The Solution vs Hoax equation

[evolvingape]

Hi audiomaker,

I had a look at the "free energy" "overunity" definition thread when it was opened but have not for a few days so no idea on the progress made. I should probably have another look. If there is almost a consensus reached then it is a very recent development as my experience of watching this community for more than a decade has been one of despair. The terms have historically been abused terribly and manipulated to whatever the person making the statement felt better benefited their agenda. There is a very well known example of bastardisation of terminology on this very forum!

Your example with the solar cell analogy is all about the processing of energy, whether overunity or not, and the processing is the key. In the UK for example when I was a small boy the government privatised and outsourced the central processing of energy and now we are at the mercy of those private individuals who run an energy monopoly vastly inflating prices. To be able to locally process energy on a small scale for your personal family needs is the goal of breaking this monopoly and why there is resistance to communities such as this and the individuals who identify themselves as part of this community. Many choose to stay off the radar until they have something, very wisely in my opinion, I myself did not post a single word for 10+ years before I was ready to disseminate. In fact I wasn't ready to disseminate when I did but I was out of time and options so did so with a heavy heart, because I knew then that I had to complete my task, a daunting prospect and proceeded to do so at great personal cost. It's done now and I am glad, because if I had known all those years ago what it was going to take I never would have wanted to do it, but I still would have because I had no choice.

You don't know what the HELP is, which explains why your talking to me I guess. Nobody else wants to really. Here's some reading for you:

The Hydro Electro Lytic Pump (HELP)

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=181024

You will also need this:

http://www.overunity.com/10425/phoenix-turbine-builders-club-forum/#.ULkykobjlew

and this for the full story:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2781-wood-gasification.html

By the time you reach the end (which will take a while) you will hopefully grasp the implications of what phase change engines could potentially achieve.

This took 16 hour days for more than a decade to complete with the majority of the early years seeing no progress, at all, just learning and answering questions. I then broke all the rules by giving it all away and disseminating globally without condition or restriction. There is a quote floating around that says something like "the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". This quote is true in my opinion, if you are guaranteed to lose by playing the game with someone else's rules there is only one option left, change the rules. This was easy to do, all it took was personal sacrifice. The HELP / HELT is just the first one of all my inventions, everything that followed came from the work done on that.

The other thing you need to know is that turbine generators are twice as efficient (at least) as an internal combustion engine (ICE), the military has been using micro turbines for power generation for longer than I have been alive, but you are still using an inefficient ICE to drive around in and do useful work, are you not ? Ask yourself why that would be and you will be well along the road to understanding the challenges this world faces.

I will have a think about the baseline idea you have seeded, not ready to comment on that just yet.

Have Fun!

Rob

[audiomaker]

Well thought out audiomaker. You seem to have covered all but one important point, as far as I see it. When someone finds themselves confronted by the impossible - and this is  how things will appear, especially to a well educated investigator - the tendency is denial and disbelief. The observer goes into something akin to one of those digital glitch repeating loop things (is there a name for that? There should be) which potentially could go on ad infinitum.

So flying three well educated investigators halfway around the world just to have them return confused and unsure of what they witnessed might prove a little imprudent.

I put it to you that the lack of consensus on what constitutes a valid litmus test is the real issue here. It should be obvious by now that the 'real deal' will appear so ridiculously paradoxical and simplistic that nobody will give the thing a second look. Another 'tell' will be the demeanor of the inventor; rather than desperately defending their 'baby' you will probably find them quietly looking around at the ideas of others, adding a comment here and there, waiting patiently for the penny to drop.

The other thing you might notice, but this takes awhile - and it requires a serious first look without which the information doesn't get stored in the subconscious - is a nagging feeling that something is wrong with the universe... something you saw just didn't add up. If you can take a good long look at something and walk away with no nagging doubts, then you probably should do so.

Well,  I'm not sure understanding it is the first priority.
As I love using ridiculous examples in my points, here's another...

1.  A man claims he has created a pill, that once swallowed, will allow the taker to produce up to 100kv and up to 100a between his fingertips using telepathic energy...for the rest of his life.

2. He uploads a video to YT showing him arc welding using his fingers.

3. The group gets ahold of this video, and after much discussion, a little more information gathering, and the result of an ongoing vote (poll) reaching a high state, after contact we send the investigators.

4. The investigators return with video of the guy sitting in his specially made chair that draws power from his fingers to light his home, they all rode around with him in his electric car with the conductive steering wheel (from which the vehicle is powered), they watched him explode people's cell phones across a restaurant by pointing at them.  They undressed him, probed him (everywhere), took readings, went to different locations.... everything our "Team" could think of to find the source.

If the end result is that the team returns stating it is impossible but seems to work, I will not only feel that my donation to the fund was justified, but I might order one of these pills, or at least help fund more research or another exploration team.

While this example is designed to produce at least a little smile,  viewing the "impossible"...to a degree that someone's own knowledge and beliefs define it, is exactly what we are all hoping for daily.

As I type this, I see that a couple more responses to this thread came through.  Forgive me while I try to respond without too much fragmentation of the thread.  It might take me a bit.

All the Best

[TinselKoala]

Audiomaker said,

What I've tried to do in this thread is approach it as if I had an "OU" device, or a "Practical New Energy Technology" and was at the point of desiring to have it validated, improved to the point of practicality,  and manufactured for world consumption.
What I am discovering is that the mechanism to do so is in disarray, and that there is not only a (very logical) bias against improperly construed submissions, a less-than-adequate discovery phase (which is why I have no idea what a "Help Generator" is), a burden a proof that might be beyond my expectations, a threat of suppression, but also no clear or reliable process to the destination.

