Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 104

Thread: Holding Back Technology - Magnets & Gravity.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    No comments on the Patent link.....thought that might have been relavant.
    Sorry, but, nope. Patents say nothing about the "workability" of an idea. I don't know how many times I heard the non-argument, "but it was patented".

    Completely irrelevant.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,666
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    ... The Magnets changing mass on moving objects, That must be Checkable, i am going to try this week, (looking at a pair of huge PA speakers, tapping a screwdriver, Largest magnets i can find, for free.) ...
    A week back I ripped open a couple of old hard drives (32 GB? Pffft.) just to look inside. I was amazed by how strong the magnets were, that were used as part of the head movement mechanism. Old/dead hard drives are often found lying about...


    As for the claims: if it were that simple, and that - not - secret; then some company would be using it, right now. You want to check fuel usage on your motorcycle - don't you think Kawasaki (just for example) wouldn't already be doing that? The economic benefits to a company making a more fuel efficient vehicle than their competitors are huge. Companies want to make money. And if they can get technology off Youtube videos, they will. (Unless you turn this whole thing into an oil company conspiracy to suppress fuel efficiency technologies...)
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    A week back I ripped open a couple of old hard drives (32 GB? Pffft.) just to look inside. I was amazed by how strong the magnets were, that were used as part of the head movement mechanism. Old/dead hard drives are often found lying about...
    Rare-earth magnets are ridiculously strong for their size (example). There are companies that sell them in all shapes and sizes, not only inside HDDs.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_magnet
    (English is not my first language, so please excuse any mistakes and unintended ambiguities.)

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Wright bros
    After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

    Just an example.
    There are many more.
    I challenge your recitation of history here. The Wright Brothers were quite secretive about the specifics of their technology while they worked to secure patent protection. They did not cooperate with the press, refused to allow photographs, frequently declined demos, etc. in the presence of third parties, all of which worked against generating interest in their work, to say nothing of generating considerable skepticism. And that wasn't just in the US -- the French initially called them "bluffeurs" for the same reason. You are distorting history in an effort to support your thesis. Perhaps you have simply been sloppy in your research. In any case, the record is at odds with your claims. People were simply rightly skeptical and unwilling to accept claims without evidence. Once such evidence was offered, enthusiasm rose.

    What a surprise.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    ...the record is at odds with your claims.
    I am embarrassed to admit that I did not know that....or maybe I did at one time, but have since forgotten....guess I can always re-learn it.

    Thanks for posting that, Geo Kaplan.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth View Post
    I'm not going to watch any more for fear my brain may melt...
    Very wise, the stupid goes deep in youtubeland.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    A week back I ripped open a couple of old hard drives (32 GB? Pffft.) just to look inside. I was amazed by how strong the magnets were, that were used as part of the head movement mechanism. Old/dead hard drives are often found lying about...
    Cool, you just saved an ok pair of speakers, to late for the fridge magnets though....

    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    As for the claims: if it were that simple, and that - not - secret; then some company would be using it, right now. You want to check fuel usage on your motorcycle - don't you think Kawasaki (just for example) wouldn't already be doing that? The economic benefits to a company making a more fuel efficient vehicle than their competitors are huge. Companies want to make money. And if they can get technology off Youtube videos, they will. (Unless you turn this whole thing into an oil company conspiracy to suppress fuel efficiency technologies...)
    Well, The distrubution and sale of large format NiMH batteries, has been and will be controled by Texaco. (or texaco sub companys).

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    I challenge your recitation of history here.
    Not my recreation of history, it was read and repeated.
    There are many versions of these storys, some make the bro's seem money based, to make the error of discrediting them seem, a little easyier to swallow.
    Some are made to make the mistake look bigger and more of a blunder for the scientific community.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    The Wright Brothers were quite secretive about the specifics of their technology while they worked to secure patent protection. They did not cooperate with the press, refused to allow photographs, frequently declined demos, etc. in the presence of third parties, all of which worked against generating interest in their work, to say nothing of generating considerable skepticism. And that wasn't just in the US -- the French initially called them "bluffeurs" for the same reason. You are distorting history in an effort to support your thesis.
    I have read they were slated at a demo, couldnt fly, bad weather...etc.
    after being riddiculed/hammerd in the press, they were shy, rather than secretive.
    as i said many storys.

