The Solution vs Hoax equation

[TinselKoala]

and this one ?

Sorry, I don't speak French. I understand this makes me a barbarian, but there it is.

[tagor]

 

Sorry, I don't speak French. I understand this makes me a barbarian, but there it is.

http://pesn.com/2012/11/27/9602230_Water_as_Fuel--November_2012_Update/

He stated explicitly that the motor boat requires no fuel tank, i.e. no gasoline tank, no hydrogen tank, and only a normal marine storage battery to start the 50,000 volt autonomous hydrogen generator, and the 500 HP motor. The motor boat has an unlimited operating range at sea, and emits only water vapor as exhaust.

[audiomaker]

Well there are differences of opinion. Some are soundly disproved (Mylow and his twin brother) , some are educational toys from one website ( the Calloway Gate and the magnet-ball-wheel) some are still undebunked but almost certainly hoaxes (the mylow-like motor powering the fan, turned by the box in the guy's hand), some are most certainly frauds (fat people are harder to kidnap)  and so on. But every one of them has been completely believed in, and even Mylow still has a following of believers.
The point was to address your puzzlement: why would anyone do these things, they are a lot of trouble for sure, nobody would really go through that if it wasn't real.... so some of them must be real. It's an attempt to show the flaw in that line of reasoning. You would be flabbergasted at the effort some people will go through. Ask any stage magician or card manipulator what they have to do to pull off even the simplest illusion.
Also to point out that you see what you want to see a lot of the time. Almost every one of the videos I posted have "tells" that reveal that they are faked effects. My favorite one is the Mylow one. There is plenty of material there for your voice analysis! I also like this one because of my history with it. Several other people noticed the fishing line drive by sophisticated analysis of the videos, but at the same time and independently, I figured it out as a possible way of doing it and so I did it. I made the "official" first replication of the Mylow drive for Sterling Allan's challenge award.... and he acknowledged my priority.... but he refused me the award because my motor wasn't overunity.... even though it used exactly the same drive method that Mylow used. Think of the irony!

No, I just have a few of my favorites compiled on my YT channel so I looked there first.  There are some present cases that are not "fully disproved" that are quite significant. Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat, for example; Mister Wayne and the HydroDifferentialPressureExchange system still has many faithful believers; heck, people are still trying to build Bessler's wheels so they must think that device hasn't been completely disproved.

So.... I'll stop posting my favorites, and let you find some that you think fulfil your criteria, and then I'll let you know what I think the story might be. But really... I cracked up when I saw the reposting of the Brady video. Not too many of the Free Energy fakers actually wind up in jail, but nobody deserves it more than Brady.

Ok, I'm on your page.  However, I was certainly not expecting that I would have to be the sole provider and judge of what devices show promise (of being real working machines), as I certainly don't have the history to know which have previously been proven as frauds or hoaxes, any more than I would strap you with the burden of solidly disproving every device we could find a presentation of.

I would suggest however, that there must be much easier ways to scam people than to build these devices, and by means much easier to maintain the illusion of legitimacy for a longer time.
I have every confidence that I could send you to examine any of these devices in person, and if it were a mistake, you would very quickly uncover it.  If it were a fraud or hoax, the discovery would be even faster.
I would suggest that selling someone the proverbial Brooklyn Bridge is much easier than having to build a life-sized facsimile of that bridge and painting a sign that says "Brooklyn" on it.

I am particularly short on time right now, but I did look for some articles on Brady and read a few.  So far I can only find examples where he has gone to jail for the fraud of not delivering machines he had sold.  I am still looking for one that shows evidence that the machine itself was a fake. In fact, at least one article states that he might have pirated the patent. Adding the notion that he might have stolen the idea somehow doesn't sit well the the machine being a fake.  He stole the patented idea for a fake machine?  It would save me some time if anyone has a link to an article disproving the machine itself.

In Brady's case, if the only debunking of his offering is contractual fraud, then I have to suggest that there could be many reasons for this other than the machine itself being a fake.  It is unknown what pressures might be put on a person with a working device, what deals might be made, why those deals might be made...etc.  Maybe he just has a cocaine habit? Maybe he just wants to live?

No, I'm not on a crusade... Just making a point.  Brady's machine is "likely" a fake.  Being in jail for fraud doesn't help the case for his machine for sure.   On the other hand, is an inventor being discredited going to be our standard for debunking, or is finding the hidden hamster that surely must exist in every fake or fraud?

Speaking of the burden of debunking.  I also find it less-than-scientific to debunk based on offerings that were modeled after devices proven not to work.
I have a mechanic's understanding of the internal combustion engine, and a machine shop, but if I were challenged to go down to my shop and build one right now for the first time without any blueprints, I could almost promise you it wouldn't run.  It's not that I don't have an understanding of the principles... I do.

However, it would be assumptive to conclude that the next "inventor" who created an internal combustion engine based on my offering was repeating a mistake or offering a fraud.   In fact, if my morals and financial situation were such that I took my non-working example and put a hamster in it and ended up in jail after I'd sold a few, that alone does not debunk the internal combustion engine.

While there is some theatrical content in that last example because we actually know the internal combustion engine works, the point I hope is clear in that... if we didn't, my offering would be a poor choice to debunk the entire concept on.

Talk Soon

[Tusk]

Since energy is the subject of these investigations, I wonder is there a consensus here on a definition (or perhaps definitions)?

[Liberty]

You are not claiming that your motors are overunity, are you? Your motors do need "actuators". Well... so you are, and you are soliciting investment based on your claim of "calculated" overunity efficiency.  Can you support your claim with evidence?

Your comments seem to infer that any experimenter trying to obtain high efficiency is forbidden to talk about the possibilities and should be cast in doubt at every opportunity.  Is this not overunity.com?

Does an actuator make a motor under-unity, if so, can you back up your claim with evidence?  See, anyone can play that game.  Is a calculation not a type of evidence?  What is evidence?  Certainly "evidence" can mean a lot of different things to different people.  What is enough evidence?

I have reason to see that the existing calculations on the current model are sufficient evidence for me to predict expected motor performance within certain parameters.  Is this an absolute claim and proof for everyone, no.  But it is a reasonable expectation on the part of the inventor. 

I understand that there are a lot of fakes out there on YT, or devices that don't actually work, but experimental models from inventors do not come completely tried and tested to everyone's satisfaction, and this should be knowledge that is already well understood from most experimenters, like yourself with limited funds.  It's easy to sit on the sidelines, playing strategy with your comments to gain other like minded people's admiration, to cast doubt and make demands that an experimenter provide unlimited evidence that you personally can believe at their expense.  This area of experimentation is not without risk.  But then without risk, there is no gain.