This will be the most controversial thing we've written. Not because the argument is radical โ but because the conclusion is.
If you build a device that produces more energy than it consumes, do not patent it. Publish the schematics. Film the measurement. Upload the build log. Put it everywhere, immediately, irrevocably.
Here's why.
What a patent actually is
A patent is a deal between an inventor and the government. You disclose how your invention works; in exchange, you get a 20-year legal monopoly on making, using, or selling it. The theory is beautiful: by incentivizing disclosure, patents create a public knowledge base that everyone can learn from once the 20 years expire.
In practice, the deal has three problems.
Problem 1: The 20-year wall
Twenty years is a long time. The transistor was patented in 1948. If patents lasted forever, you'd be paying royalties on every chip in your phone. But 20 years is long enough to matter for energy technology โ if someone patented a genuine breakthrough in 2026, the world wouldn't have free access to it until 2046.
Climate models say we need to decarbonize by 2050. A 20-year delay on a significant energy technology isn't an inconvenience. It's a generational setback.
Problem 2: The acquisition trap
A patent is property. Property can be bought. If you patent something valuable, you become a target โ not for competitors, but for entities that don't want your invention to exist.
This isn't conspiracy theory. It's basic economics. If your device threatens a trillion-dollar industry, someone with a fraction of that money can acquire your patent, your company, or your exclusive licensing rights, and then choose not to produce the device. This is called a submarine acquisition and it's been documented in industries from pharmaceuticals to automotive to telecom.
You don't need a shadowy government agency for this. You just need a well-capitalized company with an incentive to maintain the status quo and a legal team that knows how to structure an acquisition that includes a non-compete.
Problem 3: The Invention Secrecy Act
This is the one people don't know about.
The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (35 U.S.C. ยงยง 181โ188) gives the US government the power to impose a secrecy order on any patent application that, in the opinion of a federal agency, would be "detrimental to the national security." When a secrecy order is imposed:
- The patent is not granted
- The application is not published
- The inventor is legally prohibited from disclosing the invention to anyone
- Violation is a federal crime punishable by up to two years in prison and forfeiture of the patent rights
The number of active secrecy orders is public information. The Federation of American Scientists tracks it. As of the most recent reporting:
- ~6,000 patent applications are under active secrecy orders
- New secrecy orders are imposed every year (typically 60โ100 annually)
- The criteria for imposing them are classified
- There is no public list of which patents are affected
Most secrecy orders are probably related to conventional weapons, cryptography, and nuclear technology. But the criteria are classified, and the categories are broad enough to include energy conversion devices. We don't know how many energy patents have been sequestered. That's the point โ we can't know.
The Invention Secrecy Act converts the patent filing process into a screening mechanism. You voluntarily disclose your invention to the government. The government decides whether the world gets to see it.
If your invention is genuinely important, filing a patent is the riskiest thing you can do with it.
The alternative: radical publication
What can't be classified is what's already public.
If you publish your schematics on the internet โ on a blog, on GitHub, on HiveJournal, on a YouTube video, on a forum post, on all of them at once โ the information is immediately in the public domain. No secrecy order can retroactively unpublish it. No acquisition can buy it back. No legal threat can unring the bell.
This is not a loophole. It's the fundamental asymmetry between secrecy and publication: secrecy requires total control, and publication requires any distribution.
One person posting a schematic at 3am reaches a hundred people by morning. A hundred people replicating it reach a thousand by the following week. A thousand independent builds scattered across dozens of countries are impossible to suppress.
This is the 100th monkey principle applied to engineering. You don't need everyone to build it. You need enough people to build it that the knowledge becomes self-sustaining.
"But how will you make money?"
This is the question that stops most inventors from going open. It deserves a serious answer.
You probably won't make money from the device itself. That's the trade-off, and it's a real one. An open design that anyone can build is an open design that no one can monopolize.
But consider what you do get:
-
You become the recognized originator. In open source, the creator of a widely-used project has enormous credibility, speaking opportunities, consulting demand, and career capital. Linus Torvalds doesn't own Linux, but he's Linus Torvalds.
-
You get 10,000 free R&D departments. Every person who builds your design and reports their results is improving it. They'll find optimizations, failure modes, and material substitutions you never would have discovered alone. The collective iteration speed of an open community vastly exceeds what any single lab can achieve.
-
You get to live in a world where the technology exists. If your device genuinely produces cheap, distributed energy, the second-order effects on your own life are worth more than any patent royalty. You'd be choosing between "I own a patent on something no one can use" and "everyone I know has cheap energy."
-
You can still sell kits, components, services, and expertise. Red Hat built a billion-dollar business on free software. Adafruit and SparkFun built thriving companies on open-source hardware. The design is free; the convenience of a pre-built kit, quality components, and expert support is worth paying for.
The open-source hardware movement has proven this model works. The question is whether the energy research community is ready to adopt it.
What we're doing about it
HiveJournal's Open Energy platform is built on this principle. Every experiment template is public. Every replication is published. Every build log is visible. The code is open. The data defaults to public.
We don't patent any of the platform infrastructure. We don't claim ownership of results that users publish. We don't have an NDA, a non-compete, or a "we own your data" clause buried in the terms of service.
We built a world map of citizen scientists so people can find each other. We built a competition with a public leaderboard so there's a reason to participate. We built meetup infrastructure so people can build things together in person. We built classroom-safe tracks so teachers can bring this into schools.
And we gave the thing we're all building toward a name: The Hum. A personal resonant energy device. Small enough for a shelf. Simple enough for a garage. Open enough that no one can make it disappear.
It doesn't exist yet. That's why we need you.
The ask
If you're working on something โ a coil experiment, a plasma discharge setup, an electrolysis cell, a LENR rig, anything in the space โ consider this:
Before you file, publish.
Put the schematic on GitHub. Film the measurement and upload it to YouTube. Write up the procedure on a blog or on HiveJournal. Post the materials list so others can source the parts.
Do it before you talk to a patent attorney. Do it before you talk to an investor. Do it before you talk to anyone who might advise you to keep it quiet "for now."
Once it's public, it's safe. Once it's safe, it can spread. And once it spreads, it can't be stopped.
That's not idealism. That's information theory.
The patent system was designed for a world where disclosure was hard and secrecy was easy. We live in the opposite world now. Disclosure is one click away. Use it.