The Solution vs Hoax equation

[TinselKoala]

Oh come on. You sound almost exactly like Professor Herr Doktor Peter Graneau explaning his perfectly simple CofMomentum argument to a room full of stupid engineers and scientists who can't even make an apparatus that will  produce the numbers he wants to see.

Did I not mention earlier that I do not have my machine tools here with me at the present time? And that, contrary to rumors, I am not some "well funded" minion of the Great Oil Barons? And that I am involved in other things at present?

I am not interested in making your sausages for you, Tusk. If I had my tooling here and some spare time and money I might tinker around a bit with your ideas, stranger things have happened to me in the past. But right now I have to say that your attitude sucks, to use an Americanism. You fail to admit that you could be wrong or fooling yourself. You fail to see your own cognitive blindness... which is perfectly logical, nobody does _unless_ they are aware of these biases and blindnesses and continually guard against them.
Did you watch the Adam Curtis documentary, where an entire generation of cancer researchers found out that their entire 20-year careers were simply _wrong_, because they were studying HeLa cells instead of whatever it was they thought they were studying? And you expect me to believe your indignant protest that you could not ever be so foolish as to be _wrong_ about some subtle matter of kinematics. OK, fine.

Why don't you proceed then as I have suggested, because I can tell that you have no respect for me or for what I could tell you. You have already decided that you are right, so if I were to tell you otherwise you would only attack me. You can see this happening right now in two threads on this forum alone, and it does tend to wear a fellow down after a while. I don't know what is happening in Australia, but I know of at least three agencies here in the US and one in Canada that would be happy to build and test and support you IF you can get your foot in the door by showing at least a can of little Vienna sausages... so to speak. I've already given you contact info for one of them, so I'm sure you have sent off your info and will be getting an answer from them shortly.  Right?

[Tom Booth]

Hi, I think that this is a marvelous topic and addresses my own situation. Perhaps this might be considered a test case for the proposal.

How to not let some potential free energy device slip by or disappear unnoticed or unrecognized or untested.

I got an idea for a machine, or had a vision if you will, while working on improving the efficiency of a Stirling Engine for a moneyed acquaintance in California who wanted to build a Stirling Engine powered by a parabolic solar dish small enough for a back yard installation but powerful enough to run a typical household.

While running several possible designs in my head, visualizing them that is, I got one engine running (in a mental picture or visualization) that kept running after the sun went down. It was pulling heat from the air. That is, latent solar heat, or so it seemed. In other words, the parabolic dish could be dispensed with entirely.

I was surprised by this result. i.e. a "hot air engine" engine running on latent ambient heat, but as it kept running and I kept analyzing it, I could find no reason why it shouldn't work, though I knew this to be theoretically "impossible".

Anyway, I sent an email to my friend telling him about this. Previously he was contemplating flying me out to California to work in his shop or at his plant as he knew I knew a great deal about Stirling Engines, But when I told him what I came up with he ran it past his "experts" out there and they told him it was impossible and violated the second law and all that and the plans were canceled. (He is a government contractor and very well to do).

I got rather miffed at this off hand dismissal. I would have liked to work on such a project in a well equipped facility, which might have happened had I not mentioned just how efficient the engine I came up with was supposed to be (theoretically).

So I decided to just post the basic idea on the internet in various science and energy forums such as this one, thinking that perhaps someone else with a little money and/or interest in such a thing might get interested.

I though, like the starter of this thread that there should be SOMEWHERE out there where such an idea could be presented for serious consideration and possible funding or some such, or at least collaborative research towards testing out a new device or theory.

So, I would second the proposal for some such formal submission area. I'm not particularly interested in "protection" or patenting or fame and fortune. I would just like a chance to build some kind of prototype and see if it works.

Currently I'm growing garlic as a means of raising capital for the project. There are of course, many others in a similar boat I suppose.

What gets to me is that apparently some people are quite willing to throw away millions on some obvious fraud, or invest capital in an idea that has a patent with some hope of a return, but when an idea is fully disclosed and no patent is sought after, the inventor is not interested in money, it seems quite difficult to generate interest. I was contacted by one investment company guy who was talking about providing me with funding to the tune of a million or so until I told him that I had already disclosed the idea on the internet years ago so it probably wouldn't be patentable. Not to mention Stirling Engines are 1880's technology and I also found an Article by Tesla describing the basics of such an engine, which came as a surprise to me but was encouraging.

