The Solution vs Hoax equation

[audiomaker]

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?

<snip?

Quickly, no I don't have a device.  In the light YT and other presentations, and as a matter of motive, I wanted to approach the topic from the chair of someone who believed they did.
I just want to clear that up.

Also, I apologize for not better explaining my usage of the word "suppression".  I was not suggesting suppression from skeptics, I was suggesting suppression as in inventors having untimely fatal accidents, which I assume has crossed the mind of most people who thought they could build a device...at one time or another.   As I have stated, skeptics are invaluable, and I would imagine for the most part, are usually correct.

Peace

[evolvingape]

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

I never said the turbine had to be in the vehicle.

The point of a turbine is a steady RPM generator to convert the source of energy into electricity via an alternator. A single turbine in your garage could power both your house and store electricity to charge your car battery bank. The issue then comes down to what fuel runs the turbine and there are many options for that raw material. One concept for electric cars is to plug it in overnight and give you local commuting range for work and leisure during the day. The difference is that you would be providing your own on site processing of raw material into electricity and cut the grid companies out completely.

Additionally the Mazda rotary engine has maximum power output at 8,500RPM and they had no problem with gaining a safety rating from the relevant authorities. Agreed it's not 20,000RPM but there are unexplored options for personal rotary turbines that may produce acceptable power output at lower speeds.

http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/about/

[Tusk]

Thanks for that in depth reply audiomaker. Your example (yes it did fetch a smile) highlights a point I was trying to make; someone with such an obvious ability, or device with same, would make the process in discussion here simple. Unfortunately the phenomena we seek is much more likely to be 'hidden in plain sight' and if you think this through I suspect you will agree.

Is it not true that IF some phenomena capable of OU - and regardless of some fancy 'workaround' explanation this implies a breach of one or another of our fundamental beliefs or laws - if presented it must by virtue of it's own unfamiliarity and improbability be viewed initially as so unlikely as to not be worth a second glance. Perhaps I may refer here to my own device, and for the moment allow it to be valid (just for the point to be made clear) then there follows an inevitable sequence of implications which in themselves place almost too much burden of acceptance on the rational mind.

For instance, the simple claim that a secondary reactive force equal to the applied force manifests at the centre of mass (apologies to those unfamiliar with the device and the theory behind it - I will add the link at the end of this reply) which appears at this time to be a newly discovered phenomena, suggests that large numbers of physicists around the world with billions of dollars worth of high energy apparatus at their disposal do not understand what happens when someone knocks two sticks together.

A sobering thought if true, and one well worth investigating for obvious reasons.

But my point here is that revelations on this scale simply DO NOT occur; they have never done so in our history, and common sense, logic, experience all remind us forcefully that such a thing can not occur, definitely not here on this forum, and anyway we don't see how anything new or useful could come out of a device that looks like a gutted old record  player or a damaged model of the Starship Enterprise.

And yet.....

if we first take a reasoned look at something, if there is even the slightest misadventure between what we see and what is expected, eventually we must either resolve the mystery or return to the source of confusion. And to answer TK's question, why here on this forum? To which I say, why not? Perhaps you underestimate the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills present in such company.

Here's that link again btw:

http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULl0IWfp5Qw

[audiomaker]

Thanks for that in depth reply audiomaker. Your example (yes it did fetch a smile) highlights a point I was trying to make; someone with such an obvious ability, or device with same, would make the process in discussion here simple. Unfortunately the phenomena we seek is much more likely to be 'hidden in plain sight' and if you think this through I suspect you will agree.

Is it not true that IF some phenomena capable of OU - and regardless of some fancy 'workaround' explanation this implies a breach of one or another of our fundamental beliefs or laws - if presented it must by virtue of it's own unfamiliarity and improbability be viewed initially as so unlikely as to not be worth a second glance. Perhaps I may refer here to my own device, and for the moment allow it to be valid (just for the point to be made clear) then there follows an inevitable sequence of implications which in themselves place almost too much burden of acceptance on the rational mind.

For instance, the simple claim that a secondary reactive force equal to the applied force manifests at the centre of mass (apologies to those unfamiliar with the device and the theory behind it - I will add the link at the end of this reply) which appears at this time to be a newly discovered phenomena, suggests that large numbers of physicists around the world with billions of dollars worth of high energy apparatus at their disposal do not understand what happens when someone knocks two sticks together.

A sobering thought if true, and one well worth investigating for obvious reasons.

But my point here is that revelations on this scale simply DO NOT occur; they have never done so in our history, and common sense, logic, experience all remind us forcefully that such a thing can not occur, definitely not here on this forum, and anyway we don't see how anything new or useful could come out of a device that looks like a gutted old record  player or a damaged model of the Starship Enterprise.

And yet.....

if we first take a reasoned look at something, if there is even the slightest misadventure between what we see and what is expected, eventually we must either resolve the mystery or return to the source of confusion. And to answer TK's question, why here on this forum? To which I say, why not? Perhaps you underestimate the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills present in such company.

Here's that link again btw:

http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULl0IWfp5Qw

Yes, and the answer possibly being hidden in plane sight....having eluded the efforts of so many ingenious people for so long... is ever more reason that the burden of proof should lay as much with the community as the inventor.  One must not let the hoaxsters, criminals and mistake makers ruin a shared goal by raising the bar too high.
At the same time, enthusiasts who reside in "skeptics corner" such as TK (I really hope that's OK with you TK), are absolutely critical to the exploration process as they help keep our energy focused in the right direction and process the wheat that hopefully someday results in the bread we shall all consume (wow is that awkward paraphrasing or what?).  Nobody likes the cop that is keeping the protesters contained until that cop is gone.  It is a thankless position that I for one...admire.

That said, I think a better mechanism is in order.  A mechanism that is pro–active towards the unified goal of this board.  A mechanism that eases the police/protestor relationship by delegating to a jury of peers.  Why here? ...as Tusk says... "Why not?".

*******

@Tusk and Rob.  Thank you both for giving links to your ideas.  Just because I'm not discussing them in this thread doesn't mean I'm not looking.  I should mention that I'm probably not qualified to offer an opinion on them, but perhaps someone lurking is. 

@Tusk: While I'm here though, I will say that your device has a striking resemblance to something I built 30 years ago to demonstrate that directional propulsion could be obtained by applying Newton's 3rd law to leverage over an elliptical orbit.  The idea was somewhat like "momentum in a box" and was (possibly) based on an observation I had made similar to what you are calling a "secondary reactive force".  At the time I was convinced that I was going to re-write Newton's 3rd law... I was very young.  I did not have the skill set to complete that experiment to my satisfaction, and besides, the girl in the second row was too cute to ignore

[Tusk]

The idea was somewhat like "momentum in a box"

Funny you should mention that audiomaker; I started out trying to achieve the very same thing. But momentum rules. On the up side, momentum rules (in this particular instance) at the expense of CoE.

But then, not suprising really. What is energy if not simply mass in motion?