Hi all,
A very long time ago (over 30 years), I set out in a rather generic fashion to create "Free Energy". I use the term "generic" as I took the road many others here have...
I observed the repelling force of some cheap magnets and decided to make them go in a circle on a wheel (I used a record turntable as my foundation).
Soon after, I formulated in my head (as many children have), that you can simply hook up a generator to a motor and complete the loop by hooking the motor to the input of the generator.
Both of these seemingly logical (and unsuccessful) childhood approaches to "Free Energy" are the seeds of obsession, and that obsession has lasted most of my life.
Most of the people here will have a similar story.... some event, or realization that somehow this is possible. Be it making something spin indefinitely using only the force of the components of the device, or creating a zero-load generator, or grabbing energy from thin air... There are a lot of people who think about this, many who make experiments, and a fair amount of people who actually try to build devices that produce whatever our personal definitions of "Free Energy", or "OverUnity" happen to be.
The internet have given us all an acute awareness that no individual is alone in this search.
My question though is multi-part.
1. Based on how many devices we see "working" even on YouTube, does anyone believe that all of these are hoaxes, or asked in reverse "Does anyone believe "Free Energy" isn't being achieved by at least one, if not several people or groups of people?
2. Does anyone believe that people build these elaborate (and obviously expensive) machines because they are bored and desire to create a hoax?
3. If any of these machines are actually real, why would one continue working on "their" version instead of re-dedicating their obsession to helping to get that device 100% verified and in the public eye?
My observation is that someone will post a link to a YouTube video of some device operating and the group (err...us) will go "Well that's similar to MrX's device", or "Tesla had one in 1860" or some other form of analyzing it's viability. It's WORKING right?
These video's get passed over by us like they are whims of fantasy, and by some cosmic irony... by the group who's primary obsession is to believe they are entirely possible.
It's like building a model airplane is the goal, then you see 10 video's of people flying their model airplanes around and go "that's neat....ok...back to work on mine". Why?
I am somewhat perplexed by this and I would be really appreciative if the members of the board could "get me in the loop" as to the current status of alternative energy.
All the Best
My opinions, from the "skeptic's corner"....:
1. I don't believe I have ever seen a "free energy" or "overunity" device demonstrated on the internet. I have seen lots of honest mistakes, I have seen people deluding themselves and others, I have seen some hoaxes, I have seen one or two genuine frauds or attempts to defraud and I have seen lots of people trying hard to develop their ideas into improved working models and failing and finally fading away.
2. Yes, I believe that is the case. Some do.
3. Exactly. They don't do that, so their devices aren't real. Or the other way around: they try to do that, but can't, because their devices aren't real.
I don't quite get your model airplane analogy. Model airplanes work, the principles are understood, and there is plenty of room for your own unique design that will probably work too if you apply the understood principles. You see a bunch of people flying theirs around and you are _encouraged_ in your own work and will see your tail-in-front, wingflapping aerodyne flying around someday too. At least you know that it is possible and if it doesn't fly you have misapplied some principle or neglected something important.
Free energy devices aren't like that. For many people they are expressions of a vision or a dream and have the force, for that person, of Divine Revelation. So they are absolutely sure that their scheme, their ideas, will work, and when they build a machine that doesn't work they blame the machine not the idea. We, looking at all this from our own obsessions and our own filtered viewpoint, say....well, Tesla did that, or whatever.... and we go back to our own obsessions just as you say.
Bottom line: In my opinion nobody who has claimed to present an OU device on YouTube has actually proven their case, and in my certain knowledge, some of those claimants -- some of the ones who claim actual working devices that are overunity -- are hoaxers, frauds, liars, or deluded and/or not knowledgeable about the basics of their own subject.
Why are we here? Various reasons.... some are acting out their visions, some their obsessions, some understand that "big science" has its own priorities and might not be working on things that are right "under its nose"... and some understand that there is a vast "Wheelwork of Nature" in fact all around us, loaded with energy... not free, not created from nothing, but sort of like a deep underground water table, from which all our real, usable energy springs. It's my personal fantastic delusion that someday, someone tinkering around with coils and wires and sparks and such will accidentally on purpose manage to hook into that Wheelwork of Nature, and then we'll have attained a primary goal, an important one that might change everything.
