The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[Pirate88179]

@ All:

OK, let me take a different approach to what I believe Hans's point was in starting this topic.  Actually, I think a good many of us have proved his point when I look at some of the posts here.

I think it is a combination of several things, language limitations, dogma, and the universal acceptance of a "premise" that may or may not be true.

If a universally accepted premise states that "X" is not possible, only "kooks" would even dream about attempting "X".

"Heavier than air vehicles will never fly" was universally accepted by "experts" in the aerodynamics field until 2 kooks took it upon themselves to see beyond that premise.  They took a lot of abuse from these experts until they succeeded, and then, they became the experts.

I am, and always have been, a student of this type of history.  I have even had several instances in my own life's experiences that proved that absolutes are not always absolute.  To this day, red flags appear in my mind when I see words like: always, never, can't, impossible, etc.

Why I am attempting to say is that thinking "outside the box" has been the foundation for a lot of major advances in our technology.  I believe, and possibly wrongly so, what Hans may be referring to is who decided what the box was in the first place?  How were the parameters of the box defined?  And with what language?  If another either more advanced, or less advanced society defined the box's parameters, what would the box now look like?  How would this affect that society's future advancements in a particular field?

I think discussions like this topic are an important chance for us to examine our own approach, a good look in the mirror as it were, to see if we are not guilty of some of the same behavior that held back major advances in the past.

Hans, if I am totally off the mark here, I am sorry.  Feel free to say so.  It will not be the first time I have not been correct.  I don't see this topic as a battle between thinkers and experimenters, or dreamers and engineers.  I believe that a dialog such as this, could be the beginning of the exact type of symbiosis required for our desired progress.

Bill

[Localjoe]

Im sorry guys pease watch this .. i had never saw this one and well its about the funniest ive ever seen.                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc
                                                                                                                                                                as well a friend sent me this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3oHpup-pk

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Bill.

You are right in the money Bill. Before you can break out of the box you must first know that the box is there and that you are in it. Next you must define the box and it's borders. Then, and only then do you stand a real chance to break out.

This feeble attempt of ours here is trying to do just that.

That does not mean one cannot get a glimpse outside the box without this, many people have achieved it, by luck, good management or sheer genius, who knows? But these are exceptions.

My hope is that by mapping out the restraints we can come up with a way that will enable a mass breakout instead of individual forays.

Hans von Lieven

[resonanceman]

Bill

I  agree  with all that  you said in general

However  I don't think  that    you have got to  the bottom of it .

I do  agree that   problems  with language  is a big problem  but   it is only  a bump in the road ......it is something that we will get past  each time  it pops  up .........if  we keep  trying .


The problem as I see it is that it has been actively  taught in all of our schools for  at lest a couple hundred years now  that  OU is just not possable .

Even though  we  are working at   achieving  OU .......we still tend to believe what we have been taught .

When  Edison  invented the  incandesent light bulb  he tried over  2000  different  materials for the  filiment before  he   tried tungstan . .........   THAT is BELIEF .

Because  we tend to not believe   we give up at the  first sign  of  failure .
An  example ......... quite a few   have tried  magnetic motors here . 
Our  schools  teach us  little or nothing   of practical use  about  how magnets interact  .........the learning curve it  steep .So   we come up  with  a new rule ........  ALL MAGNET MOTORS TEND TO  DEMAGNATISE  THE MAGNETS .
As far  as I know ......this 'law " was  created here ,  and it is just  as  good at limiting  people  from looking deeper into   what is really going on as the laws of thermodynamics .
The law of gravity is a real and practical law .........yet  butterflys can fly .........airplains can fly ........we can  launch   rockets into space .........and all this time  the law of gravity is working . 
All " laws"  have loopholes .   Why   do  magnetic  motors tend to demagnitise   the magnets?  is anyone  asking that question ?
Has anyone  noticed that  aluminum  is  used for almost  all  magnetic motors?   
Aluminum is  para magnetic .......... in  rapidly  changing magnetic fields   it  develops a very strong  magnetic  field .......could   part of the problem  be wrong   choice of materiels?

If we are going to find anything of value as far as energy  goes we are going to have to do more than just scratch  the surface and  wait for the answer to fall in our laps .

Part  of  what our schools have  taught us is  disinformation  designed  to keep us from  finding the  truth .
We will not  know  for sure  what is  disinformation and what is now  until we test  our theorys  ourselves .

The fact that we fail  the first  time may or may not mean  that  we are wrong .......it may mean that we made a mistake  somewhere .   Or  just don't  understand enough  of what it going on .

We also have to assume that the  people that would  loose the most  if we  come up  with  a new  source of energy  probably  have somone here  to  guide  us in the wrong  direction  ......  If  you  were making  millions  or more a year   would  you let someone  take it  way   without a fight?

The  answers we are looking for  are out there .........and they will be in the details .
We are not likely  to find  OU in killowats ..... we  will more likely find it in milliwatts .......and learn to  enhance  the prosess  to get more power . 

In my  opinion one of the errors  that is often made here is trying to jump to the end of the game .......as was done with the  TPU ......  we  were trying to reproduce  the  end result  of  years of research  without   understanding the research ..... it just ain't  going to work that way .


In my opinion  OU  will  be found  in little steps .......one step at a time ...... but  hundreds  of people   taking  hundreds of steps in hundreds of directions  very quickly becomes  unstopable  ................


Keep on  building  , testing  and sharing  .



gary

[resonanceman]

My hope is that by mapping out the restraints we can come up with a way that will enable a mass breakout instead of individual forays.

Hans

I don't  think  that it is possible  to have  a mass break out .......
Who would  organize it  ......who would lead ?

If you  were  a  leader in a 3rd  world nation that had little  income other than oil  would you allow   ANY  one  group  to take away  your nations income ?   Or would  you hire someone to throw a wrench into the works?

We  have to assume that part of the reason  that  we have failed to achieve results is that we have  been  " professionaly " misguided

Assuming I am right about   there being  someone  here  with the hidden intent of  throwing us off the  trail   ..... we have to keep an open mind about everything .
If   you  were  being paid  to keep us   from finding the truth  woudn't  you want  to be in on  the  organization of this breakout?
Wasn't it  Stalan  that said . " the  best way to control the resistance is to lead  it yourself ."

I think  we have been well controlled  so far .


gary