    I can totally understand them not wanting photograph's.
    Remind's me of a case with motorcycles, BSA & norton ruled the TT track (isle of mann).
    Japanesse enter'd on consumer bike's, but the crew spent all their time PHOTOGRAPHING BSA & Norton's.
    Japanesse being well know'n for copying technology, everybody expected them to come back with cheap copy's.
    3 yeas later they return, they win every class and broke every record.
    Japanesse bikes cover 98% of the winners rostrum, in the last 40 years....

    That came from Photo's.

    Photo's in F1, are business, big business. (to a rival team).
    Thats a multi million pound Business, with a lot to spend on R&D.
    but a single photo of the right part is worth {insert any silly amount}.

    If they (Wright Bro's) had the forsight to retain some exclusivity/money from their world changing invention.....
    Were they (or the patent attorney) smart or selfish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Perhaps you have simply been sloppy in your research. In any case, the record is at odds with your claims.
    Can you point me in the direction of "the record".
    Even if its to tidy my sloppy research.
    I have read a few books on them directly, and numerous web pages dedicated to them.
    None of the books i have read were written by the Bros.

    And a lot of conflicting facts from every angle.

    I know it a bit of topic, and i mentioned it, but if you can post the link to the record?

    Cheers.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,537
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Well, The distrubution and sale of large format NiMH batteries, has been and will be controled by Texaco. (or texaco sub companys).
    How?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    How?
    in the Environmental issues section.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texaco

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Can you point me in the direction of "the record".
    Even if its to tidy my sloppy research.
    A reasonable starting point is Wikipedia, remarkably enough. I recommend reading the entries on the Wright Brothers and the Wright Flyer. Those articles, in turn, reference a number of sources that would also be of value in triangulating on the truth. Pay particular attention to the chronologies (supported by primary documents, such as journal entries, publication dates of newspaper reports, etc.). You will note, for example, a five-year gap between the Wright's historic flight at Kitty Hawk and their triumphant demonstration in France (finally overcoming -- overnight -- the "bluffeurs" label). Also note that there were competing efforts by others during the same time period. Some of those (e.g. Langley) were more savvy about publicity and enjoyed quite enthusiastic coverage in the popular press and the scientific literature. So the Wrights' being ignored cannot be attributed to the popular attitude you've cited. The most logical explanation is that the problem lay mainly with the Wrights. Once the Wrights felt that their patent position was strong, they turned on the PR machine. The results speak for themselves.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    A reasonable starting point is Wikipedia, remarkably enough. I recommend reading the entries on the Wright Brothers and the Wright Flyer. Those articles, in turn, reference a number of sources that would also be of value in triangulating on the truth. Pay particular attention to the chronologies (supported by primary documents, such as journal entries, publication dates of newspaper reports, etc.). You will note, for example, a five-year gap between the Wright's historic flight at Kitty Hawk and their triumphant demonstration in France (finally overcoming -- overnight -- the "bluffeurs" label). Also note that there were competing efforts by others during the same time period. Some of those (e.g. Langley) were more savvy about publicity and enjoyed quite enthusiastic coverage in the popular press and the scientific literature. So the Wrights' being ignored cannot be attributed to the popular attitude you've cited. The most logical explanation is that the problem lay mainly with the Wrights. Once the Wrights felt that their patent position was strong, they turned on the PR machine. The results speak for themselves.
    Good man, Thanks.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,537
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    in the Environmental issues section.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texaco
    That's "has been." "Will be" is not addressed; it is entirely possible for someone else to make and sell them. At least after the patents expire in a mere three years. I'll also note that it's considered polite to explain such things in your own words rather than point to a Wikipedia link.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Well, The distrubution and sale of large format NiMH batteries, has been and will be controled by Texaco. (or texaco sub companys).
    Apart from the fact this claim is totally bogus - OK, they have a few patents. Yawn. Without looking at them I have no way of knowing what they cover. But I would be almost certain that they do not mean that Texaco are the only company able to make NiMH batteries. Also, the patents expire pretty soon.

    But apart from that, how the heck is it relevant? If all people need to do is stick some magic spinning magnets on their vehicle, why aren't they doing that?

    This is the trouble with all the "I know a secret" conspiracists. If they have access to this ground-breaking technology, why aren't the billionaires?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    That's "has been." "Will be" is not addressed; it is entirely possible for someone else to make and sell them. At least after the patents expire in a mere three years. I'll also note that it's considered polite to explain such things in your own words rather than point to a Wikipedia link.
    I shall answer better next time, forgive my rudeness, did not mean to come across inpolite.