By insisting that claims be supported with factual evidence, by insisting that real data be gathered correctly, and by insisting on proper analysis of data, I personally think that I might be helping people... some people..... to avoid wasting time by going down dead ends that are known from the start, or going down paths that are only circles leading back to the beginning again. And every once in a while I come across a promising idea with people doing good work that I can help to perform or understand, or I come upon a ridiculous deluded idea and a real fraudster, and that's when it gets the most interesting for me.
Thank you TinselKoala for that very eloquent and genuine reply. I bet it can be hard to live in the "skeptics corner" on a board such as this.
So your opinion is that 100% of the videos showing machines that seem to be running in a closed loop, and in some cases powering other devices (ie...light bulbs) are frauds, hoaxes, or mistakes.
That's quite interesting to me, and the fact that you are the first responder to this thread is also interesting, as many who likely don't share your view have read my question without responding.
I have seen quite a few... dozens or more maybe... devices that appear to be achieving closed loop motion or the generation of electricity on the internet. The quantity of those on YouTube alone is what prompted me to ask the question this thread is based on. In fact, some of those are even "pinned" on this board. It is those numbers that made me choose the name of the title. The title is a question of probability.
While I don't live in "Skeptic's Corner" myself, I am trying to view this topic without bias, and I must say that these appear to be some very awkward attempts at hoaxes or frauds if that is the case, and so many of them.
As I write this, it reminds me of UFO sightings. There have been so many and the "witnesses" are so diverse, and often appear to have no motive to lie. While taking nothing more than their word, a 60 year old policeman standing next to an out of town driver he was giving a ticket to (ie...had never met before), both claiming what they had seen together, and with no apparent motive to lie.
It's quite convincing.
Something else I'd like to state while I'm here...
I was a sound recordist for the film industry for well over a decade. I recorded the voice of the actors during filming. This job meant I had headphones on for close to 10hrs/day listening to the actors while filming, the actors when not filming, and the crew while setting up the shot. Often I was in a separate room "off set" so I had no visual reference.
A side effect of that profession was that I unknowingly became very good at hearing when someone was acting. Acting is a form of lying. There are subtitle differences in the way someone speaks when they don't believe what they are saying.
While this is certainly unquantifiable, you can take or leave my "expert opinion" that a great number of the people in these videos believe what they are presenting unless they are the greatest actors on earth.
So when you combine this with the sheer number....add good video (as opposed to blurry shaky UFO video), and consider the apparent lack of motive, it begins to approach the standard of "evidence".
Unlike UFO videos though, one has to look at the quality of the witness. It takes a certain degree of intelligence to machine parts and build some of these devices. I am also a machinist and machine shop owner, and I can tell you that I would find it quite odd for some of the parts I see, and the work I know went into them, to be produced with a hoax as the foundation (possibly a fraud....but how many perpetrators of fraud are saying "careful...there might be some machinists looking at our fake parts")
My opinion is that if all of these are hoaxes, or fraud, that they must be one of the most remarkable groups of people one could assemble. A team of incredible actors, combined with some darned good machinists, combined with a lot of money, combined with enough scientific background to make it look convincing to other people genuinely researching the field... and to what end?
Odd indeed, in my own mind at least. Why would anyone do this? Better question is "why would so many people do this?".
When I attempt to separate my logical thinking from my "obsession thinking", I still end up with this equation that doesn't make sense.
Even at that, my own personal observation is that hoax or reality, when a device is presented, there is little effort made to validate the result. This I attribute to the individual obsessions of the people in groups like this where each person... at some level.... desires to be the first to create such a device therefore a working device is a disappointment to them on a very personal level and ignoring it provides a means to continue with their own obsession. This was the point of my less-than-adequate submission of the model airplane example. What I failed to include was the premise that model airplanes...in the example... had not ever been proven to exist.
While I do have my own opinions on the answers to all of these questions, the point of this thread was to get the opinions of others.
That said, for all the reasons I've just outlined, it seems just as likely to me that at least a few of these machines are real, as it does that unrelated people and groups would go to these extents to fraud, let alone hoax. Even from a skeptic's mind it must seem improbable ...no?
