation acquired the rights to a truly transformational technology for the express purpose of burying it?
I would think a B.O.D. would have the head of a CEO who had the rights to a transformational technology and didn't exploit it. Even if it was outside of their core competency, it could be sold or licensed. A competent executive knows you can't hold back the tide. Someone will steal your nest egg if you sit on it long enough...
I think that these are mostly urban legands, like the 100MPG carburetor.
New Energy Reports the Latest
-
classicpenny
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
- Location: Port Angeles WA USA
- Contact:
David,
I know this isn't exactly a response to your challenge; but have you seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
It would appear -in that instance at least- that big corporations are quite capable of sitting on technology even when it is not in their best interest. It seems obvious that GM's sitting on the electric car clearly worked to their damnation. (Wonder what their BOD had to say about that boondoggle?)
Bill Flint
I know this isn't exactly a response to your challenge; but have you seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
It would appear -in that instance at least- that big corporations are quite capable of sitting on technology even when it is not in their best interest. It seems obvious that GM's sitting on the electric car clearly worked to their damnation. (Wonder what their BOD had to say about that boondoggle?)
Bill Flint
Don't you just hate the greedy oil companies who sell us the oil we want? If plumbers had the oil I'm sure it would be cheaper. And how about those greed heads at Microsoft who make 30% more profit than the oil companies? Or the greed heads in government who get 3X more profit from the sales of oil than the oil companies do?Robthebob wrote:I dont know about everyone else, but if a general scheme is developed, the right thing to do is to allow everyone access to the information to build one, perhaps not a very advance model of the polywell, but at least a functioning one.
I arrived at this conclusion, because of two main reasons.
1. We really dont need any centralization of power or anything like that, if the US were to gain this advantage over other countries, while other countries are unable to do the same, it may lead to some very terrible events.
2. The state of free energy belongs to all human beings, if and when we do achieve this, it would really no longer be a luxury, but instead, it should be a right to have free energy.
Now, lets hope no greedy oil companies or other big business decides to do the wrong thing and offers high amount of money to stop what is happening here, that would be really bad.
And how about the greedy truckers? And the greedy grocers. And all the greedy businessmen and workers? It is an epidemic.
Fortunately I'm sure you have asked for a reduction in profits for your company and a reduction in salary for yourself to prove you are no greed head. Me? I live on about $15K a year. If you are living on more than that I will have to add you to my list of the greedy. However you can avoid that by splitting the difference between what you get and what I get with me. Then I will send you an official not greedy certificate. We will both be better off. You morally and me financially. Would that be OK with you?
BTW there is no greed in North Korea. There is a lot of hunger.
Well enough of my rant on economics.
==
If this technology works there is so much open source material out there thanks to me:
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/
Joe the owner of this forum, NASA Spaceflight, Tom Ligon, Dave Price, Dr. Mike, and a host of others too numerous to mention that it can't be bottled up. The best they can do is delay. Except it is not in the US Government's strategic interest to delay the introduction of this technology.
There is a guy who does a scan of this forum once a week to keep track of what is learned and what is expressed. So even if the forum is crashed there is a back up.
If the Navy announces a reactor for a ship it will be at most 5 to 7 years before other countries are putting it on ships. If a ground based reactor is announced same time table.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yeah GM killed a profitable deal because they are making too much money. And they are so greedy they didn't want to make more. And they preferred to give the market to the Japanese. Or maybe it was because the oil companies were greasing their palms. And the reason the Japanese haven't stepped in to that market vacuum is that they are too stupid. Besides since Japan itself has no oil they really like sending the money to the oil producers. I seem to recall that the start of WW2 with America vs Japan had something to do with oil. But they have forgotten all that by now.classicpenny wrote:David,
I know this isn't exactly a response to your challenge; but have you seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
It would appear -in that instance at least- that big corporations are quite capable of sitting on technology even when it is not in their best interest. It seems obvious that GM's sitting on the electric car clearly worked to their damnation. (Wonder what their BOD had to say about that boondoggle?)
Bill Flint
Makes perfect sense to me.
Let me splain something to you: GM killed the electric car because the market for $100,000 vehicles is not very large and is suited to niche players. Especially when you can only recoup $3K to $6K a year from leasing. But I hear Tesla is working really hard to get the price down to $70,000 where the sales volumes are immense. At least a million a year. Probably 10X that. You don't have to run the numbers. You just gotta believe.
George Orwell: "Some things are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them."