    To answer your original one word question.
    Has any person or company other than Texaco or Texaco related company BEEN able to make and sell large format NiMH battery technology?
    No.
    They wouldnt even forfill the order's they had, effectivly stopping production. some would say intentionaly, not my words, Stan Ovshinksy's words, the inventor.
    His Statement.
    "I think we at ECD we made a mistake of having a joint venture with an oil company, frankly speaking. And I think it’s not a good idea to go into business with somebody whose strategies would put you out of business, rather than building the business.

    Mercedes and Toyota realized this, with costly court cases.

    Can any person or company other than Texaco or Texaco related company BE able to make and sell large format NiMH battery technology in the next three years?
    No.

    So, scince the original patent of 1995, this life changing, possible planet saving technology. has been restricted and the owners of said technology have strategies that would put you out of business.

    Has this technology been held back?
    Yes.

    In My Opinion.
    By the time (if not allready) that the patent enters the free world, the company's that manufacture large format NiMH battery's, will be owned by the same companys that have no interest in dealing with car companys.
    So if you have the resources to R&D your own version of the battery, and the resources for the sub structure, to market/promote/sell, your ok, Big enough to take the hit.
    Considering you will be 20 years behind in R&D, compared to oil companys version. That will make a tough sale.

    If you have to buy the batteries, under contract, Even if they would sell it to you, i would say you are still under the control of an oil company, maybe indirectly, im shure the company Logo will appeal to the "Green party's".

    But then again, i could be wrong and in three years time, the batteries can be sold at a reasonable price to all & any car manufacturer's, large or small.
    The solar panel's on your garage will charge your car for you, and fossil fuel dependancy will start to be put to bed.

    If that happens, i will retract statement and my faith in humanity will be restored, ish.....

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    So all the Electric Cars from the major car manufacturers (Nissan for example have just invested hundreds of millions in the Sunderland factory to mass produce their electric car ) Don't have any batteries?

    What has this got to do with your claims anyway?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    OK, they have a few patents. Yawn.
    Though, it may not be keeping you awake, they are important to the relative companys that deal with "large format NiMH battery's".
    Toyota/Mercedes/Cobasys/Chevron....etc.
    I would'nt like to tangle with the legal teams of Toyota & Mercedes, These major car companys think it is worth taking to court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Without looking at them I have no way of knowing what they cover. But I would be almost certain that they do not mean that Texaco are the only company able to make NiMH batteries.
    Not exactly what i was saying, "Texaco related company's", Checkable.
    "large format NiMH battery's" bit of a difference to NiMH batteries you may find in a RC Car.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But apart from that, how the heck is it relevant?
    Direct response to a bracketed suggestion from a moderator (post #32)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If all people need to do is stick some magic spinning magnets on their vehicle, why aren't they doing that?
    A different way of Asking my original question, My question involved some of the people claiming this as well.
    Which i thought was well answer'd with lots of good info. and different people's perspective's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    This is the trouble with all the "I know a secret" conspiracists. If they have access to this ground-breaking technology, why aren't the billionaires?
    If that is Aimed at Bushman, i understand, not only would you be very rich, you would leave a legacy.
    "The man who put fossil fuel Dependancy to bed".

    I Watched/read some things, asked a question, seems like original point is answer'd.
    This is in danger of turning into a Enviromental/conspiracy V's a Oil company Chat.
    maybe not the place on a space related forum...

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Sorry, but, nope. Patents say nothing about the "workability" of an idea. I don't know how many times I heard the non-argument, "but it was patented".

    Completely irrelevant.
    My Bad, i didnt word that properly, I was'nt saying "look at these guys Patents, Its got to be right".

    I was addressing his background, which was brought in as a point to discredit him.
    That being, his work with Lockheed Martin and other companys related and mentioned earlier.

    Dont get me wrong, im not looking for the job of president of the Boyd Bushman fan club.....

    But His Research, activities & patents are funded by, and part owned by some major companys.

    http://www.patentgenius.com/invented...isvilleTX.html

    On this link, you can click on any of the patent numbers and see relevant bill payers & owners.

    Legal Stand on Assignee
    Patent law provides for the transfer or sale of a patent by a written agreement called an "assignment" that can transfer the entire interest in the patent. The assignee, when the patent is assigned to him or her, becomes the owner of the patent and has the same rights that the original patentee had.