Thoughts?
Well, my main thought right now is to ask you for an example. Can you give me a specific link to a YT video that you think shows a genuine overunity device? I'll look at it and tell you my opinion.
You've stated some of your qualifications so let me state some of mine. I've been working as a quasi- independent consultant for around 12 years, investigating claims of overunity and other anomalous physics devices. I started out as the lab manager for a private individual's operation called ISSO, with branches in Palo Alto and the operation at the Miles Davis Anomalous Propulsion Laboratory in San Francisco, and one of my first accomplishments there was to debunk an antigravity machine that claimed to use mercury ignitron tubes to create weightloss in an isolated apparatus. The sponsor had already funded these claimants to the tune of about 1.5 million dollars US, and my involvement began when they were trying to get another grant renewal to the tune of 1 million US, IIRC. They brought their apparatus over from Romania (I believe), set it up in a draftfree enclosure, put it on their custom balance beam with data logging software, and used the remote control to turn it on. Sure enough, it lost weight, several grams, very clearly above the noise in the measurement. Turn it off, the weight gradually returned to normal. There was no possibility that the readings were wrong or faked; there was no possibility that outside fields or anything of that nature were happening (I constructed a sturdy lab table of wood, with vibration damping and no metal fasteners of any kind, etc etc).... yet the device was a hoax or mistake, and during a walk around the park at lunch I figured it out. The clue was their balance construction: the pans were not pivoted like all real balances are, they were just platforms bolted to the horizontal beam. Therefore, any shift in the center of mass of the device would cause the distance from the balance's fulcrum to the CofM to change.. and of course this shows up as a weight change. We proved this simply by turning the device around 180 degrees on the platform and re-running the test. It _gained_ weight.
At this point we confronted Roznyay with this data and asked him if he knew about this. I still remember his guileless face and words: "Sure, we noticed this but we didn't understand, so we didn't report it."
Finally by rotating, testing, rotating, we found an orientation that was "null" where the measured weight did not change.Then with Viktor's permission we took off the covers. A bank of power resistors used as the ignitron load was mounted right above the tube itself, and the combined heat of the tube and the heating of the resistors themselves was warping the terminal strip to which they were attached and this strip was bending like the leaf of a bimetal thermostat, shifting the weight of the resistors from side to side, depending on temperature.
Needless to say, they did not get their million dollars and went away mad.... but they still manage to have some presence after twelve years, making similar claims based on poor analysis and apparatus that fools them.
Another major project for me has been water arc claims of OU. I worked with the main claimant himself, running his experiments and building his apparatus, for about two years at the lab that was supporting him at that time. Here we are talking about someone who commanded a Panzer battalion in WWII, became a physics professor after the war, emigrated and is now emeritus professor of physics at MIT. He had peer-reviewed papers published in real scientific literature concerning his overunity claims, he had a mathematical argument that looked right, he had the force of his personality and his credentials... he had years of experimental data and had support from lots of other sources... and he was also wrong, was using the wrong model and never actually got any OU performance from any of the hundreds of different experiments we built, ran and analysed for him. His most endearing trait was, when a trial did not produce numbers that he liked, he would simply discard that data set, blaming the apparatus or the staff for it not working.
By the time his theory fell apart he was claiming that water arcs produced invisible, cold, fast (supersonic) fog droplets of nanometer scale that could penetrate inches of water without disturbing it at all, only to erupt violently at the water-air surface. When we showed him the high-speed videos of the vortex ring of cavitation bubbles that actually was responsible for that effect on the water, he simply denied its reality completely.
That's what happens when you have 20 years of a fulltime career invested in an idea: you defend it past the point of ridiculousness trying to hold onto your life and your self-image, even in the face of incontrovertible proof that you are wrong.
