The notoriously thin skin of "new" inventors or the way to announce a new device

[utilitarian]

@ utilitarian

In which way?

It's impossible to keep from saying "I've done it!" until you've done it multiple times and in a way that can be replicated independently?

Or impossible to disclose complete method because of patent application purposes?

Or impossible not to get offended by question and debate about the announced device?

Or perhaps another I've not mentioned here?

Which one would be impossible please?

The problem is not in your first step.  That just requires self control.  But that is not really relevant.

Look, what works, works.  No amount of skepticism or criticism or ridicule is going to keep a working device from working.  Even if the inventor is a complete jerk, self-confident to the Nth degree to the point where his own family cannot stand him, you cannot keep a good invention down.  All he has to do is demonstrate it and have it replicated.

There is no such thing as poor marketing of free energy.  It's like marketing pot or crack (not that I approve of using those!).  It simply does not need marketing.  People already stand ready to buy it.  No matter the reputation of the seller or how distasteful he or she is, free energy (like crack and pot) will find support and will sell, I guarantee it.

So why can't anyone meet Step 3 of your requirement.  Why is that impossible?  I do not know, but Step 3 sure seems to be a problem.

[Pirate88179]

The problem is not in your first step.  That just requires self control.  But that is not really relevant.

Look, what works, works.  No amount of skepticism or criticism or ridicule is going to keep a working device from working.  Even if the inventor is a complete jerk, self-confident to the Nth degree to the point where his own family cannot stand him, you cannot keep a good invention down.  All he has to do is demonstrate it and have it replicated.

There is no such thing as poor marketing of free energy.  It's like marketing pot or crack (not that I approve of using those!).  It simply does not need marketing.  People already stand ready to buy it.  No matter the reputation of the seller or how distasteful he or she is, free energy (like crack and pot) will find support and will sell, I guarantee it.

So why can't anyone meet Step 3 of your requirement.  Why is that impossible?  I do not know, but Step 3 sure seems to be a problem.

@ Exxcomm and Utilitarian:

I actually agree with both of you.  Ex, that was a well thought out post.  Yes, those of us researching the FE stuff for a while now have seen this same scenario time and again.  Why?  That is indeed the question.

I also agree with Utilitarian in that, the inventor can control how he approaches his release of a new idea or device but, if it is indeed "real" there is a ready market for replicators, investors, buyers, etc.

The problem I have is the "cry wolf" syndrome.  Replicators, investors, researches, etc. will eventually grow tired of these pronouncements.  I am a bit concerned that when someone actually "has done it" that it will get received through a filter of "scam" "fake" "hoax" etc.

Maybe Stefan should post some simple rules for a "discovery" posted here.  but then, maybe he already has.  Look at the rules for the Overunity Prize.  If someone's device does not qualify for that, or mostly qualify, then, what good is it?  I am speaking more here to the replication requirements than the power output.  Mylow's motor is a good example.  Even if real and fully verified and replicated, it still, to my understanding, would not qualify for the OU prize.  But, as we all know and probably can agree, it was not presented properly, and still hasn't in my opinion even though the latest video of it running was pretty good.

I always go back to myself in these situations....what would I do if I "had done it".  I would announce it here, provide the best video I am capable of making (which may not be too good if you have seen any of my videos) AND, I would welcome replications and provide highly detailed part numbers, descriptions, whatever it would take so someone else can jump up and say "Pirate has done it".  And even better, 3 or 4 or 30 people say the same thing after replication.  Only then would I breathe a sigh of relief to know that I was not reading the meters wrong, or, I made a math error.

Anyway, these dialogs are good.  Just don't expect this to stop the next "I have finally done it" from happening.  Great posts.

Bill

[exxcomm0n]

@ utilitarian

I think we're both saying the same thing.
If it does work the inventor can be King Jerk and get away with it, but it has to work for everyone else then too.

Too often an announced device cannot stand public scrutiny or replication and it does turn into the "cry wolf" situation that Pirate brings up and so might discourage public belief in something that does work, because of so many that haven't.

One the other hand I'm not as worried about the marketing as I am the building and dissemination of the actual device. It has to be built (and preferably mass producible) to be marketed and that is the part where it all seems to fall apart unfortunately.

Your assessment of step 3 seems to mirror my experience too.

@ Pirate

Your discovery procedure sounds like a good plan man, and thanks.

[Paul-R]

Why is it that any new inventor announcement that comes under major scrutiny or publicity seems to encounter a situation where there is an affront to their intelligence, an outside influence (MIB), or "lights are too bright and hot", etc. that causes this person(s) to "take their toys and 'go home' ", usually to never be heard from....

They go to another forum.