You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > June 8, 2013
(11:55 pm MDT)
Brainstorm: Launch Energy Nest Egg for Ideal Open Source Project
Looking for your input on various parameters for launching a fund/award
for an exotic free energy technology that is suitably simple, easy to
understand, inexpensive, developed well enough, and practical; which the
inventor is willing to open license for that amount.
Jan Balzer proposed an excellent idea the other day that I would like to see materialize.
So I'm posting some brainstorming ideas for this here, to get your input, before
forging ahead with this.
Briefly, the idea is that we should establish an increasing pool of money set aside to give to an inventor who has an excellent exotic free energy technology to
open source. The longer the fund sits, the larger it will get, kind of like a lottery ticket, except there is no chance involved, only a decision by an inventor to let their technology go open source for at least that amount guaranteed.
By "exotic free energy", I am referring to devices that harness the wheelwork of nature, but which use a mechanism that isn't yet acknowledged by modern science. And the ideal technology for open source is one that
meets the following criteria:
is easy to understand,
is easy to build,
is developed well enough,
has no intellectual property encumbrance,
produces a practical amount of energy.
To the extent that it varies from that ideal, will be the extent that it
would not qualify for the award.
Incentive for Inventors
From my experience, those who are willing to open source, usually don't really have anything; and those who really have something, don't want to open source, because they want to see some kind of return for their effort.
Wouldn't that be great if we could get a sizeable fund, with the specific purpose of giving it as a prize to the inventor who is willing to turn his technology over to open source!
Open Source vs. Open License
If something is developed to the point of being ready to build and deploy, and it doesn't have additional research and development needed to get to the point of being that ready, then "open source" is not the most accurate term, but rather "open license," since "open source" traditionally refers to the communal development phase.
So the purpose of "open source" would be to advance the technology to the point where it is ready to be deployed
commercially with an "open license" approach.
Once you have the device advanced enough to do an "open license," a set of plans are made available
for people to download for a nominal fee, which result in a practical energy generator device, pulling the energy from the environment somehow. Anyone is free to start a business building these and selling them. They would just be obligated to remit a royalty (e.g. 5% of retail) once they are to the stage of selling. So there is no up-front license fee or requirement -- only a requirement to remit the royalty. This would hold true for plans, translations, kits, components, forums, franchises. Anything that brings in money as a direct result of these plans would be considered a commercial venture and would be obliged to remit a royalty.
Prime the Pump
While that might sound good on paper, the problem is that we have yet to set a precedent of carrying out such a model in this manner to prove that it is viable, and that the inventor will indeed get a return for his hard work. We have yet to have even one good set of plans become available openly like this, which result in a device that produces a practical amount of power.
If there were a fund that had a reasonable amount of money in it that we could offer to the inventor as an up-front amount, then this story might finally change. We might finally have someone with a viable technology step forward and offer their technology for open source or open license, because they would know that they would receive at least that much for their effort.
And just because someone would win that prize would not disqualify or discredit them from also receiving a royalty from the open license, as described above. Remember, what we want to do is set a precedent for other inventors: open source / open license can be a very good way to go if you have a technology that is easy to understand, is easy to build, is affordable,
is developed well enough, has no IP encumbrance, and produces a practical amount of energy.
I've told inventors that I would not be surprised if they could make a lot more
money through the open license than they could through the traditional
mechanisms of taking a technology to market. (See the "Idea-to-Market"
spreadsheet we at NEST produced last year, which charts out the key steps
typically involved in that long, drawn-out process.) It certainly has the
potential of distributing the technology far and wide very rapidly.
Different inventors will have different thresholds of what they want in exchange for releasing their technology to the public domain under these terms. I'm curious what might be out there, so I'm posting this poll
to find out.
Please only respond to these questions if you are an inventor with an energy technology that meets these criteria enough to be plausible: is easy to understand, is easy to build, is affordable,
is developed well enough, has no IP encumbrance, and produces a practical amount of energy. (I don't expect more than maybe 10 responses.
If you happen to know of an inventor who might possibly consider this option,
please send them to this page. Not all responses are guaranteed to be genuine.)
Those who meet the minimal criteria, who have the lowest dollar amount
threshold, will be the first to receive the prize.
If your threshold is below $10k, let's talk. We could easily raise that through crowdfunding, if you really have something.
While I've got the inventors' attention, there are a couple of other questions I'd like to ask (only
for those who responded to the above question). I'm sure I'm not the only one interested.
Here's the next poll.
Again, please only respond to this next poll
if you are an inventor with an exotic free energy technology that you might
consider open sourcing if the terms were right.
Refilling Fund After It is Claimed
Once someone claims the prize, and it is verified to be deserving by a qualified panel, then the prize would be awarded, and the fund would go back to zero, and start growing again for the next inventor.
