<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>QuantumHeat.org</title>
		<description>Discuss QuantumHeat.org</description>
		<link>http://www.quantumheat.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 May 2026 11:53:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Mason says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3940</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Wow. Thank you for the lesson in MFMP argumentation. I'm glad you only had words available . . . you stood your ground and "Zimmer'd" me. I hope you are easier on the lab equipment. :lol:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mason</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3940</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3939</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ @Mason: No apologies needed! In fact, I regret leaving you with the impression that you offended me in some way. I'm not at all offended by your arguments, nor do I ascribe the rhetorical devices I employed in my argument to your expressed ideas. I'm not hating on you here, I'm just arguing a point :-) You apparently have noticed that statements or arguments put forth by individual members of the MFMP are not always in perfect synchrony; I hope this gives you some idea of the evolving, open, and inclusive nature of our organization's discussions! Your voice is welcome here too.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 03:39:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3939</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mason says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3936</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@R Ellefson#11 I apologize if my words somehow implied that MFMP is looking to take others IP. To read the Open Letter and conclude MFMP is going to be an IP pirate does not stand to reason. 'Litigation' is a hot button. I was focusing on the preparatory effort to establish a legally defensible position which supports the mission of MFMP as stated in the Open Letter. This is was Robert Greenyer, Bob, and Ryan Hunt are discussing in this thread: the rationale underlying the legal framework to support the long term goals of MFMP. (I am understanding these to include: the protection of LOS intellectual capital having practical value, protection of this capital's access to market as the technology evolves, and protection of the growth and maintenance of the MFMP foundation.) Sadly, in the face of a $5Trillion industry, said to be 10% of the global economy, some of those eager to capitalize on the movement from 'old' to 'new' may choose to play 'dirty tricks'. And, regrettably, a license only has the value of the paper it is printed on if there is no intent, will, or follow through to defend MFMP's repository of shared intellectual capital. Regarding Tragedy of the Commons, it has been used as a metaphor in political philosophy. It helps to explain humanity's creation of laws and institutions whose purpose is the protection of the Public Good, like the fire department, police department, public education, the military, the courts, etc. IMHO and to paraphrase, I laud MFMP's stated purpose to defend 'Shared Intellectual Capital for Critical Practical Solutions' as a Public Good. And I support what the LOS outlines as the benefits of protecting LENR as a Public Good. Again, my apologies for any misunderstandin g I created. I deeply believe in the full scope of what you Open Letter describes.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mason</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:29:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3936</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3932</link>
			<description><![CDATA[this is the stuff rossi,defkalion ,and blacklight are dealing with and why it is takeing so long (probably) we are not heading that direction are we? who cares lets figure out how it works first then deal with that.or else nothing will be disclosed openly for fear of law suits or some one else building something and sueing. or stealing an idea and sueing, or loesing out on a patent that can make money. my objective here is to find out how it works, not that i wouldnt build one for my own home but ever since i was a little kid and thought of a motor running a generator running a motor and they told me i cant do it it wont work i have been expierementing non stop. following this websight has brought that little kid back to me. i would hate for everything that is open for me to look at went away like the other guys.oh ya i need an adress for hugnet to send davey device i would love to watch you guys put it to rest for me.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3932</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3931</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A wealth of licence ideas here creativecommons .org This licence in particular looks promising: http://creativecommons .org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Still not clear if it could be made to apply to ideas and or stuff.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3931</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3930</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Yes it certainly is the crux. The closest open source effort to MFMP is the Open Source Ecology group http://opensourceecology.org/ in so much as they are inventing stuff. Their licence is at: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition Best I can tell this licence doesn't really deal with derivative products like the GPL does nor does it explicitly induce a "give to get" mentality.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3930</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3929</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob - How to enshrine that "give to get" mentality is the crux of this, isn't it? The goal of any license should be to encourage that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3929</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3927</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan#2 I agree that the public web disclosure will constitute prior art and should prevent others from patenting the MFMP work. This may prove effective enough to address the stealing of intellectual property that we collectively develop. What it won't do in my opinion is prevent others from using our technology base as a jumping off place without any obligation to give back any advances they make. This is the fundamental difference between a GPL and a BSD (or even a creative commons) licence. The investible angle is trickier still. Many players make lots of money with GPL licenced software. What they can't make money on, however, is hording the software source code. Our case will be similar. Players will have to make money building, distributing and servicing real products which incorporate the new fire. They won't be able to make money gathering and licencing the underlying intellectual property. As long as no one can ever own the MFMP intellectual property and the access to that knowledge pool is entirely level for all participants, I believe there will be a compelling case for such businesses contributing LENR R&D to the pool. As soon as we "tinker" with that principle and allow special member privileges to make the intellectual property investible the whole house will come down in my opinion. Somehow we have to enshrine the "give to get" mentality.