The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Liberty]

Yes, I agree with you Tusk, most of the ideas here are not a specific defined machine that is patented.  It is just an idea (an idea can not be patented) or basic machine that has not been patented, and therefore have no "claims", but may have reason to believe in a certain level of performance or act in a particular way, (which is fine) without having absolute proof in all cases.   "Claims" only appear in legal patent descriptions as points to protect in the patent.

[evolvingape]

an easily verifiable OU phenomena

A clear claim without sufficient supporting evidence or the intent to provide such evidence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claim

5. A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth

Stop wasting my time with semantics!

[audiomaker]

Work the problem fellas.  Work the problem.

There is a reason this thread is titled "The Solution vs Hoax equation".

TK is representing the group that suggests for a claim to be taken seriously, it must have repeatable data and experimental results.

I represent the group (actually just myself), that if a real device exists, it requires neither to be real, and that not taking such a device seriously would be a monumental failure not only of the inventor, but of the community to which we are part of.  Real is simply....real.

Between these two lays a gap.  That gap is created by the assumptions on one end that any viable device will be for the most part already proven out, and by the assumptions that the community (and the world) would simply jump if you took a video of a working device.  Furthering that gap are the noise of hoaxes, frauds and mistakes.

TK's logic is sound.  I hope mine is as well.

Here's another cartoon example:

A man works for 50 years on a gravity machine (random pick).  He gets it to work one day. It is real.  He shows his 16 year old grand daughter this machine he built in his basement. His life achievement.

20 minutes later this man is taking a shower and has a heart attack and dies.

After the funeral, his grand daughter is telling her high school friends about her grandfather and what stuff he could do.  She takes a cell phone video of this machine that is still running in the basement and uploads it to YouTube.  She never checks that channel again.

A little later some member of this community stumbles on this video (it's actually titled "Grandpa's weird wheel") and they upload it here. 

Ok, now please answer these questions:

1. Was the device in the example real?

2. Is a real device something that this community seeks?

3. Did this device pass the requirements to be taken seriously?

4. Do you think this device and presentation are going to get any traction in the community?

5. To who's life does it make a difference if the answer to #4 is "no".  The girls?  The dead grandfather?

6. Would this oversight be trivial or "OK"?  What is the gravity of this oversight?  (hehe)

7. How does this community not let this happen, while at the same time not let hoaxes, frauds, and mistakes waste our time?

Your Friend

[TinselKoala]

It's a good idea in principle TK, but in my case not practical for various reasons. As it happens this forum was not my first choice for public release. But it is a reasonable one. Since you have made it clear - from the point of view of an OU skeptic - that you dismiss any concerns about vested interests taking action against OU inventors, you would be unlikely to understand the cautious approach associated with such a disclosure.

However you will allow (I assume) that these concerns do exist, if misplaced; in which case you must also allow their impact on the disclosure process. A full and open release of material on a forum such as this at least places the work in the hands of those (supposedly, although I see no clear evidence so far) dedicated to investigating such matters and advancing the science. In addition, once released there is very little point in persecution of the inventor, unless of course the material is being ignored or dismissed as unworthy out of hand, as in my own case.

So you might then allow that a philanthropic inventor having an invalid claim (since you allow no validity) yet believing completely in it, and misguidedly supposing his invention threatens 'big oil' posts here notwithstanding a real fear of the consequences, which the typical response does little to alleviate.

Apologies if this isn't a 'feel good' moment for you.