There may need to be a small fee (e.g. 2.5% to 3%) for administering the fund
(bank account, receiving funds, etc.).
Meanwhile, subsequent inventors are hopefully going to see the amount of money that the first inventor is receiving from royalty payments, and they will be more inclined to launch into open sourcing / open license without first receiving so high an award payment.
Eventually, this reward fund might become obsolete because open sourcing has
proven to be so successful.
Bear in mind that the inventor is likely to team up with a group to pull off the open sourcing, and he will be sharing a portion of the royalty payments with that group, to cover their expenses and reward them for their efforts and to help them advance their cause.
Most of you already know that this is a role that PES and NEST like to propose to inventors for
us to play. They put up the technology, and we administer the open license, doing such things as:
Validating the technology to confirm that it indeed works, through testing and through replication.
Listing the known replications and the associated photos/video/witness statements/data.
Composing a well-presented set of plans for people to download.
Maintain a project web page.
Orchestrating the distribution / marketing of the plans.
Handling the building of a good FAQ page.
Handle the forum.
Keep the inventor unencumbered.
Collect the royalties and distribute the allotted portion to the inventor and other players.
But we wouldn't have to be the administrative group.
For this fund development project, I went ahead and grabbed the domain name EnergyNestEgg.org
since it is such a great name, being a play on the name New Energy Systems Trust (NEST) that I founded last year, whose official website is EnergyNEST.org
NEST's purpose is to serve as an incubator service for the best exotic free energy technologies. We recently launched a crowdfunding site:
http://NewEnergyFunding.com for inventors looking to raise reasonable amounts of money to reach achievable goals in their development of exotic free energy technologies.
According to Investopedia, "nest egg" is defined as: "A special sum of money saved or invested for one specific future purpose."
Maybe you have an idea for an even better name than EnergyNestEgg. We're open.
For now, I'll be pointing EnergyNestEgg.org to this story at PESN, until we move further along and develop a dedicated site for this task.
I'm also curious about the level of support we might anticipate for such a fund from those of you in the
audience -- those who would be donating to the fund. Here's a direct link to the
Possibility of Return on Donation
Because the inventor who receives this fund and turns his technology over to open licensing is likely to make a significant amount of money from royalties, its conceivable that those who financed the original fund could get a return, transforming the "donation" into an "investment."
Securities laws changed last year allowing for non-qualified persons to invest up to $2k / year. The legal terms and language is still being hammered out, so this option is not yet available. But once that is worked out, even these crowdfunding projects you see popping up could offer a return on investment, rather than just incentive prizes.
I'm of the supposition that most of you would contribute to this open source energy fund whether or not you had the possibility of getting a return on your investment. However, I'm also guessing that some of you might be willing and able to put in quite a bit more if there was the possibility of getting a return on your investment.
Just brainstorming here, but if in the first year after going to open source / open license, an inventor received at least four times as much money from royalties as the fund/prize amount he was awarded at the outset, then a portion of that could be set aside to repay the donors/investors. He would get 2x what was originally awarded him, and the donors/investors would receive a 2x return.
With that notion, here is a brief sampling of what a return on investment schedule could look like:
Inventor's Royalty / Year
(compared to what
he originally received)
Bear in mind that the amount the inventor is receiving from royalties is minus the amount he has contracted to pay his assistant group, who would be using their revenues to administer the distribution of these returns on investment.
With that said, I'm curious what your thoughts are about the
"investment" option. Here's a poll
for all of you.
Finally, I'd like to get all of your input on the particulars of the minimal
criteria for a technology to win the fund. Of course, the most fundamental
criteria is that the device be an exotic free energy device, meaning that it
harvests the wheelwork of nature via a method that has not yet been acknowledged
by mainstream science. Implied within that would be that it is a clean-energy
and environmentally-friendly technology.
Here's the first criteria poll.
On this one, I recommend that the upper bar for difficulty of understanding be
set at "average machine shop worker". This still makes it accessible
to a large number of replicators and entrepreneurs worldwide.
Here's the second criteria poll.
On this one as well, I recommend "average machine shop worker" as the
upper bar for difficulty of building.
In answering this next question about affordability, bear in mind that things
typically cost more when they first arrive. Remember the computer revolution.
Something that used to cost millions and fill a room can now fit on your
palm-held phone. Nevertheless, I would argue that for it to be
"practical", it should at least be cheaper than solar and wind power,
bearing in mind that solar and wind have the disadvantage of not being
constantly available. Also, bear in mind that while solar panels are cheap, the
primary cost of solar is in the inverters, racking, and batteries. ("Watts"
can be converted
from other energy types, such as heat.)
Conventional Energy Capital Costs From PowerPedia:Price_per_Watt
Coal power plants are generally one of the least expensive sources of
electricity by this measure, at around $2.10 a watt.