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3927</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3926</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have no intention of preparing for litigation, personally. If we are infringing on the valid intellectual property of anybody, then we will certainly be responsive to any request to cease using that IP. We are not pirates, and do not intend to do anything to even suggest inappropriate use of private property. As for asserting our own litigation against parties infringing on our IP, I do not see the point of doing this. Once we publish our inventions, they are by default thereafter in the public domain unless we have taken a series of time-consuming and expensive steps to patent them. Why should we patent them, exactly, when the whole point is to give them away? The tragedy of the commons is based on scarcity of a shared commodity, such as the actual grass growing on the "commons" ground itself, which is an inherently limited resource. The ability to copy the technologies we publish would only be limited by private parties asserting ownership of those technologies. As long as they don't actually own the technologies in question, because we have established prior art, then they have no case. I know from personal experience that malicious litigation extracts the cost of a defense even from the innocent. What more, specifically, do you think we should do to protect against malicious litigation other than clearly establishing prior art? Once we start paying lawyers to chase down every conceivable avenue of preemption, we have already started losing the game before an opponent has started playing it!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3926</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mason says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3925</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Being a new LENR believer, I enjoyed reading your LOS. It is a challenge to put together an organization that considers access to the scientific process as well as the practical inventions as being a "Public Good" which must be protected FOR ALL. A big challenge, IMHO, is facing the reality you must use the tools of the same civilization with the elite you describe. One path has already been developed with LINUX and the creative commons license. From my experience in working with IP attorneys in court, you must be prepared for litigation from the VERY Beginning. This means that when you are ready with your basic framework, when you TRULY know the details of what you are protecting, set your appointment with an extremely solid IP attorney for patents and inventions, and develop your legal documentation, contracts, and associated supporting administrative process. Do it correctly now and you will save yourself from being caught in simple preventable mistakes. You will need to save your energy and resources for all the challenges and dirty tricks that will likely come from those who condemn your perspective and look to maintain the status quo. You must prepare well to prevent another "Tragedy of the Commons". They certainly have.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mason</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3925</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Charlie says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3924</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you for this post, When MFMP started I wasn't sure of the ideals or motives of the team, you were using proprietary equipment and talked of Patents and a kit for Universities, I Don't have an issue with free enterprise or kits for Universities but that can be achieved alongside opensource disclosure of the working prototypes and test result / theory. So that individuals could built devices for their own personal use.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:02:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3924</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3922</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob Indeed, requesting participants to work under LOS is a good approach.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3922</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3916</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Roderick Vos The New Fire will allow practically free energy to extract hydrocarbons so the Net Return on Energy Invested equations become interesting. A gold miners product has little value in energy terms - it is basically valued in the energy and cost of labour that it took to extract + a perceived value. If the cost of the energy to extract goes down to near zero - it then becomes a commodity that has great value as a feedstock for other needs other than energy. I have long believed that OIL and its products should be reserved for a few things like Pharmaceutical, Farming (pesticides, fertilisers and herbicides) and plastics. These will always have a need... So if LENR/New Fire does not exist - the Arabs have a problem if the OIL price does not allow for the energy of extraction. Take out the energy cost and you are left with a highly valuable product to sell. It is a CRIME that humanity is *burning* the best chemical feedstock that humanity has been endowed with in limited quantities. Also, if there is ANY risk of damaging water supplies for generations with non-conventiona l HC energy production, there is even more reason to accelerate research in this field.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3916</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3912</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob - Once published on the web, at least a company can't take it and patent it and preclude others from working on it. I do like the idea of a creative commons license or something similar. I would love to hear people talk about the objectives such a license should meet. I want to keep some free technology, but I want it to be investable as well. What else?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3912</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3909</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Congrats on the award you guys received at ICCF. I believe that LOS has the potential to be a disruptive force (in the Clayton Christensen sense) against mainstream science at least as far as LENR is concerned. At risk of repeating myself too many times, what LOS needs is the equivalent of the GPL to ultimately be successful. Without a licence to govern derivative products there is nothing to stop organizations poaching all of MFMP technology and calling it their own. This is new territory and I understand the complexities when compared with simple source code on a computer. The GPL relies on copyright laws for its effectiveness. As far as I understand things you can't copyright stuff. eg. experimental apparatus. I'd hate to see us having to use patent laws in a "copyleft" manner to provide our protection. Any ideas?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3909</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
