The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tom Booth]

I suppose I'd qualify as either an electrician or a mechanic. Know a few card tricks but I'm no stage magician. Sounds like fun. I have some scientific background. Not professionally but my dad was studying to be a chemistry teacher and had a lab in the basement while I was growing up. I'm open minded but also skeptical. Who wouldn't want to take an expenses paid road trip to see somebody's invention ? Wouldn't miss it for the world.

[audiomaker]

I suppose I'd qualify as either an electrician or a mechanic. Know a few card tricks but I'm no stage magician. Sounds like fun. I have some scientific background. Not professionally but my dad was studying to be a chemistry teacher and had a lab in the basement while I was growing up. I'm open minded but also skeptical. Who wouldn't want to take an expenses paid road trip to see somebody's invention ? Wouldn't miss it for the world.

Right, and I have my own skill set and tools.  With the proposed forum, there would have to be a logical process by which the volunteers are selected.   I could debunk a few types of devices, but surely there are members better suited to examine other types where the principals of operation, or even the verification of operation are beyond my scope of knowledge (just using myself as an example because I don't want to claim that everyone else doesn't know all there is to know).

I have to say though that I think it's more than an expenses paid road trip (or even flight).  The volunteers would bear immense responsibility.  All monies spent would be recorded, and a total trip cost per volunteer would be public.  #1. "Audiomaker" spent $286  #2 Tom spent $187 #3 TK spent $1024 and was not heard from for 3 additional days at the Nevada site (that's a joke TK )

Also, as a volunteer you have to take it pretty seriously as you're spending fund money.  One should be frugal, be able to provide terrific feedback to the group (pic's,. vid's, data, explanations of findings), and above all, not endorse a hoax, fraud, or mistake because that's going to be a huge embarrassment to that volunteer after becoming a huge embarrassment to the group.
While not required, I would also think it a welcomed idea that volunteers are participants in the program overall.... in other words, might wish to consider having a history of donating to the general fund, and perhaps that could be considered during the selection process?

Anyway, it's a rough draft.

[Tom Booth]

I'd certainly be willing to contribute to such a fund whatever I could, or even cover my own expenses for such a trip if within my means at the time. And of course I'm not interested in forwarding a hoax but would do my best to give an objective assessment. Your proposal sound good.

But what I've been thinking about is this water wheel thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwQt1tJYa8

It was a long time ago when I first came across this. The first time I watched the video I was rather disappointed that the machine wasn't allowed to operate longer. (less than a minute). The guy seemed hasty to unplug it and I suspected the reason for that might be because he knew it was about to run down.

But how could it run for even 45 seconds or so.

Reviewing the video again I noticed some rather large capacitors on the generator: These can be clearly seen at 2:59, 5:28, 6:04, 6:25, 6:50 and he even makes mention of them at 7:14

The first tome I watched this which was years ago, I didn't know much about capacitors or what function they could possibly serve in a generator.

I know more today, but had forgotten about then in connection with this device.

A capacitor serves basically the same function as a rechargeable batter. It is a temporary storage device. The only difference between a capacitor and a storage battery is that a capacitor stores static electricity while a battery stores the electricity in the form of a chemical, or chemical reaction.

A battery takes a long time to charge. A capacitor charges up almost instantaneously.

Conclusion?

Tentatively, I would say that the generator draws on energy stored in the capacitors, which appear to be quite large and are probably capable of holding a considerable charge, so it is able to run for a brief time, possibly a minute or two, then things would begin to wind down, if it were left to run for more than a minute.

The capacitors discharge more slowly no doubt than they would normally because some energy is being reclaimed by the device, the power chasing its own tail, as in many such arrangements, but this could not go on for long due to losses and inefficiencies.

Since the generator was modified and the capacitors added by someone else, the gentleman in the video may have no idea what they are for and so may not be intentionally perpetrating a hoax.

[audiomaker]

I'd certainly be willing to contribute to such a fund whatever I could, or even cover my own expenses for such a trip if within my means at the time. And of course I'm not interested in forwarding a hoax but would do my best to give an objective assessment. Your proposal sound good.

But what I've been thinking about is this water wheel thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwQt1tJYa8

It was a long time ago when I first came across this. The first time I watched the video I was rather disappointed that the machine wasn't allowed to operate longer. (less than a minute). The guy seemed hasty to unplug it and I suspected the reason for that might be because he knew it was about to run down.

But how could it run for even 45 seconds or so.

Reviewing the video again I noticed some rather large capacitors on the generator: These can be clearly seen at 2:59, 5:28, 6:04, 6:25, 6:50 and he even makes mention of them at 7:14

The first tome I watched this which was years ago, I didn't know much about capacitors or what function they could possibly serve in a generator.

I know more today, but had forgotten about then in connection with this device.

A capacitor serves basically the same function as a rechargeable batter. It is a temporary storage device. The only difference between a capacitor and a storage battery is that a capacitor stores static electricity while a battery stores the electricity in the form of a chemical, or chemical reaction.

A battery takes a long time to charge. A capacitor charges up almost instantaneously.

Conclusion?

Tentatively, I would say that the generator draws on energy stored in the capacitors, which appear to be quite large and are probably capable of holding a considerable charge, so it is able to run for a brief time, possibly a minute or two, then things would begin to wind down, if it were left to run for more than a minute.

The capacitors discharge more slowly no doubt than they would normally because some energy is being reclaimed by the device, the power chasing its own tail, as in many such arrangements, but this could not go on for long due to losses and inefficiencies.

Since the generator was modified and the capacitors added by someone else, the gentleman in the video may have no idea what they are for and so may not be intentionally perpetrating a hoax.

Well I think it's important that the volunteers draw from fund money and not fund the trip themselves.  The reason is that the person is already donating their time and experience, possibly putting their own vehicle (and person) at risk, and generally supplying tools they paid for.  Keeping this in mind, it makes sense to at least pay fuel/flight, food and hotel for that person so not as to discourage people who are qualified, but might not be motivated due to financial hardship.

That "fund" would be a cooperation of a much larger group of people.  I would suggest that if 1 in 100 members on this board donated $10 ($6200), that would fund possibly 3 expeditions to most places.

I would say if the "in state" route were taken, that most people could get within their state, stay 2 nights at a hotel and get back for $333...or  $1000/trip.   That would be 6 devices examined for $10/1in100 members.

I doubt more than a few devices would come up annually that would really stump the board and look promising, and while I cannot speak for anyone else, I'd happily donate $30/year.
If 1 in 100 people were like me, that would be $18k annually.  That should get the top 10 prospects validated, or off the radar for that year.   I've blown well over $30 worth of my time in the last month trying to separate the hoaxes from prospects and still don't have an answer on some of them.  For me, $30 would be a bargain.

These numbers are pretty rough.  In practice, they could be quite different.  You might only get 3 devices in a year that really need a second look, but those three might be in the USA and be able to be examined quite cheaply.  The 4th might be in Yugoslavia, and that's going to cost a lot more.  However, if that's the "one", it all balances out.

Example: 18K in the fund.  3 devices in the USA @ $1000/device = $3k.  1 very promising device in Yugoslavia @ 10K/device (3k each to send 3 people for 3 days).  Balance = +$5K in reserve.

You see my point.  Each expedition would surely have a different cost, but overall it cost even a small percentage of members a relatively small amount ($30 in my example of my easy donation) to achieve and examination of 3 interesting devices in the USA plus one interesting device on foreign soil.  In the example, the fund still had $5k left over to apply towards future expeditions.

As the wealth of the fund would be publicly known, people could donate more as the fund required.  For example, lets say that $20k is a good amount to have on hand to cover almost any spontaneous venture.  If the fund were sitting at $22K, and there were no new candidates worth a look, then there's no point in "overfilling" the fund. 
If I put in my $30 and the fund reached $22K, then if at the end of the year it were sitting at $15K after a bunch of "local" searches, maybe I'd just add $10 because of the rate of new devices was slower than the fund requirements to investigate them.  Make sense?  Kind of a "fill as needed" situation.

A bunch of smart people and a little experience should net the knowledge of what it cost on average to get 3 volunteers to a site.

......

....so back to the water wheel.  I know nothing about this thing other than what I saw on YouTube.  Perhaps it was already proven to be a hoax...maybe not.  Just don't know.

The mechanism I'm proposing would have already likely answered my question about that device, and that's the point, because no matter what that answer is, a logical path presents itself.

[Tom Booth]

Well, like I say, sounds good to me. But I'm just a Newbie here.

Then there is working out the details. Like how are funds collected and held and then redistributed to finance an expedition(s)?

How to vote on which potential expedition gets priority?

In other words, I have $10 I could spare right now. The spirit is willing but the means to carry out the plan are not available.

I'm thinking it might be more practical to work backwards. Vote or decide, or somehow arrive on a consensus about what ONE device warrants looking into right now then work on the means to carry it out.

Start small with a "pilot project" so as to work out the "bugs".

So far, the Koala has done a pretty good job of shooting down any prospects. I like that approach in that, as a "Newbie" there are many others here, no doubt, who have been following various developments for years and already know the current status. No reason not to take advantage of the knowledge pool of those with more experience in the field. Saves wasting time and effort, though in some cases I didn't feel that the Koala had made his case entirely, nevertheless I much appreciated his input.

At any rate it gets back to; after making an objective appraisal and getting together all the information already available - is there anything left to investigate further?

But setting that aside, assuming I have the money in hand to donate, how do I get it to the "Treasurer" and what assurance do I have that this treasurer will not pocket the funds and disappear? There would have to be a great deal of transparency from start to finish.