The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[shruggedatlas]

That's not fair, I asked you a question first.

Fair enough.  To answer your question, if the effort is truly open source and collaborative, publishing experimental proof of an anomaly would get others to replicate.  Anyone performing the experiments, including scientists and other mainstream experts, could only aid in the cause through comments and suggestions for improvement.

If the inventor is more interested in patenting and then exploiting the invention, then of course it is better to keep things under wraps, but I do not think we are talking about that.

[Liberty]

That's not fair, I asked you a question first.

Fair enough.  To answer your question, if the effort is truly open source and collaborative, publishing experimental proof of an anomaly would get others to replicate.  Anyone performing the experiments, including scientists and other mainstream experts, could only aid in the cause through comments and suggestions for improvement.

If the inventor is more interested in patenting and then exploiting the invention, then of course it is better to keep things under wraps, but I do not think we are talking about that.

I have kept certain aspects of the devices under wraps that I want to carry forward and further develop.  I have released videos of some experimental motors at my web site, that you are welcome to watch.  (The devices in the videos use neo magnets in the stator and rotor, there are no coils directly in the motor but the rotor turns from the interaction of permanent magnetic fields only).  I will probably not further develop the video devices, but I am focused on a new non-powered version at this time.  This will be a new breed of motor from previous versions and is kept under wraps.  Also a power assisted version that will be of a very high electrical efficiency nature, that has a similar design to the non-powered version.  It is described in general terms at my web site. 

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

It is interesting to note how Edward Leedskalnin keeps cropping up in this thread. He is an excellent example of what I am talking about here, though no-one has mentioned that aspect yet.

When one analyses Ed's writings it becomes obvious that he was not THINKING in English. His writings are a TRANSLATION!

I do not know in what language Ed thoight. Apart from standard Latvian, which is natively spoken by only 60% of the population, there are 3 dialects in common use see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_language for further detail.

It is my contention that the use of one of these languages led Ed's thinking in this unconventional direction.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Hans von Lieven

[Pirate88179]

Hans:

This also would apply to Tesla would it not?  Language for them was not a problem, or so it seems.  I have studied Ed's writings and his English was pretty good.  But, obviously, it was not his first language so we can only speculate what language his "thoughts" were in.  This is a great topic.

Bill

[Koen1]

Bill (&Hans ), reading Teslas papers and patents I have noticed that his
use of English seems quite similar to the quaint style of English some
old Dutch and German physicists use(d) around that time, about the
first part of the 20th century. And in fact, a few old Dutch electrophysics books
I have read clearly showed certain terminology that was nearly identical to
that used in Germany, whereas some other terminology was clearly literally
translated from English. This makes for some curious terms and formulations,
which become much more clear when you read about the same subject
in those other languages, as some things are apparently translated literally
and others figuratively unsing different words.
The closer you get to the "modern" post-1950s era, the more you see that
type of "international language jumble" turn into a more standardised
terminology with increasing adoption of English terminology.

Now it may just be that I have an interest in linguistics, combined with the fact
that Holland is a small country in between Britain, Germany and France,
so we've traditionally had to learn to speak and understand at least a little of
those languages in order to keep trade going, we have a lot of loan words from
those languages, and nowadays we get them in school, so I may just have
a slightly different take on language elements, differences, and application
than many other people do who don't share that situation...

When I read Teslas writings, it is clear that he sometimes "thinks in" a slightly
different way which is, in my opinion, clearly due to certain linguistic influences
that can probably be traced down to his slavic mother tongue in which such
formulations are apparently more common (I have been told by an ex-Yugoslavian).
I like to recognise that as the same tendency I mentioned in regard to the old
Dutch physics books: the tendency to unintentionally translate terminology
in literal formulation in some cases and in figurative formulation in others,
resulting in a text in english that reads a bit "funny" and needs one to imagine
what is described before the exact meaning of the formulation sinks in fully.
Certain other elements or formulations are so similar to the old literal-ish
style of those old books I mentioned that the author and Tesla cound almost have taken
the same English course.

Perhaps that is why I do not see the difference in language as such a big problem?
I think it's about the actual knowledge, and that's a layer 'behind' the language,
so to speak. Language is only a tool to convey this knowledge, as is imagery.
Both can be very usefull to explain things and to help people grasp ideas and concepts,
but if incorrectly applied they can be as confusing as they can be helpfull.
And yes, to some degree the similarities in the thought structures and the language
in which these structures were originally learnt does play a role, but when the person
in question has also learnt to work with different linguistic systems and incorporate
the information learnt in those different languages into one coherent system of
mental constructs, most of the the linguistic and interpretational differences disappear
as both the conceptualisation as the formulation in different languages are under
cognitive control of the person. I think. Sort of. Well it remains difficult in any language
to express exactly what you mean, which is a problem with language as such and
not of different languages; the more complex the idea you are trying to convey,
the more words we need.

But hey, what do you want...
... it remains difficult to express complex logical constructs in a language that
originally evolved to convey animosity to the monkeys in the next tree.