flux laminator

[gaby de wilde]

Would I be of more help if I told you that all your ideas have no flaws and should not be questioned?

I would want you to cooperate with me so that we can build free energy machines. Then you would be the most of help. Ideas should be expanded upon. Please use the other half of your brain. 

I try to explain my thoughts on the topic for a whole year but I have not found a good way to get my ideas across to anyone. I'm not the one doing something wrong here. I'm about as stubborn and in the face as a person can get.

IMHO the perpetual motion device seems to be the inferior discovery in this.

In this very~same sentence I prove your ideas really are fantastic xpenzif.  Just build upon them rather then take them apart yourself. In this topic you should try to figure out why I think the fluxlaminator is an interesting device to study.  There is no point for me to try to advance my hypothesis in public if the replies are non constructive. but but but but .. as you can see I have fully engaged in this kind of pointless disclosure of my thoughts. Not so much to advance my theory but more to review the review process. If it was just me there would be nothing wrong. The thing is, the non constructive replies make it uninteresting for any researcher or inventor to share anything. 99% doesn't have a clue how brilliant their thoughts are. Your plan to tell people their idea has no flaws would be quite motivating. The researcher's effort depends fully on his or her motivation. Where the motivation comes from isn't important. You are free to motivate them as much as you like actually. This would actually work. You can stop questioning this though, there need not be found any flaws. 

You have constructed a prophetic self fulfillment closed loop assembly.

All you have to do is chant the mantra and it will work.

You are a genius!

[gaby de wilde]

Would I be of more help if I told you that all your ideas have no flaws and should not be questioned?

I would want you to cooperate with me so that we can build free energy machines. Then you would be the most of help. Ideas should be expanded upon. Please use the other half of your brain. 

I try to explain my thoughts on the topic for a whole year but I have not found a good way to get my ideas across to anyone. I'm not the one doing something wrong here. I'm about as stubborn and in the face as a person can get.

IMHO the perpetual motion device seems to be the inferior discovery in this.

In this very~same sentence I prove your ideas really are fantastic xpenzif.  Just build upon them rather then take them apart yourself. In this topic you should try to figure out why I think the fluxlaminator is an interesting device to study.  There is no point for me to try to advance my hypothesis in public if the replies are non constructive. but but but but .. as you can see I have fully engaged in this kind of pointless disclosure of my thoughts. Not so much to advance my theory but more to review the review process. If it was just me there would be nothing wrong. The thing is, the non constructive replies make it uninteresting for any researcher or inventor to share anything. 99% doesn't have a clue how brilliant their thoughts are. Your plan to tell people their idea has no flaws would be quite motivating. The researcher's effort depends fully on his or her motivation. Where the motivation comes from isn't important. You are free to motivate them as much as you like actually. This would actually work. You can stop questioning this though, there need not be found any flaws. 

You have constructed a prophetic self fulfillment closed loop assembly.

All you have to do is chant the mantra and it will work.

You are a genius!

[xpenzif]

There need not be found any flaws?
If I see a flawed design I will try to pinpoint the problem. This(hopefully) brings the problem to the creator's attention. The creator can then try to modify the design to avoid the problem, or he can call my findings "non constructive," ignore any comments that disagree with his design, and quite possibly build it, only to find out I was right.

As far as advancing your hypothesis in public, I see no problem with it. Quite often in research you end up proving your hypothesis wrong.

Anyways, if I told you your idea has no flaws I would be lying to you, and thus being non-constructive.

[gaby de wilde]

There need not be found any flaws?
If I see a flawed design I will try to pinpoint the problem.

It works the other way around. When you see any design then you start looking for things wrong with it. Of, course you are going to find things that are wrong if that is what you are looking for. Imagine what happens if you are only interested in finding things wrong about something? What happens if this is what the effort goes towards?  It's awfully boring to be at the receiving end of such. It's unprofessional enough to fear it.