    I know That putting a link up looks like google count Bait.

    so i copyied them here,

    Invention - Assignee

    System and method for electromagnetic propulsion fan - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Bethesda, MD)

    Variable ratio angled magnetic drive - - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Bethesda, MD)

    Method and apparatus for detecting emitted radiation from interrupted electrons - Lockheed Fort Worth Company (Fort Worth, TX)

    Plume or combustion detection by time sequence differentiation of images over a selected time interval - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Bethesda, MD)

    Metal detection system and process using a high voltage to produce a visible electrical discharge - Lockheed Fort Worth Company (Fort Worth, TX)

    Apparatus and method for amplifying a magnetic beam - Lockheed Fort Worth Company (Fort Worth, TX)

    Airfoil leading edge with cavity - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Plume or combustion detection by time sequence differentiation - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Aircraft engine nozzle - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Houston, TX)

    Method and apparatus for filter infrared emission - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Radiation communication system - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Thermally energized electrical power source - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Method and apparatus for supplying electric power - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Object detector - Lockheed Martin Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Apparatus powered using laser supplied energy - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Power transfer apparatus and method - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Thrust producing apparatus - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Detection system - Lockheed Corporation (Forth Worth, TX)

    Towed target - Lockheed Corporation (Ft. Worth, TX)

    Position identification device using an accelerometer - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Object locator - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Object detection system - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Heat radiation detection system - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Object detector - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Laser apparatus - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Object discriminator - Lockheed Corporation (Fort Worth, TX)

    Object detection system - Lockheed Corporation (Ft. Worth, TX)

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    My Bad, i didnt word that properly, I was'nt saying "look at these guys Patents, Its got to be right".

    I was addressing his background, which was brought in as a point to discredit him.
    That being, his work with Lockheed Martin and other companys related and mentioned earlier.

    Dont get me wrong, im not looking for the job of president of the Boyd Bushman fan club.....

    But His Research, activities & patents are funded by, and part owned by some major companys.

    http://www.patentgenius.com/invented...isvilleTX.html

    On this link, you can click on any of the patent numbers and see relevant bill payers & owners.

    Legal Stand on Assignee
    Patent law provides for the transfer or sale of a patent by a written agreement called an "assignment" that can transfer the entire interest in the patent. The assignee, when the patent is assigned to him or her, becomes the owner of the patent and has the same rights that the original patentee had.

    I know That putting a link up looks like google count Bait.

    so i copyied them here,

    Invention - Assignee
    <snip list of patents>
    I always find it odd how CT folks treat patents.
    I have one. So what?

    A patented item does not even have to be capable of actually working. It must simply demonstrate "novelty".

    In theory, it would be possible to patent a frog powered, monkey navigated super-luminal thriple-horn. Well assuming you could get someone to write it up.

    And before you ask the obvious question, indeed there are a plethora of obviously ridiculous patents, and yes, large corporates often engage in pre-emptive patenting.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    A patented item does not even have to be capable of actually working. It must simply demonstrate "novelty".
    And novelty, for a patent examiner, has the limited sense of "can I find this documented anywhere".

    Someone used to run a "silly patent of the month" series on their website. My favorite was a patent for using a laser pointer to entertain your cat by shining the spot on the floor and walls. (What's that? You think I'm joking? US Patent 5443036).

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    I always find it odd how CT folks treat patents.
    I have one. So what?
    I find it odd that you didnt understand the first three lines, of post #48.
    The one you Reply to......

    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    A patented item does not even have to be capable of actually working. It must simply demonstrate "novelty".
    I never said it did, or did'nt for that matter. Reference to his patents provided some sort of link to his background, as explained, post #48

    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    In theory, it would be possible to patent a frog powered, monkey navigated super-luminal thriple-horn. Well assuming you could get someone to write it up.
    Very Creative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    and yes, large corporates often engage in pre-emptive patenting.
    So at one point Lockheed Martin thought "he might have somthing here"
    give him a dribble of cash and retain the right to use it, if it ever pans out.

    Do Lockheed Martin, with their depth of Knowledge, need to fund an old ufo beliving fraud?
    Would they like to be anyway linked to him? as a company?

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Do Lockheed Martin, with their depth of Knowledge, need to fund an old ufo beliving fraud?
    He may not have been that when he worked there. People often pick up odd ideas later in life ...