Large hydroelectric systems can be even less expensive by this measure;
the Three Gorges Dam is reported to have cost ₯180 billion (US$26
billion), about $1 a watt, but actual costs are widely believed to be much
Solar panels are currently selling for as low as US$0.70c a watt
(7-April-2012) in industrial quantities; the balance of system costs
(inverters, racks, wiring, marketing) made the median price in 2011 of
large (>100 kW) systems $2.60/watt in Germany and $4.87/watt in
The price difference between German and US photovoltaic systems was
analyzed in 2013 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Large wind turbines cost about $2 a watt.
Natural gas-fired peaking power plants are around $6 a watt.
Here's the third criteria poll.
On this one, I think we should be conservative, setting the criteria price at
"less than $6/watt", which is on the upper end of the conventional
power prices, remembering that prices come down with time on new technologies.
Here's the fourth criteria poll.
On this one, I recommend "working prototype" as the minimum, though
"well-engineered prototype" would, of course, be preferred.
Here's the fifth criteria poll.
I recommend that it be "101-500 Watts" minimum, for practicality's
Other criteria that should be taken into consideration are:
Unencumbered intellectual property
Ease of implementation
I know some of you might be dubious about the idea of some group I'm involved
with being responsible for the validating of a technology, since I tend to be
the "free energy cheerleader" and might not have sufficient
objectivity. The established organization that I propose to be the one who makes
a decision about whether a submitted technology meets our criteria would be the
above-mentioned NEST, along with at least
two science advisors with adequate credentials relevant to the technology. You
can view NEST members at EnergyNEST.org/about-us/members/ This organization would be the one that would determine whether a technology
meets the criteria and thus is able to receive the award/fund money collected up
to that time. The inventor would not receive the award until he has remitted the full
set of instructions and the validating organization has successfully replicated
the technology per those plans. For the inventor's protection, the money in the
fund, accruing day by day, would be the same as an escrow account, released once
the inventor's technology proves out as claimed, including meeting the minimal
For this project to be successful, it is important that those contributing have
an adequate level of confidence in the body that will screen the submitted
technologies to be sure that they meet the criteria set forth. So, for the final
There are a few logistics involved in setting up such a fund that I would
appreciate receiving suggestions or even offers for volunteer help. Here are
some of the tasks that will be involved:
A bank account to receive the moneys and hold them like an escrow account,
only to be released through the achievement of certain objectives as
confirmed by an approved panel, such as NEST. Possible reasons for release
of funds might include:
A willing inventor has been confirmed to have a technology that meets
the criteria set forth above (has a technology that is easy to understand, is easy to build, is affordable,
is developed well enough, has no IP encumbrance, and produces a practical amount of
Need to move the funds to another account that might be better suited,
for reasons such as the dollar loosing its value, the US descending into
A way to receive funds into that bank account from the donation/investment
page. (Crowdfunding platforms have limits, being based on a deadline.)
A website to feature the project.
For what it's worth, in the above polls, numbered sequentially as various
users from across the world create new polls, we got poll number 333003
# # #
From an Inventor:
On June 09, 2013 11:47 AM, an inventor wrote:
Yes, that is a fantastic idea, Sterling! In fact, if and when I ever get my magnet motor up and running, I was going to propose a similar offer to you. Since you (at PESN) and I are both running on fumes, I was preparing thoughts along some sort of profit-sharing venture. Since neither of us have the resources on our own, my idea was along the line of, say, me the inventor providing the technology (device) and you would provide the steps involved in developing it. I thought that would be a win-win for both of us, since neither of us would have the funds on our own.
What you have proposed pretty much fills the bill for what your end of the project would entail and sets the criteria for what I as an inventor would need to provide (supply). My idea was more along the line of each of us providing our share and also sharing in the revenue.
Since I do not yet have a working device, this was all just thinking ahead as to what my approach might be if that should ever happen; You have everything all worked out in much more detail than I did, so all I can say is that everything looks good so far. Unlike your first responder, I choose to say that it will remain to be seen whether this works. It is up to the inventors and the public as to how receptive they are to this idea. I do hope it works out because it is the only way someone like me could ever hope to get further than the satisfaction of having invented something the world needs..
Once again, I did not want to get mixed in with those whose purpose is to mire us in their quagmire.
Good luck, with your plan. I did have one thought on rewarding donors (investors). You could issue something like a stock share for a certain sum. Unlike a stock share, it would not change in value. It would merely represent a certain percentage of this initial investment. Since it could not offer the same guarantees as stock shares, it would have to have a different name like 'token', 'certificate', 'credit voucher', or something like that. That way you hopefully wouldn't get in trouble with the SEC.
"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and
right." -- Albert Einstein
ADVISORY: With any
technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money
unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the
technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the
technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of
truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
"When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."