I'm also a licenced aircraft mechanic, A&P if that means anything, a qualified machinist with my own Sherline mini machine shop and was the primary machinist for the operations described above using "real" fullsize tooling; I've been an electronics hobbyist since way before Radio Shack split off from Tandy (used to have to go into leather stores to find the RS section in the back), and I have university degrees in a field that involves constructing formal mathematical models of real-world processes, including neural network programming. I've helped prove that several devices that people have exhibited here were hoaxes, like the Mylow HoHoHojo motor and others. And I am still working on my own obsession which involves some of the ideas of Nikola Tesla, although I believe that all energy must be paid for and that standard physics is true, as far as it goes. I've got working devices sitting all around me right now that many people probably think aren't real.... but they are. I've made over 350 videos dealing with these topics in one way or another and they are all viewable AD FREE on YouTube.
Anyhow, enough about me and you. What is an example video that you'd like me to opine upon?
You have raised some interesting points audiomaker so some of my thoughts if you want them...
I agree with TinselKoala's post. I also attempt to refute TinselKoala's points and facts etc, or I used to do so, before I got bored with his accuracy. I did the same thing with Cheeseburger, FTC, .99, Milehigh, Picowatt and a few others before they made the trusted advice list, at which point I spent less time validating their information... so little time so much to do, choices must be made...
I sit firmly in the "skeptics corner" as you put it and 100% of the devices I have seen on the internet have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are overunity devices. Most do not even attempt to try despite the claims and that tells you all you need to know about them. If they did perform as claimed it would be simple to prove... would it not?
I don't approve of many of the video's posted on this and other "community" sites, it's more about traffic, money and ego than it is about credibility, unfortunately.
The majority of people don't know what they are looking at and cannot evaluate accurately due to a lack of knowledge and experience, so for the majority the hoaxes are not awkward but very convincing, hence the wishful donations for "evaluation and development". A nice little earner for some...
Most people fail the very first test, attempting to refute yourself by all possible means. I have junked more designs than I have released because I was able to refute myself and deem the device not fit for purpose. This does not mean the investment of time was wasted, it was actually essential to achieve a final viable design.
There is a massive control network that is completely beyond oversight and extremely well funded operating covertly as we speak. Why I know this I do not want to say, and the handful of people who do know why I say that, please keep it to yourselves.
There is more than enough opportunity within known physics for innovation and integration, I believe I have theoretically proven that concept using known technologies and processes.
A large portion of this community does not study history, the available material, known physics principles and laws that all our machines operate on, or even the manufactured technologies and materials available off the shelf. They instead spend a lot of time speculating on pie in the sky and in some cases could easily refute themselves by a visit to Wikipedia. Probability of success in this scenario is very low, but the possibility of getting lucky is always there.
Do I believe that the "Wheelwork of Nature" can be accessed ? Yes I do. The photovoltaic solar panel is a COP = Infinity device with an efficiency of around 15% at best currently. Unless you understand what COP and efficiency mean, and why they are not the same, you will have little chance of understanding what you are trying to do, which leads to error.
Some of my designs for example "may" exceed unity by exploiting phase change through the four fundamental states of matter. Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma, no laws violated and using understood principles and processes... time will tell.
The RotoMax HHO Hybrid for example is designed to be a phase change engine eliminating backpressure almost completely, something thought impossible. Imagine my delight at relatively recently discovering in the history books and museums the Pulsometer steam pump, a known working machine invented more than a century ago. It operates on similar phase change principles to my hybrid, validating my theory arrived at independently, in my mind anyway. Experimental evidence to follow in the future either validating or refuting the theory.
This community has a lot of issues to address moving forwards and it will probably be impossible to prevent people posting cr@p, but you can always ignore it, like I do with 95% of the content after a preliminary analysis indicates it to be based on error of some sort.
And never forget the lurkers... skilled individuals with a sound knowledge of the sciences and / or skill sets developed over a lifetime, their own machine shops or resources and motivated to make the world a better place... all of them waiting for a clear direction to invest their energy for the greater good. You will hear about what they have achieved when they choose to release it... until then they are wisely completely off the radar and untraceable... a leaderless army waiting in the shadows...
Greetings, dear and respected members.
So, it's just the skeptics posting here?! ;)
@audiomaker,
At least one of your questions has a natural answer imho. I'm saying that because I myself have "found" free energy at least three times! Once it was hidden weak electrochemistry, other time it was the strong EM field from fluorescent tubes above and another time it was when I've replicated a very simple gravitational "OU device" taken from youtube and it took me like 3-4 long and incredible hrs to figure out that I am powering the device not the gravity...