What killed the electric car? They don't deliver what consumers want (300 mi between 5 minute recharges) at a price consumers are willing to pay. Oh, yeah. The 5 minute recharge stations are not available every mile or two in most cities. Heck they are not available every 200 miles. Anywhere.
The two biggest ignorances I see on this forum (and it is a minority) are economics and logistics. The thing engineers breathe every day.
Thank the Maker there are so many engineers on this board.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I dont know about that, my definition of greed is different. I feel that it's okay to want to have more money, as long as it's put to good use.
It's also okay to want to have money as a form of insurence, so in case things went wrong, you dont have to worry. I think its okay to have money to the point of not worrying about money.
But I dont think it's okay to want to make more money just for the sake of making more money and nothing else. A lot of big business could sell their products for less, but they dont feel like it. From what I understand, most big companies, before anything, already figured how much they want to make a profit of. So in reality, it's really never about the consumer.
It's a pity I'm actually poor, so lol. A lot of scholars are poor, we're already rich in knowledge, cant have everything now, can we?
I do think that if this thing goes through, we all better start investing in electric cars, because we may only have to wait around 50 or 60 years before no gas driven cars exist.
It's also okay to want to have money as a form of insurence, so in case things went wrong, you dont have to worry. I think its okay to have money to the point of not worrying about money.
But I dont think it's okay to want to make more money just for the sake of making more money and nothing else. A lot of big business could sell their products for less, but they dont feel like it. From what I understand, most big companies, before anything, already figured how much they want to make a profit of. So in reality, it's really never about the consumer.
It's a pity I'm actually poor, so lol. A lot of scholars are poor, we're already rich in knowledge, cant have everything now, can we?
I do think that if this thing goes through, we all better start investing in electric cars, because we may only have to wait around 50 or 60 years before no gas driven cars exist.
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
OK but I get to decide if you are using the money the right way OK?Robthebob wrote:I dont know about that, my definition of greed is different. I feel that it's okay to want to have more money, as long as it's put to good use.
And I get to charge you a fee for telling you what to do. Making you do the right thing can be very expensive. There are a lot of things to take into account.
Once you are following my orders I can give you A Certificate Of Virtue. You want to be virtuous don't you? Or are you an enemy of the people?
Deal?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
So assuming you had the money do you want some commissar telling you how to spend it comrade?Robthebob wrote:Meh, I dont even have the money to begin with, maybe in the future, lol.
I have no problem with you making moral judgments based on your values, I have a big problem with you and others getting the government to enforce those values. You see I believe in Liberty.
BTW you down with Al Gore's new water craft? The BS One. Aptly named in my opinion.
Well. You dodged all my points pretty good. I assume (am I right or wrong?) that you find your position hard to defend.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The most prosperous countries are those where the poor don't steal from the rich and the rich don't steal from the poor. (generally) They are called market economies. Places where property rights are respected.
In those places even the poorest have a chance to rise (most of them do) and even the rich can fail (some do - see the third generation effect).
All this allows people to learn from their mistakes and do better with their next opportunity. When government subverts that we all get stupider.
In those places even the poorest have a chance to rise (most of them do) and even the rich can fail (some do - see the third generation effect).
All this allows people to learn from their mistakes and do better with their next opportunity. When government subverts that we all get stupider.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Heh, you should really read the economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. That greed you revile, properly harnessed, is responsible for the ridiculous wealth that even the poorest American enjoys in the 21st Century.But I dont think it's okay to want to make more money just for the sake of making more money and nothing else. A lot of big business could sell their products for less, but they dont feel like it. From what I understand, most big companies, before anything, already figured how much they want to make a profit of. So in reality, it's really never about the consumer.
In the situation you describe, another company would come along and offer the product for less, and that company would then take the sales of of the company that didn't "feel like" selling at a lower price. The consumer decides what to buy, except in (illegal) monopoly situations.
Consumers often act oddly anyway, because of status. Put the name Pravda or Loius Vuitton on something and it sells for five times what it otherwise would. If they sold them for less, they would cease to be a status symbol and people would not buy them.
> rich don't steal from the poor.
I'm not aware of any country this doesn't happen on a very large scale, certainly all the wealthy people I know came to be that way because they spent their lives finding ever new ways of stealing from the poor..
(Interestingly, most are Landlords, though one did start off as a drug dealer and invested in property later on..)
I'm not aware of any country this doesn't happen on a very large scale, certainly all the wealthy people I know came to be that way because they spent their lives finding ever new ways of stealing from the poor..
(Interestingly, most are Landlords, though one did start off as a drug dealer and invested in property later on..)