This(hopefully) brings the problem to the creator's attention.

The only problem I can think of is all of us being dead in 10 years if we don't find an alternative fuel source,  petroleum is a completely unworkable tech. I figure we don't need additional imaginary problems, we need your solutions.

If you don't want to be dishonest you will need to grant this hypothetical device a minimal chance to work exactly as described until you understand how it exactly works. Then after that we look for ways to make it work better together. Imagine what happens if you would in stead limit your effort to negative comments on the constructive efforts of others, your effort would work against your own goals. Not saying you are; any effort towards trying to shoot holes in stuff will accomplish just that and only that.  You would do much better if you would start searching for ways to improve a concept specially when it doesn't work. You will succeed at that just as easy as looking for problems. Find 1 "problem" at a time then you search for the answer yourself. The contrast between both aproaches should be very obvious, just stay focused on the end results.

You don't want to take the energy problem seriously until you personally suffer right? But are you not suffering already? I thought nature had warned us more then enough by now? We are in deep shit you know? And we cant really expect the rest of mankind to do anything sensible about it now can we? They pretty much gave up already? ha-ha?

The creator can then try to modify the design to avoid the problem,

I think you don't understand the device? Right? Until you and me have figured out a way to advance this it's just not a time for you to question it. I'm not saying you are not capable of finding 100 000 things wrong with everything you see. Heck, you can go with the sticky point stories, equilibriums, energy conservatoriums, noethren's thoerems. oh, there are so much "good excuses" for not making basic effort of understanding the topic. My personal favorite is calling the researcher a crackpot. It's one thing to think it but to actually find it worth to mention how one assumed something cant  work is just rude? The only result of such approach will be irritation.  Here science appears all to happy to leave all hope for mankind with the creators of half baked inventions while making life impossible for them amoung other factors on the long list of artifical anoyances. I really think that if one agues that blue is a pretty color then there must be other colors that are less pretty as blue. If my contraption ish no good, it's reasonable to ask in favor of what? Oil? Prayer perhaps? The after life? haha?

or he can call my findings "non constructive," ignore any comments that disagree with his design, and quite possibly build it, only to find out I was right.

It's cool for you to question the workings when you think you understand what I'm on about.

As far as advancing your hypothesis in public, I see no problem with it. Quite often in research you end up proving your hypothesis wrong.

You don't see anything wrong with the "What ever it is it's probably nothing" approach?  Peeps assume everything is probably nothing. To a very high degree it instantly becomes so. Why bother when it's nothing right? i sure wouldn't?? lol???

Anyways, if I told you your idea has no flaws I would be lying to you, and thus being non-constructive.

But just assuming flaws is also equal to lying. If you claim to have found a flaw you should describe it. Until you describe such with enough detail there are non. You are free to tell me the truth the way you observe it. So far: no flaws dectected.

overunity.com is like the top research website on the web, this obviously makes you the top researcher on this mud ball. This in it's turn means the whole world is depending on you to build them free energy machines. O well... you already know this of course, you just don't want to think about it. But lets not see you give up on us just jet mkay?

ok, lets see you try focus for a moment....

you are here to find construction drawings for free energy devices (right?)

Well ok....

Q1) What does this specific inventor claim the fluxlaminator to be capable of?

Q2) How does this specific fluxlaminator device work?

Supply me with the information I need to clarify my explanation please.

Here are some links. It's my best guess for now.

PM FLUX SWITCH
ABSTRACT
Method of preventing magnetic flux from extending into a target material.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text?pm-flux-switch

3 POINT INTERACTION
ABSTRACT
Unleash complimentary reactions utilizing the subtraction of contradicting actions.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/?3-point-interaction

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary
Wesley Gary

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching
Flux Switching

[xpenzif]

Yeah. You're right. Your device is flawless. You solved the elusive alternative fuel source. You saved the world. Good work gaby de wilde. Build it so we can all benefit.