I'm not an actor and I'm bad at lying but I bet anyone would have believed me if I was to go public on those occasions. I am also almost certain I could have easily passed any detector known to man. Thrill, adrenaline etc easily goes well beyond of what I could have ever imagined and once you let the 'virus' spread into your mind it is no longer a lie, it quickly becomes your truth, your reality – the longer you let it spread, the harder is to realize it is delusional...
Therefore, I'd say they unfortunately are not acting, or at least not while they are 'blinded'...
Others, on the other hand, are plain liars. If you have some time to exercise your skills, I'd be very interested in your opinion about few examples that are referenced into this forum. Quite recent cases are Rossi, Romero – to give you just a couple of hardly debated free energy subjects. I'm not saying they are liars as I don't have any solid proof but I am very suspicious about their stories.
One last remark as a side note for knowing each other and for a possible further debate on the subject: all energy is free! When it comes to all forms of energy, we are no more than "hunters-gatherers" (for nuclear energy we are a bit smarter but still there). Can we get to "farmers"? I'm not sure. From Heisenberg and Noether we know energy is related to time. So, to get to the phase of 'farming' energy we need to control time but we barely understand both concepts...
So, why I am here?! I've initially signed in for exercising my English. ;) But I've stayed mainly for fresh ideas and going deeper than that because I believe the chance free energy being discovered is non-zero (although very close to zero). But I also believe that in the actual state of humanity, the discovery of free energy as it is understood by most of us (really free, easily obtainable etc) would rapidly (virtually immediately) lead to the collapse and possible destruction of mankind... Think about it.
Best regards,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on November 28, 2012, 05:38:29 PM
Greetings, dear and respected members.
So, it's just the skeptics posting here?! ;)
@audiomaker,
At least one of your questions has a natural answer imho. I'm saying that because I myself have "found" free energy at least three times! Once it was hidden weak electrochemistry, other time it was the strong EM field from fluorescent tubes above and another time it was when I've replicated a very simple gravitational "OU device" taken from youtube and it took me like 3-4 long and incredible hrs to figure out that I am powering the device not the gravity...
I'm not an actor and I'm bad at lying but I bet anyone would have believed me if I was to go public on those occasions. I am also almost certain I could have easily passed any detector known to man. Thrill, adrenaline etc easily goes well beyond of what I could have ever imagined and once you let the 'virus' spread into your mind it is no longer a lie, it quickly becomes your truth, your reality – the longer you let it spread, the harder is to realize it is delusional...
Therefore, I'd say they unfortunately are not acting, or at least not while they are 'blinded'...
Others, on the other hand, are plain liars. If you have some time to exercise your skills, I'd be very interested in your opinion about few examples that are referenced into this forum. Quite recent cases are Rossi, Romero – to give you just a couple of hardly debated free energy subjects. I'm not saying they are liars as I don't have any solid proof but I am very suspicious about their stories.
One last remark as a side note for knowing each other and for a possible further debate on the subject: all energy is free! When it comes to all forms of energy, we are no more than "hunters-gatherers" (for nuclear energy we are a bit smarter but still there). Can we get to "farmers"? I'm not sure. From Heisenberg and Noether we know energy is related to time. So, to get to the phase of 'farming' energy we need to control time but we barely understand both concepts...
So, why I am here?! I've initially signed in for exercising my English. ;) But I've stayed mainly for fresh ideas and going deeper than that because I believe the chance free energy being discovered is non-zero (although very close to zero). But I also believe that in the actual state of humanity, the discovery of free energy as it is understood by most of us (really free, easily obtainable etc) would rapidly (virtually immediately) lead to the collapse and possible destruction of mankind... Think about it.
Best regards,
Tinu
"But I also believe that in the actual state of humanity, the discovery of free energy as it is understood by most of us (really free, easily obtainable etc) would rapidly (virtually immediately) lead to the collapse and possible destruction of mankind... Think about it."
They probably used the same fear tactic when the gas and diesel engine came out in light of the steam engine.
Quote from: Liberty on November 28, 2012, 06:03:38 PM
They probably used the same fear tactic when the gas and diesel engine came out in light of the steam engine.
On a planet extremely rich in natural resources such as this planet, Earth, the raw material energy processing cost is the primary restrictor, hence centralised control of energy.
Energy in excess of unity, or alternatively, extremely cheap energy at virtually no cost to the user renders this requirement mute and de-centralised.
In such a scenario lack disappears and excess becomes the norm.
True freedom is realised through creative expression and if the cost is zero or virtually zero the only limits are the individuals or the collectives imagination, operating within known laws.
Fear and lack have had their day as a control mechanism, abundance will set humanity free.
Nice OP audiomaker.
While I have the greatest respect for the achievements and qualifications of others, I put it to you that there are no suitable qualifications for the task of identifying a paradigm shifting concept. By it's very nature and scarcity we are all prone to look past it, with our focus more often than not drawn to the minutia and detail supporting our own reflex denial of the threat to our closely held beliefs, wherein we are more comfortable and secure.
That there are several - if not many - concepts in play which promise OU seems undeniable, yet there are those who repeatedly deny this nonetheless. If I may take one area of interest as an example - centrifugal force - the music of these two words together no doubt already bringing smiles to the faces of skeptics; the so called 'virtual' force, an easy 'take down' even for a high school physics student. So consider this; a simple thought experiment:
Allow two balls in equilibrium, joined by a length of string, each rotating one about the other such that the string is in tension.
Examine either one of the balls; the force preventing the ball from immediate departure from the binary system of rotation we call centripetal. Follow the line of force along the string toward the centre of mass of the system. At this point we are looking for the origins of the centripetal force. We find nothing at the centre of mass except string. If we proceed further along the string we eventually come to the other ball where we find centrifugal force acting as the origin, or parent of, centripetal force.
'Virtual' indeed. Personally, I think any device or concept claiming to achieve OU as a result of manipulation of centrifugal force might be worth a second look, since the physicists seem to have dropped the ball on this one.
Skepticism is a useful tool, but if we only look for one specific result we will only ever see that result. The universe is so much larger and more complex than any one of us; there can be no possible claim made against us for not knowing, or even seeing all of it. But if we can enhance our view, and take even one more step along the road to understanding, then why would we allow our personal preconceptions - or those of others - to prevent us doing so?
Please take a look at my own offering:
http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULaWPGfp5Qw (http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULaWPGfp5Qw)
You are analysing each ball in isolation, an error, you should be examining the system forces which balance hence system stability.
Assuming no elastic or plastic deformation of the tensile string the forces are in balance, the centripetal force of each ball is in balance with the centrifugal force of the other ball, rotating about a Lagrange point, hence a stable system.
A prime mover force is required to initiate movement which is input energy. Losses or work done will mean an eventual decay of energy in the system without further prime mover input.
I see no value in the system for performing useful work, but nice model.
My goodness, that is some amazing input.... from all of you.
Responding to so many interesting points is probably beyond my time restraints for the week.
However, as to my own pedigree... let's just say that at one point I was in the pursuit of building such machines. I have long since given that up but I am still very curious about the work of others.
I became un-obsessed, but am still extremely curious....and hopeful.
As for submitting YouTube example of machines that appear to work to this thread... I wouldn't know where to start? There are so many. Just search for "Free Energy", or "Self Running Motor"...etc.
TinselKoala, I will be happy to search through YouTube for some interesting candidates, but at the same time... with your impressive qualifications, it might be the one's that you find at least interesting that might be more suitable, or perhaps the board owners should start a new forum that has "polls" so the group could pursue a validation based on what the group as a whole felt was validation worthy. As of now, I think the pursuit of validation is lacking in this community. As generous as it is, a $15k overunity "prize" is unlikely to motivate anyone... all weights considered.
I am wary though, of beginning to post links to YT videos in this thread as the thread is likely to take a serious tangent away from the heart of the discussion when the debates take over.
The original thought...loosely is "Do you think that with so many OU (type) videos out there, that they can all be hoaxes, frauds, or mistakes?" So far I am impressed with the answers I've gotten to that question. I would not have expected that.