   

You don't seem to get it. Since approximately 1998 I have worked full time and as a consultant for three different organizations whose explicit purpose was (one past tense, two present tense) to seek out, find, encourage and fund speculative investors like yourself. I cannot give you the specific details of my present involvement because I am under the usual NDAs concerning my present work. But I can talk about ISSO..... The "International Space Sciences Organization" funded by the internet "former" millionaire Joe Firmage. You can look this up for yourself. Joe, in his present incarnation as "Motion Sciences" has an idea about antigravity, a mechanical system that he calls "Streptation" and is actively pursuing this even now, long after ISSO became moribund. "We", during the time I was involved with them at the laboratory in San Francisco and later at Alameda NAS, Building 29..... funded and supported with laboratory space and equipment and technical help, several sets of experimenters like yourself. These included Viktor Roznyay, whose ignitron antigravity device I have described and who got over 1.5 million dollars US in funding from Joe, and Mark Comings, who had a few speculative ideas, managed to get himself a staff position and a bunch of equipment which he then never used, and Hawkins Kirk, a fellow who had Admiral Bobby Inman's number programmed into his speed-dial and claimed to have an alien implant..... and another antigravity scheme using multiple coils and other electronics.... and so on. Purple plates. Nikolayev Newton-Violators. Mikhailov's electron anomalies. We were mostly interested in propulsion and antigravity tecnologies but "free energy" and overunity devices were also in our bailiwick. We funded Kohei Minato on a visit with a load of his magnet motor overunity generators and "self runners" to visit the lab in SF for "validation testing". He and his wife and his retainer Murakami came, stayed for a week at the best hotels in SF, demonstrated their devices... I even repaired one that had been damaged in transit, Minato was so impressed that he offered to hire me and find me a Japanese wife, I am not kidding..... and so on.
The other operation, for whom I still sometimes consult, was working intensively on the superconducting antigravity system of Eugene Podkletnov and in fact had Pod himself as consultant so we KNEW we had the ceramic SC right, we KNEW we had all the operating parameters correct.... and so on. We did the best replication of Pod's claim that anyone, including Ning Li, had ever done. We made a 300 mm sintered hot-melt YCBO doped hi-temp SC disk _in house_ with Pod's supervision and approval. This is real, Big Science, with deep pockets to delve into for support of stuff of real interest. Next we went on to Peter and Neal Graneau's ideas about water arcs releasing excess energy and Neal's MHD-style system for getting electrical OU from a similar arc discharge system, Peter working in Canada and the USA and Neal working in a completely funded (by us) laboratory at Oxford. Seven years of support and funding for Peter and three or more for Neal. And on from there.

Activity at the latter organization has slowed lately because of LACK OF CREDIBLE APPLICANTS, not from lack of funding or interest.

And another one for which I still sometimes consult is known for having the best bulk calorimetry system in civilian hands and has directly funded and examined the claims of several Cold Fusion researchers whose names anyone in the field would recognise as the best candidates for success at the time.  This lab is right now spending a good amount of time and money investigating a theory of modified Newtonian dynamics that seeks to explain the anomalies observed in galactic rotational profiles, by using a Cavendish-style balance that is so sensitive it picks up the gravitational attraction from cars in the parking lot.... so most of the lot is roped off so cars don't come too close to the building.

So I am sorry, but I happen to KNOW, of my own secure knowledge, that if you have something of real interest and can present it coherently _to the right people_ , you can get secure funding with absolute protection for your IP and your person, with real laboratory support and real scientists helping you in your investigations.

Did you bother to look up Southwest Research Institute? Tom Slick?  Please do so. I know you are not going to change your strongly held opinions, but you should at least inform yourself of the opportunities that are available to speculative inventors and scientists who actually DO have something of real interest.

I am afraid I cannot even parse the statement I highlighted. What? Maybe I need another cup of coffee.... it makes no sense to me.

I'm here for a number of personal reasons, but one big personal reason is that I am keeping my "ear to the ground" so to speak. If I can bring an inventor with a good idea, something that looks good, to my principals and get them interested in it, this will not only be very good for the inventor/claimant, but also for me, personally. I might get assigned to help with the project in a real way, and I'd get my usual consulting fees paid and the inventor would not be out a thin dime, nor would he be at any risk of the kinds of mythological suppression you seem to fear.

It is my opinion that the fear of suppression is a hystrionic excuse for the avoidance of exposure to real investigation that would in most cases result in the demolishing of the claimant's house of cards, in the way that it did for Rosemary Ainslie, or, in the final end, for Podkletnov, for Roznyay, the Graneaus, some Cold Fusion claims, and many many others.