    On the other hand, he might have always had some odd views, but was sufficiently bright to be a valuable employee. I have worked with some very smart people with some decidedly odd ideas...

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    He may not have been that when he worked there. People often pick up odd ideas later in life ...

    On the other hand, he might have always had some odd views, but was sufficiently bright to be a valuable employee. I have worked with some very smart people with some decidedly odd ideas...
    I bet the checks on the people they fund now are a little more advanced.

    They would leave themselve's open to a headline.
    "Lockheed Martin, Major US Defence contractor, funds UFO Nut to work on Prepulsion Engine's".
    Dont look good on front page.....

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,436
    So if you have the resources to R&D your own version of the battery, and the resources for the sub structure, to market/promote/sell, your ok, Big enough to take the hit.
    Considering you will be 20 years behind in R&D, compared to oil companys version. That will make a tough sale.

    If you have to buy the batteries, under contract, Even if they would sell it to you, i would say you are still under the control of an oil company, maybe indirectly, im shure the company Logo will appeal to the "Green party's".
    This doesn't make any sense to me. Your chain of events seems to be:
    1) Company A refuses to sell anyone a battery.
    2) Company B develops their own version
    3) No one will buy Company B's battery because it is years behind Company A's batteries despite the fact that Company A will still not sell them.

    It really doesn't matter if the tech is more advanced in another area - if your batteries are the only ones available in cars then you have the market lead. It doesn't matter how good their laptop sized batteries are.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    This doesn't make any sense to me. Your chain of events seems to be:
    1) Company A refuses to sell anyone a battery.
    2) Company B develops their own version
    3) No one will buy Company B's battery because it is years behind Company A's batteries despite the fact that Company A will still not sell them.
    1) Company A, really limits who it sells to. (like it is now, only one mercedes, one model).
    to retain a control or monopoly.
    2) Company B develops their own version. (at great cost, and starting their work later).
    3) No one will buy Company B's battery because it is years behind Company A's batteries.
    4) Company A, can offer a better package, ex: 300km trip on one charge / 100 mph top speed / Recharge point intergrated into all ready existing petrol stations.
    5) Company B, can offer you, ex: 100km trip on one charge / 60 mph top speed / have to buy an attachment from company A, to use their Charge points.

    I hope this Dosent happen, It was my mere prediction on how an existing oil company can retain the strangle hold on Travel.
    A touch cynical, maybe.
    I would be happy with a plan in X amount of years to phase out petrol use in public cars, seems impossible....
    Even if its to break the oil company's.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    You missed the point. If Company A won't sell you the batteries then you go with company B by default.

    When a new product arrives it is often limited in it's production due to manufacturing constraints and can take a while to ramp up production enough to bring a price down or put enough units on the market to satisfy demand.

    While production is limited you want to get the best price for your product. Manufacturers often go into 'exclusive' deals with a customer. It's not about hiding or holding back anything, it's about getting the most for your product while you have the exclusivity.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    1) Company A, really limits who it sells to. (like it is now, only one mercedes, one model).
    to retain a control or monopoly.
    3) No one will buy Company B's battery because it is years behind Company A's batteries.
    All the people who A won't sell to will buy their batteries from B, C, D, E ... Z.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    A patented item does not even have to be capable of actually working. It must simply demonstrate "novelty".
    I'm not sure killchain agrees...why else would he continue talking about patents??

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    He may not have been that when he worked there. People often pick up odd ideas later in life ...

    Stanton Friedman was a Nuclear Physicist who basically threw away his career to become a UFO "nut".


    ...and somewhat like killchain's belief that working for whatever scientific company somehow makes his ideas worth further investigation, Friedman has "used" his background as a nuclear physicist as if if makes his wacky UFO ideas worth investigating.

    That's what evidence is "for"...to weed out the good ideas from the bad.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Reference to his patents provided some sort of link to his background...
    So what? Like I just posted, Friedman was a nuclear physicist. Now he is a UFO 'nut".

    Background becomes quickly irrelevant when ideas are presented for which there is zero credible evidence.

Similar Threads

  1. Anti-Gravity Treadmill Developed from NASA Technology
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Nov-18, 09:10 PM
  2. Holding on to an atmosphere
    By MrFRjr in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Jun-06, 06:14 PM
  3. Will Anti-Gravity technology ever exist?
    By nixter in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-24, 11:32 PM
  4. UK and Australia after our anti-gravity technology!
    By Rodina in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2003-Feb-01, 07:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: