Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".

But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)
....................................................................................
I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:

- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent

Greetings, Conrad

Having said all that, lets dig in a bit deeper  ( I agree that the world isn't perfect, and we do not always get our own way). 

So what do YOU want out of any exchange in this forum ?
    1.. A workable blueprint explained by the designer/inventor ?
    2.. Some knowledge that can possibly advance your own inventory of idea's
    3.. Or something else ......?

With reference to required info that needs to be supplied by the inventor,
As an example, lets focus on Renato Ribeiro, as an inventor (his profession), he made available publicly the most comprehensive documentation (drawing and explanatory text in the patent) and photo's of his invention on the website (the piece lacking as I read is the working video).  It is rare to have this much information available on a new invention.

Sure Ribeiro makes some (extra-ordinary) claims in his patent application.  He described the working principle of his invention.
   1.. Did he explain his idea well enough ?  If no, what did he garble?
   2.. Is he wrong?  meaning did he made assumptions that are not possible ?  If yes what and why are they not possible?
   3.. Is his patent application useless (do you think you should tell him not to proceed and waste his money) ?

Would all this satisfy the need for information discussed in this forum, I would assume it does.  Although I still see a lot of objections and denunciations.  Is there still something lacking ?.
If the answer is yes, please tell me, what is it !.  So we can utilize this forum beneficially !
Please enlighten me.

Regards, Red

[conradelektro]

Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.

I have not received enough hints. So be it.

I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.

I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.

Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.

That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).

Greetings, Conrad

[Red_Sunset]

Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.
I have not received enough hints. So be it.
I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.
I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.
Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.
That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).
Greetings, Conrad 

Hi Conrad,   
I am sorry you feel this way, you seem to be limiting your world by your own choice and winning or loosing is not the point here.
I get the feeling that you need to "break a leg" over it before you consider it proof.  Sometimes it is only a hint that eventually leads to the proof.

The good hint (as you call it) is a plain explanation in the patent, section [0046], I made reference to this in a previous posting.

It says the following.
[0046] The force of gravity exerted over the weight is trans
ferred to the assembly through the central shaft. This shaft,
depending on where the locks are exercising the support, if
they are on the positive or neutral arms and when, transfer
more or less force to the blue bar. This in turn transfers the
force to the crankshaft arm that is transferred to the crankshaft
where the torque is applied.

What is being said is, that the weight force to the blue bar is not the same all the time. It is more clear further in the patent, that there are two forces, a downward weight force and a lever force. Both aiding the rotation of the crankshaft.
I would guess that the effect of this additional lever energy quantity is relatively small (** due to the effect of initially opposing the direction of rotation and not optimum force angles).

I would guess this the reason for the additional changes seen in the pictures (with a balanced telescopic weight lever) and the reason it was not envisaged or documented in the patent.
Is this the proof you need ?, that depends on your own verification requirement, theoretical, practical or otherwise. Your choice.
But please do not say, he doesn't proof his claim.  He does says he verified this force effect and used it as the fundamental principle of his invention, what more can you expect from the inventor at this point.  In this case, where do you want to draw the line of "no proof to proof". We surely can put a certain amount of trust in his word, reputation...ect

In the end, the absolute proof lies with you, (at least in this type of circumstance)  in the same way you verified in the class lab what was said in the theory class, peer verified.  This I would call "indisputable practical proof" .  A lot lies in the understanding of proof and the reasons why to want a specific level of authentication.  "Absolute indisputable proof" comes for me toward the end of the proof process. There are many steps in between.

I hope this helps
Regards, Red

This post last modification was 8 Dec 13  @ 7:07AM   OU-server time

[Grimer]

Well said, Red Sunset.

[Poit]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...

in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.

Poit