The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tom Booth]

@ Tom Booth

There appears to be something amiss with the PM system. Following on from our friendly chat here I received a PM with your name on it (although that may be an error) with a hostile and interrogative 'spin' reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Since you have been so clearly open and fair minded during the course of this thread I can only presume a failure during data transfer. Probably your message crossed over with another which somehow changed the content from intelligent discussion to malignant invective. Perhaps we should proceed out here in the open to avoid further confusion; the idea does have an appealing honesty about it.

Hmmm...

I did reply to your PM, then went over to read your thread. I did check my "Save to Sent Folder" when I responded but now I find nothing in my sent folder.

I don't recall saying anything that should be interpreted as "malignant invective". I asked some honest questions about your device, input, power source etc. Reading your thread answered some of those questions but not all.

Towards the end I think I said something along the lines of how I was more interested in what sort of madness you were suffering from, meant in a friendly spirit, as I stated, I seem to be in the same boat. Certain that there is some significance and potential in my own engine and genuinely perplexed as to why I haven't been able to attract more serious interest.

At any rate, I don't think I said anything I would not have said here in the open, though I can see how some of my remarks might have been taken the wrong way.

Certainly you are mad I think. But so am I. So was Einstein, Tesla, da Vinci,...

So, if there is something you feel is truly "malignant", "hostile", or reminiscent of the Inquisition there feel free to reproduce it here as I seem to have lost my copy.

I don't think asking questions about what your actual data or readings were, power source, input voltage etc. is  "a hostile and interrogative 'spin' reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition".

If you are looking for replication of your device or research findings, which seems to be the case, these seem to me to be basic necessary questions.

I apologize in that, as I said, at the time I read the PM I had not yet read your thread where graphs and readings and such were posted, and some of those questions were answered. As yet however I'm still a long way from knowing enough to be able to reproduce your experiments or your prototype engine so you might expect many more such questions in the future if you are really looking to have your data independently verified and tested.

[Tom Booth]

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

I can't say that I understood what was going on in your YouTube video there, but I guess it has something to do with, or is related to the Apple patent. Are you saying what you were demonstrating is "Prior Art"?

Isn't this wireless transmission of power what Tesla was proposing or doing on a much grander scale and which I've had some in other forums tell me is a reason for dismissing Tesla as a crackpot because he thought it was possible to transmit power wirelessly?

I'm impressed by your Stirling Engine build. Haven't seen anything quite like it in an LTD engine before.

This may be the wrong place to ask questions or get your opinion on Tesla's heat engine project or theories about heat, But have you read his article regarding his "self acting" heat engine?

I'd be very interested in getting your take on his project, (apparently never completed due in part to the burning of his work shop and other priorities.)

Could, as he imagined, a heat engine run on ambient heat for the reason he stated?

To paraphrase, he believed heat, in flowing towards a heat sink in the course of passing through a heat engine the heat is intercepted and converted into other forms of energy so that little heat ever actually reaches the sink. Given that, once started, there would be little heat to remove so as to maintain the "cold hole". He reasoned that if this is the case, a heat engine, once started, should be able to maintain its own sink and thus run indefinitely on the heat flowing in from ambient. Many of his inventions were actually spin offs from this pursuit which he considered an "Ideal" method for obtaining motive power from the ambient medium.

Obviously you are very knowledgeable (in general) and have practical experience in building heat engines which is why I ask.

[Tusk]

@ Tom Booth

No harm done. As I said, crossed wires. But perhaps things will go more smoothly if we proceed one question at a time; since nobody seems to understand even one of my answers I would prefer the luxury of tackling them in bite sized portions, and we can know our position by where we find ourselves lost.

Also I am definitely not 'mad'; and I have the release papers to prove it.

I will admit to a certain unexpected effect resulting from constant repetition of the main elements of the material, apparently to no avail - I would describe it as somewhat tiresome. I should have made a rule from the very beginning not to answer any questions (other than device specifications) until a replication of the device was completed, since the effects themselves are apparently in doubt (I had not foreseen this form of skepticism). I am being constantly 'frisked' so to speak, each time I enter or exit the building. Not a pleasant experience for someone with an honest disposition. There's a tip for audiomaker - 'one time only' frisking on the way in, by someone with a light touch and eyes like a hawk.

