The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tom Booth]

Which brings up another conundrum. As I tried to point out earlier, secrecy, patents, non-disclosure agreements etc. don't exactly mix with transparency and the posting of findings in an open forum.

If an inventor is at all concerned about protecting his device, he isn't likely to open the door to a rag tag group of researchers. There may be other hurdles to overcome that haven't been considered.

So, my suggestion would be to start with a pilot project involving one expedition and see where it leads.

[audiomaker]

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.

I'm newbie here too, and yes, there would be some details to work out.

Just so I'm clear, in all the examples I'm giving, I actually have no plans to be a key player unless requested to do so.  This was/is a suggestion to the board leaders.  I wasn't even suggesting that I would ever actually go on a "discovery mission" myself. I'm sure there are people more qualified than I (unless it's in my neighborhood).
This is important to recognize, because as I ponder ways to make this achievable, I am making suggestions about funds and such, so I don't want anyone thinking that I'm doing some sort of "setup" where I'd be requesting or handling money myself.  I'm just seeding an idea for those who are in much elevated positions compared to mine here.
So...personal disclaimer in place.

That said, you are exactly correct, the sticky parts now would be how to collect funds, how to make the funds collected transparent, how to decide which discovery missions would get funded, and by how much, and how to distribute the money to enable the mission.

There are three levels of trust and confidence that need to be achieved. 

1. Trust for the person/people holding and releasing the funds.

2. Trust and confidence in the people/group/committee that decides which candidates get discovery missions.

3. Trust and confidence in the volunteers.

So, we're smarter than the Justin Bieber fan club....  how to we achieve those?

[audiomaker]

Which brings up another conundrum. As I tried to point out earlier, secrecy, patents, non-disclosure agreements etc. don't exactly mix with transparency and the posting of findings in an open forum.

If an inventor is at all concerned about protecting his device, he isn't likely to open the door to a rag tag group of researchers. There may be other hurdles to overcome that haven't been considered.

So, my suggestion would be to start with a pilot project involving one expedition and see where it leads.

To some degree, if an inventor wishes to maintain secrecy, they probably shouldn't be posting their work on YouTube using 10 camera angles showing every part of the device to the whole world.

The "Discovery Team" is not a raiding party.  It is for inventors who want exactly what the board can offer.  Exposure. 

Take two examples:

1. Inventor has a suitcase sized black box with padlocks on it that hums and powers a lightbulb.  The inventor refuses to open the box. They simply have a YouTube video of a humming box and a claim.   I would suggest that this candidate is probably not going to get any focus from the forum...end of story.

2. Inventor is already showing the bulk of the machine (ie...water wheel).  The intent is "Look Ma, no Hoax!".  They are Trying to demonstrate that is is not a hoax already.  They are Trying to let us examine it already in a way (video) that is inadequate.  This is the type of device that I think would get a second look.

Now, does that leave room for secrets?  I think it still does.  All the discover team has to do is find the hamster wheel...or not.

That said, if the inventor in example one has a box the size of a toaster with an electric outlet on it, and that outlet is powering a 1200W hair dryer for 5 days and still going....  Well even that sealed box might be worthy of trying to find the hidden wires or magical mirrors, even if we never get to look inside.
If something like this were the case, you'd have 3 investigators on cots with sleeping bags taking shifts staring at this device for 5 days after having attempted to discover any possible external power source.
The findings...in this case.... would be that this amazing toaster sized box is either legit, or it is the best magic trick going.  I would suggest that 3 smart people from this board are going to find the trick if there is one.  That box on video, or on a website might be convincing, but 3 people with non-contact test equipment who can actually pick up the box in person is going to be hard to fool.

Consider for the moment, the magic trick where the woman is horizontally levitated.  This magic only works on video, or from select audience perspectives.  Let any layman on the stage and the trick is over.

I think there are a lot of pitfalls we could theoretically come up with, but I also think in practice that it would be easier than you think.

That thought is based on my belief that Hoaxers and Fraudsters do not wish to be discovered.  I believe the grand share of candidates who would allow in-person examination of their work would really believe it works, and by nature of us knowing about it, means they already wish people to know about it.  Those are the people we are trying to help.

[audiomaker]

.....Hypothetical....

I will not claim more than average intelligence compared to the other members of this board (which means I'm brighter than the average man).

I can use this equipment:  VOM, O'scope, Ammeter, Magnetometer, IR and thermocouple temp' sensors, basic hand tools, video camera, laptop, internet, and this forum.

Does anyone on this board believe they can come up with a device that given 48hrs hands-on, in-person, and allowed reasonable access to (moving it around, looking under it, using my equipment on it's output and non-contact equipment on it's proximity), that I... a guy you don't even really know, couldn't debunk?

I would be amazed if you could, but given that I have no reputation here, what if TK were with me trying to debunk it?  How about Me, TK, and another unrelated board member?

In my estimation, that's going to be a pretty solid statement if a group like that can't find a hamster or logical explanation.  That statement presents a path.

[audiomaker]

....Hypothetical....

Let's look at the sealed toaster-sized box running the hair dryer...

I'm on site (using me, because I can only speak for myself, but you could substitute anyone).

Toaster is running 1200W hair dryer.

1.  I ask, "can I use my own hair drying I brought with me?"  Inventor "Yes/No".   Reply Noted.

2. I ask, "can take this to another room?"  Inventor "Yes/No".  Reply noted.

3. I ask, "can we pick it up and look at all sides?"  Inventor "Yes/No" Reply noted.

4. If the answer to any of these questions is "No",  I ask "Why Not" Reply noted and test continues.
For instance, maybe it's bolted to a workbench.  "can we slide the workbench over to this side of the room?"  Inventor "Yes/No". Reply noted.

5.  So now lets say I have this toaster moved to the other side of the room still bolted to the bench.  I plug in *my* hair dryer and it runs.  I also put my oscilloscope on the output and my ammeter and start recording (I have pretty good equipment).   I survey the workbench and entire area with the inductive voltage sensor, IR temp probe, and magnetometer noting any anomalies.

Nothing so far.

Well maybe the workbench itself has a bank of hidden batteries built into it... inspect for that...nope.

I look for any connection of this toaster box to the outside world....nada.   TK is busy checking for RF's at the same time.

Result, no hamsters found.

I would suggest it doesn't really matter if we got to look in the box, and this is an extreme example.  Most devices (water wheels) are a lot more transparent.

Well what do we have here? 

1. A truly amazing hoax?  Ok, but one that definitely needs more pursuit.

2. A toaster sized battery that can power a hair dryer for days?  Well that's amazing in itself even if it's not OU/FE.

3. A way to telegraph enough energy through the air to run a hair dryer without frying us?  Well... that's interesting.

4. A homemade toaster sized nuclear reactor?  Ok.... I hope I'm at home watching on the internet for that one

5. A device that legitimately, by means unknown is providing power more than we are supplying it by conventional methods of input.

I'll buy that.