The stories of active suppression and the difficulty of finding real "validation" without personal risk.... just do not wash with me. Or perhaps my whole career for the past fifteen years has been one of disinformation, as I unwittingly worked for the very agents of suppression you fear. Right.

If you like, I will put you, Tusk, in touch with the organizations for whom I still consult, and you can present your device and ideas to them directly for consideration. If you can strike up some interest, it's possible that they might hire me to look into your system officially, in their labs with their facilities at my disposal as usual.  Or you might disappear, never to be heard from again. But your strongbox, when opened years from now, will still have your working prototype inside, and the legend of your disappearance at the hands of the forces of Big Oil will spread. Right.

[Tusk]

Thanks TK for a well expressed and well reasoned reply  I think we are making some progress, despite your obvious mild (?) frustration.

Let me put it to you this way; you are asking me to engage with some real heavyweights in the business, possibly get on an aircraft and travel halfway across the globe, to appear before a board of professional investigators (presumably holding significant academic qualifications) and advise them that regardless of their impressive educational achievements and extensive experience in the field, that they are however completely either unaware of or else misinformed regarding the processes involved when someone knocks two sticks together.

You are I suspect representative of the type of people I would be meeting with; you were - and remain - completely oblivious to the paradox in my introductory experiment. That a paradox exists is without question, providing the observer has no clear understanding of the phenomena involved and how it applies. I suggest to you now, as I did previously, that you had no clear understanding (at the time) but simply rested on a long held conviction implanted by the literature that the two elements were fundamentally distinct, each operating independently of the other as a matter of course.  Such beliefs require no questions, and renders any paradox invisible.

I have no way of knowing if you were genuinely aware of the true principle behind the phenomena. That is a matter for your conscience alone. But considering that you had both the opportunity and (as a result of my blunt challenges) a justifiable reason to give me 'both barrels' I wonder that you chose not to do so.

No matter. Hopefully you will see my point in this instance. Since we have become so fond of comical metaphor, please allow me to paint yet another picture.

Consider the personal impact which would accompany a seemingly impossible discovery - let's say, while strolling through the local park one fine evening you happened upon a Frisbee sized disk shaped craft, hovering silently at head height, flashing lights, beams, unusual rapid motion...  the whole business. After first checking around for signs of some prank, your attention is drawn back to the disk, which is now flashing it's lights rapidly while hovering just ahead of you at eye level. Some attempt at communication perhaps?

With a final brilliant flash which lasts several seconds, the disk deposits what appears to be a simple gaming dice at your feet and disappears into the night sky at high velocity. Retrieving the dice you note that while it has an unusual configuration of dots marking the faces, it appears to be made from some plastic material much as you might find with any cheaply manufactured board game.

Several months later, having carried the dice around (deep in thought no doubt) and having rolled it on multiple occasions, you become suddenly aware of a pattern in the sequence of numbers which occurs as a result of repeated casting. Grabbing a pencil and paper you begin to record the 'data'. After a surprisingly brief period of 'data collection' the dice begins to glow brightly and then disappears completely with what sounds like a relieved sigh. Analysis of the 'data set' proves tricky at first, but eventually the penny drops. There are five dates in chronological order; a quick session on the web reveals their meaning, at least with respect to the first four dates.

Windscale. Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukushima.

The fifth and last date is for some point in the not too distant future. You now have a problem. #

So tell me honestly, who would you approach in such circumstances? The nuclear power industry? Academia? The media? The circumstances are of course a fiction, but the essential elements of the conundrum itself are quite real. Definitely not something to aspire to.

If you can point me in the direction of that representative of the establishment who deals with impossible discoveries which by their very nature call into question even the most fundamental tenets of that vast and seemingly most propitious body of scientific knowledge, I shall indeed be very obliged to you for your assistance.

# no aliens were harmed in the termination of this fiction