[audiomaker]

Um, yeah, I guess. sort of. But here is my question or perhaps paradox.

Assume a guy has a REAL device.

What is the intent of the "investigating team" ? Really ?

Say I'm part of that team just for arguments sake. What am I looking for or what is this team really looking for ?

Something to invest in ?

In that case it would be in our best interest as potential investors that there be patents, protection, iron clad secrecy, non disclosure agreements etc. the whole nine yards.

Say the inventor is of the same general mind set. He wants to patent his device. He hopes to hit it big time, but realistically, can a bunch of guys with names like audiomaker (not to get personal) from some internet message board be trusted ?

If you were the inventor, would you trust US ? I think not. The whole deal would have to be iron clad and real and legal with lawyers and written signed documentation. Can a "team" of so-called or self proclaimed "experts" make any such guarantees to an inventor ?

As far as I can see there is no real possibility of any such thing happening.

First of all, from an inventors perspective, what is OUR credibility ? Who am I addressing in here ? Really. I have no clue. How is this "team" of "experts" from this internet message board supposed to establish any kind of credibility ?

But, lets just say all that is really possible somehow. Where does that leave the so called "puritan"?

He's left high and dry while the "team" is off chasing some hair brained shyster with a get rich scheme in hand looking for the big payoff.

There is no money in the puritan. He has a rough time just trying to give his idea away to a world full of greed and self interest. All that really seems to mater is not does it work but is the stock ticker going up or down. You can make a million dollars on a fraud if enough people THINK it MIGHT work as long as you get out before the fraud is revealed but then who cares, you can laugh all the way to the bank. That seems to be the current trend unfortunately.

There are people who...now, or in the future wish to get exposure and validation for their projects.

No tool can possibly cover every situation, inventor, or device.  There is every possibility that some real device exists that we will never see... investigation team or not... because the inventor will never release it based on their own beliefs, paranoia, self interest, or whatever else.   That is beyond the scope of any tool except for maybe a psychic.

There are also those who believe that the traditional route of getting a patent is unsuitable or non-viable.  For them, public exposure without a patent is the safest way to obtain security, and perhaps...a patent.

There are those who don't care about patents, or money.  They just want exposure (for their own safety and the betterment of the planet).

...and lastly, there are those who might not even know what they have, or why it is doing what it is, so just want an explanation.


@TK. Yes, I can hear you out there.  I see your point, but you don't need to rub it in.

[evolvingape]

If you did have a team of knowledgeable experts, with suitable funding to investigate "promising devices", your finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.

There are far more laymen on these forums than there are professionals with knowledge, experience  and skill sets developed over a significant time period. 62281 members at present and growing rapidly, many of these laymen freely admit that they do not have the knowledge or experience to be able to accurately assess a device, however that does not stop them having an equal vote with those who do.

I see what your game is now Tusk, taking partial statements out of context and attempting to use them as a weapon against me. The full statements are above, complete with time and date stamps, which you removed when you edited out the context!

I owe you no retraction, or apology.

When it comes to poor judgement you take the cake, I have not forgotten your quickly ditched thought experiment based upon your device where it was pointed out to you that you are analysing your systems components in isolation, an error. You have applied the same error in the analysis of your device. If you measure your output energy and compare it to your input energy your "anomaly" will disappear, i bet ya!

As you have brought up the subject of poor judgement, remember this: ?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/16/dont-worry-the-laws-of-physics-are-safe-new-research-suggests-faster-than-light-measurements-an-error/

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/faster-than-light-neutrino-measurement-has-two-possible-errors.html

Those physicists should have known better than to announce results of such significance without ruling out all possible causes for erroneous measurements, first. You on the other hand Tusk, think nothing of announcing an easily verifiable OU result and a potential violation of Newton's Laws, without even measuring the output energy of your device. The normal protocol is a hasty retraction, apology for your poor judgement and go sit quietly in the corner until everyone forgets you have not got the slightest idea what you are doing!