I have taken note of some of the suggestions here for possible help: Southwest Research Institute etc. and will look into that but again, I'm not interested in any "non-disclosure agreement" particularly or patent protection, I would just like a chance to share the idea and by one means or another see a prototype built to see if it can work. So I am very interested in this discussion and anxious to see how it pans out.

[audiomaker]

I kind of gave up Tom.

However, I did get some valuable insight from the thread, plus I got to coin some terms for myself:

1.  P.E.T  (Practical Energy Technology)  "I am working on a P.E.T. Project"

and

2.  "A committee of exceptional thinkers in chaos".  I just love that one

There is always a positive outcome.

[Tusk]

@ Tom Booth

Sounds promising Tom, Stirling's are a favourite of mine also. Why not drop the material into a new thread under the appropriate 'department' i.e. 'Mechanical' or wherever you think it should reside (be advised I'm no expert on forum etiquette). I look forward to taking a look myself.

@ TK

I am not interested in making your sausages for you, Tusk.

I do not require any.

You seem to be under some misconception regarding my motives and goals; probably based on your experience with other inventors who tentatively offer up their ideas, cap in hand, hoping for your stamp of approval. I am not an inventor nor do I seek approval - from you or anyone else. In order to advance my work it was necessary to 'invent' the device, which is in effect simply a piece of experimental apparatus. Inventors typically hold, or seek to hold patents, and generally aim to turn a profit from their work (and I have no issue with that btw). If the device can be called an invention then by all means tar me with that brush, but the association is entirely incidental.

There also appears to be some misunderstanding about the nature of a gift. If the community rejects it then so be it. If the hypothesis is thought to be invalid then delete the thread and all reference to it. I will be quite content to accept the general consensus and move on. But while the material is still under review it is my duty of care to ensure no false evidence or negative 'spin' go unanswered. Like someone leaving a box of toys at the doorstep of an orphanage I must stand guard until the box is in the hands of those for whom it was intended, else some thief in the night may spirit the gift away.

I did give your offer of a referral some consideration. Possibly you will interpret my decision not to accept as evidence of some other intention. Again I have no concerns regarding such perceptions, but since you were interested enough to make the offer I feel that common courtesy demands an explanation. As stated earlier I seek no approval and will be well satisfied to go to my grave having had no acceptance of the work. The only further insight I can give here is in the form of yet another metaphor. If you had stumbled by chance into the previously unknown ruins of an ancient civilisation hidden in the jungle, and seen there many wondrous things; and on returning home you were unable to convince anyone to mount a second expedition, you would nevertheless think yourself well served and rightly so.

I have no problem with you referring your associates to my PE thread, they appear to have a genuine interest in such matters and I would welcome their input, but do not require it.

I should add that there is no personal element to our discussion from this side at least. We all have our own agenda, mine is beyond the scope of this forum and yours is none of my business, although you have made it quite clear where you stand on OU. As for personal doubt, there is a time for it I agree. In the 'pee or get off the pot' world of aviation any trainee pilot will concede to harbouring an almost unhealthy amount of it; but any experienced pilot will tell you that once you have the bird strapped to your back the time for personal doubt has passed. I do doubt however that you would feel very safe if the next time you hopped a red-eye the guys up front were sweating with anxiety.

[TinselKoala]

Well, there is a lot there, and going from back to front: I don't fly commercially because I know too much. I hold FAA Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance Technician's licences, commercial pilot ASEL, flight instructor glider licenses (no longer currently flying though due to health issues) and I have over 2000 flight hours logged as PIC and as flight instructor. I've flown a low-performance sailplane, the SGS1-26, over 500 km in a single flight with no power except the aero tow to 1600 feet agl. I've been to over 30,000 feet altitude in sailplanes more times than I can count, and I used to give aerobatic demonstrations at air shows in a big two-seater glider called the IS28-B2 Lark, and I also gave flight instruction in aerobatics in that sailplane and other two seaters. I owned a 300-HP Cessna A188A ag-wagon converted to a glider towship and used it during the 1991 World Soaring Championships in Uvalde Tx, then sold it to a fellow that wanted to turn it into a Stuka dive-bomber replica.

So... unless I have access to a fully functioning set of controls I do not fly in heavier-than-air aircraft.

As to the rest... I am distracted right now because of this:
http://www.techcentral.ie/20420/apple-wireless-charging-system-revealed-in-patent-application (find the claims and read them)
and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw
(note the date)

You will forgive me, I hope, if I go and sulk for a while.

And of course there is this, for your amusement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw