I agree, all I have is an opinion as well. Without any device to test that is all we can have.
I also agree the Steve Marks device is different because of it's size and what it appears to do.
I have serious doubts about it though, again just an opinion of course.
Anyway I've been thinking about patents and free energy devices. I came to the conclusions that,
1. If a application is made for a device that says it will produce extra energy, then they can't really
grant the patent and say it is ok to make them if the energy source is not known or understood even by the applicant.
If it was dangerous they would be liable somehow I guess.
2. If an application is filed and the source is described by the applicant as a new source of energy
not known or understood by "mainstream science", then they can't really grant that either until the source of energy is
defined or understood by "mainstream science". Same reasons of liability. Imagine if patents were granted for nuclear reactors without anyone
knowing of the consequences, who would be to blame for the damage and responsible for it ?
3. If the source of energy cannot be defined or is not understood then those who make and use them
should probably just do it without the patent, But if it is dangerous and causes health problems or something
then they are the ones liable and they must take responsibility or responsibility must be waived or something.
I don't believe in patents much anyway. If I see someone using something I like and I want one and can make it I will.
The information about the device is given when I see it with my eyes, I then am in possession of the knowledge and can use it
for my own needs. If someone doesn't want anyone else to copy something of theirs they should keep it secret.
Imagine if when the first guy who made a hat seen people copy his hat and ran around trying to tell everyone they could
not make their own hats unless they paid him.
If you make something good just use it, let others copy it I say.
The liability issue I mean is "Common Law". If I do something that I know causes harm or loss to another which is avoidable,
then I am responsible and must compensate.
No need for waivers though if you are "up front" and say you don't know if it is dangerous. If you said something was safe
or not dangerous when it actually was then you would be liable. And it could be more serious than just needing to compensate.
Also if you say it is safe and know it is not, then it is even more serious.
Cheers