Well why didn't you say so in the first place. If you really had a real OU device or a practical new energy technology and you actually wanted it "validated".... what the heck are you doing on this forum, wasting your time? Are you waiting for Mark Dansie to visit with cameras and meters and give his holy Imprimatur?
You can simply take your device to, for example, SouthWest Research Institute, who last year alone funded inventors with real, innovative or "face-valid" speculative ideas to the tune of over four million dollars. Or EarthTech International, if your device is even more speculative and touchy. Convince them that you have something worth a second glance.... like some cold fusion cells and tech, like some inertial propulsion schemes, like some antigravity claims..... then ditto: you will have  free ride, with lab support and funding and NDAs and your own protected IP thru the patent process, all the way through to the stage of working "push-button" prototypes. With real, peer-reviewed scientific publications along the way. Or Bigelow Aerospace, another company that does similar things.
The very fact that a claimant chooses to come _here_ with his ideas and claims, rather than to one of these solid funding agencies, tells me a lot right away. I am not talking about experiments or development efforts or even the tabletop electronic OU devices that are so much fun to fool around with. I am talking about things like the HydroDifferentialPressureExchange system, AKA "Zed" buoyancy device. If it's really as claimed.... what in the world is the point of wasting time discussing it +here+ of all places? The graduate commons at the University of Oklahoma's School of Mechanical Engineering over in Norman might be a better place to do it.

(ETA: That "threat of suppression" bit is really laughable. The only people around here who get suppressed are the clear liars, and that only after multiple, years-long continuing offenses, and of course.... the skeptics. Just last week a known and outspoken skeptic was banned for his comments in the HDPE thread and _all his posts removed_ from the thread.)

[TinselKoala]

I'm not so sure I want a high-speed turbine in my automobile. When you have a crash in an ICE powered car the engine block is already dangerous enough, without having parts spinning at 20KRPM.
Can you imagine what a hundred turbine powerplants, each of at least 150 hp, many with much more, would have done in this crash?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/us/texas-highway-pileup/index.html

[audiomaker]

I absolutely agree. There is only one "prerequisite" and that is that the data support the conclusions drawn from them, and that the claims made are supported by experimental results. The real data, I mean, not some cherry-picked values obtained by incorrect application of the wrong tools, as we see so many times in these matters.

<snip>

Of course you could do that. What in the world would be the  point of that, though? (Although some have speculated that Andrea Rossi must be doing just that). Would it not be better by far to demonstrate unequivocally that your device _did_ work as claimed? It would be easier, too. The best way to keep other people from knowing that your device is real is simply to not tell anyone about it. And what would the point be of that, if you really did have, or thought you had, an overunity device?Yes, I suppose it is, and part of that process is to winnow out the chaff from the wheat. I cringe when I see creative and intelligent people travelling down a road that they have chosen only because they don't know how to calculate power properly, but believe they do, for example. If mistakes like that aren't run down and publicly corrected..... everybody in this community suffers therefrom. Newcomers think that the wrong way is OK, the creative and intelligent claimant wastes time and money, the villagers get tired of the boy crying "wolf" because he sees a squirrel through his cracked spectacles..... you get the idea, I hope.

<snip>

But seriously..... what inventor of a real FE device is so inept that he won't claim it is, and pretends that it's not? (I actually know of at least one such case, though.... not that the inventor DID that, but that many people apparently believe that he did.)

TinselKoala, 

I respectfully disagree that the one prerequisite you state has any bearing on if a device works or not.  It is only a prerequisite to validation, and to that I agree.
I simply feel that devices without that prerequisite should not be dismissed because of the lack of that prerequisite.  Only validation is withheld without your logical prerequisite.

What I am seeing is a jump from lack of data, and lack of experimental results straight to dismissal.  The burden of proof is laid on the presenter and we are demanding of that presenter something that not only might not be something they ever thought about, but where ultimately it is us that has the interest in witnessing positive results.

That is why I use the example of the 5 year old boy levitating the bug zapper and his truck driver dad YT'ing the video.  In this example the child and his father might have little interest in what is for some of us a life-long pursuit and obsession, yet we demand of them that they provide satisfactory evidence to us when they might not even know how.
This is why the burden of proof must lay on the community, and why I think this community needs a better mechanism to debunk or validate after all the available evidence has been obtained.

That example is extreme, yet you could back away from it a few degrees and find the backyard inventors and theorists. 

I am not suggesting that the community needs to pursue every YT video, or every claim, but instead to have a mean of collective examination of what evidence there is, and then fund our own exploration of what collectively are decided to be prime candidates.  The data we collect becomes useful record, discourages hoaxes and fraud, and with some stroke of luck, in the future validates a device that might have otherwise been overlooked.

.....

Ok....to why I would use the example of intentionally making a real device look fake...

Now you must know how I feel.  Why would an inventor of a real FE device make it look fake?  The point was that looking fake, or looking real is not validation nor dismissal worthy.

Your being perplexed as to why one might do that however, reminds me of how I feel when I see examples of people going to great lengths to produce machines that they know will be discredited and  might land them in jail.  Why would they do this? We share that question running the equation in forward or reverse.

By the way, I find your stance as that of the relation between the cop and the protester.  It is invaluable, as either becomes harmfully out of balance without the other.  I hope you will forgive me as I play Devil's Advocate, because I really value your input, and in fact agree with much of what you say.

Ack! ... more posts rolling in.  I'm going to need to rest soon...