Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:10 am.
The following is adapted from a letter Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan wrote on Jan. 23, 2010 to an inventor who has a PowerPedia:Free energy technology he is thinking about taking forward via the OS method with .
Thanks for you interest in open sourcing your technology with us.
Updated by Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan Jan. 31, 2010.
There are a wide range of variables upon which the success of the open source project depends.
Here is a list of the determining factors in sequence of importance, as I see it:
# Confidence that the thing works (from others having replicated, witnesses, video, photos)
## Convincing video footage that gives people a visual on its operation and captures their interest
### Science channel coverage
### Television coverage
### Photos only
## Confidence that the thing can be built (from others having been able to do so)
### Statements from credible scientific groups: universities, testing labs
### Testimonials from those who have successfully replicated it
### Story from the inventor
## Witness statements
## Story from inventor about its operation
# The machine represents a technology that can produce practical power generation
## Continuous output
## Free/Renewable energy
## Ability to govern output up or down depending on need
## Ability to scale to different applications
## Materials are environmentally friendly
## "Sexy" - represents an intriguing new approach
# Ease of replication
## Easy to understand
## Ability to source components
## Ease of machining/shaping components
## Ease of assembly
# Politics of Science are not an obstacle
## Inventor and his key associates are easy to work with
## IP non-encumbered
## Laws of the land wont be an impediment
To the extent that your design fits those criteria will be the extent that it will prosper in the open source route and will help break the Directory:Suppression that has been holding such technologies back for so many decades.
Revenue will likewise depend on how well the project meets these ideals. It's conceivable that the ideal project could pull in a million dollars a month within the first six months, and could start out at a point that is comparable to an average income for someone in the western world. Depending on how well the project is run, it's not inconceivable that the ideal technology could be netting billions of dollars a year within five years of the launch of the open source project.
But I must say that I can't help but think that the ideal free energy technology, which helps liberate people from the dictatorial elements of today's society, will need to be in harmony with a higher level of enlightenment, in which case such huge revenues would need to be diverted to humanitarian causes. Otherwise the project will merely look like just another greedy scheme and will not have as much power to transform society to a higher level of living, not just physically but spiritually as well.
I think this would be a good direction for you to go, and it could provide you potentially with more revenue than if you were able to take it forward through a more conventional route. Open Source doesn't mean no revenue. There are quite a few ways to build in revenue streams to an open source energy project.
Revenue sources include:
traffic from web page visits (ad revenue, around $1 per 100 page views)
labor for replication, variation, testing, improvements, etc.
selling complete plans
selling completed units
Even though the latest version will be available online for the open source project die-hards who are directly involved in the most up-to-date version development, people will pay for earlier version plans, for the convenience of having all the information in one place so they don't have to collect it from a number of pages, not being sure if all the pages relate to the same design. They will also pay for the plans as their way of saying "thanks" to the inventor for open sourcing. People with websites will jump at the chance to make some revenue off of selling the cool plans through their site via the affiliate program.
While business interests don't have to license with you (e.g. for royalty schedule), many will, just to be honorable -- just as some people used to pay for downloads even though they were available openly.
Another significant indirect revenue source is the labor aspect. If you do not open source, you will have to pay for a lot of labor tasks which in the open source route will be provided voluntarily and in copious amounts -- far more than a private venture could ever afford to pay for.
What percentage do you think would be fair for us to receive from our proceeds, which will come from plans, kits, finished units, licensing agreements, etc.? That ratio should be proportional to the things you bring to the table compared to what you look to us to bring to the table.
The ingredients of a successful project include:
engineer the technology into a practical embodiment
scaling the invention to different sizes and applications
exploring alternative materials and configurations
finished unit preparation
license negotiations and closing
What we bring to you through our open source network, versus what you bring, constitutes the ratio. It's hard to specify that ratio, but these are the factors to consider subjectively. We would share our portion of that revenue with those making the most difference on the open source network side.
Here's our page on open sourcing: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS
You will want to pay close attention to the overview/introductory documents mentioned near the top of the page.
Probably the best open source project we've done is the Bedini SG. I was the first to build that one based on the plans we posted (I spend 3 months experimenting with it), and hundreds have done it since, educating a lot of people on some unusual effects. Some claim overunity. The Steorn design is not far removed from the Directory:Bedini SG.
The OS:Bob Boyce Electrolyzer Plans project has also been very fruitful. We were the first to post Bob's plans. There are now tens of thousands of people who have tinkered with and/or looked into that one. It's a centerpiece technology among [[Directory:Hydroxy_or_HHO_Injection_Systems|hydroxy] researchers.
Let me know if you would like to move forward in this.
If you are willing to proceed with us in an open source manner, we'll be wanting to get the following from you as clearly and completely as you are able presently:
list of materials
theory of how/why it works
list of evidence that it is real
info about any replications done by others
Also, attached is a Inventor.rtf questionnaire to help us get to know you better.
Added by Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan Jan. 31, 2010.
As for formal documents, what I would like to do is sign a memorandum of understanding that spells out the relationship as we both understand it, including how we will share the revenue as we launch this, then how that will be modified over time.
Video:Sterling Allan:Evaluating and Open Sourcing Clean Energy - Video of Congress:Member:Sterling D. Allan's presentation at the Gnomedex conference in Seattle on Aug. 11, 2007 talking about screening the best technologies, and using the open source model to break the log jam on exotic, disruptive energy technologies.
Legal:To Patent or Not to Patent a Free Energy Technology - Open sourcing instead of patenting is ideal for game-changing technologies that meet the following criteria: Non-encumbered intellectual property, Key principle, Wide range of potential applications, Simple to build, Inexpensive to build.
OS:Revenue Potential - PES Network, Inc is glad to work with inventors to bring their technology forward via an open source method. We are confident that there are several revenue centers that can be tapped to make this path worth while.
Article:What You Can Expect Open Sourcing Energy Technology - Sterling Allan describes how an ideal open source energy technology might roll out from beginning -- even before it is publicly posted -- through the time of early replications, to end when it spreads throughout the earth to bless mankind. (PESWiki July 13, 2008)