Perhaps a more interesting question is "For all the believers who see these videos, why continue your work until a solid determination is made as to it's validity?".
Considering all the time, effort, and money that seems to be going into these pursuits, one would think a greater amount of notice would be taken when any candidate is presented, let alone so many.
Of course, this is likely explained by the idea that to each person, the best way to prove to themselves that OU (type) projects can work, is to do it themselves, not by trying to contact, promote, or debunk the work of someone else who has claimed success.
This... leaves a gap and that gap is this...
Imagine that you wake up in the middle of the night with the answer to why your positronic freewheeling rotary gravity aether collecting device hasn't worked so far. You run down to your shop and insert one banana in the spark gap between the Van De Graaf and the steam driven gear... and it works! Now what?
You grab your video camera, you take videos to post to the world, you show all the sides proving that there are no wires, hidden hamsters, or pasta connected to it, and you upload it.
A week later you have 100 comments on YT saying "neat", another 100 saying "fake", and a week after that you mysteriously vanish on an unplanned hiking trip in Rhodesia.
In the meantime, the "Free Energy Community" just plugs along as it always did citing "if it were real it would have validation".
If I were to draw a personal conclusion so far from this discussion, it would be that the evil powers of suppression wouldn't need to do much at all....possibly nothing. The "vanishing" isn't even required.
Ok, well admittedly that conclusion is based on the idea that some of these might actually work. I have absolute respect for those who believe they don't...they might be right.
:)
Ok... here ya go...
I just quickly grabbed one. Might be fake, but what a lot of effort to go to when any journeyman electrician could walk in and debunk it.
The point? Why bother then?
This video talks about getting investors, but if I were an investor, I'd have someone I hired in the room with me before I signed the check, who knew what they were talking about and could verify this machine does what the builders state. The builders of this device...in my estimation... are smart enough to know this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-cTouvPj0&feature=related
If that's not a good one, there are lots more.
Thoughts?
Two more minutes of searching...
The comments are pretty dumb no matter which side of the fence you land on...they usually are.
However, this one uses material you would use when "prototyping".
I sure wouldn't go to the trouble of building this contraption if it were a fake. At least I'd make it prettier, and why use the solenoid to close the outer ring? That was an "improvement". I would suggest "improvements" are unnecessary in fakes.
Observe how the rotor moves just slightly backwards as the outer ring closes, then forward motion begins. If there were some hidden way of driving this, why would it make that backwards jump?
This is much how magnets in rotary magnet engine projects behave no?
So, for the sake of argument, I'll suggest:
Too ugly for a fraud.
Too much work for a hoax
No apparent request for investors, and too easy to debunk if they were looking for investors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAHKkuNAuJA&feature=rellist&playnext=1&list=PL3469266BAF9BDA3D
:)
Quote from: audiomaker on November 28, 2012, 07:43:58 PM
Ok... here ya go...
I just quickly grabbed one. Might be fake, but what a lot of effort to go to when any journeyman electrician could walk in and debunk it.
The point? Why bother then?
This video talks about getting investors, but if I were an investor, I'd have someone I hired in the room with me before I signed the check, who knew what they were talking about and could verify this machine does what the builders state. The builders of this device...in my estimation... are smart enough to know this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-cTouvPj0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-cTouvPj0&feature=related)
If that's not a good one, there are lots more.
Thoughts?
Seriously? Christie and LUTEC surely can't be the best you've got.
http://www.overunity.com/4956/lutec-john-christie-australia/30/
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/10/28/lutecs-perpetual-mot.html
http://censys.org/blog/?p=1933
Even Sterling Allan doesn't seem to believe in Christie/LUTEC.... and that should tell you something right there.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Lutec
Next? Please, something a bit more challenging.
Quote from: audiomaker on November 28, 2012, 08:07:32 PM
Two more minutes of searching...
The comments are pretty dumb no matter which side of the fence you land on...they usually are.
However, this one uses material you would use when "prototyping".
I sure wouldn't go to the trouble of building this contraption if it were a fake. At least I'd make it prettier, and why use the solenoid to close the outer ring? That was an "improvement". I would suggest "improvements" are unnecessary in fakes.
Observe how the rotor moves just slightly backwards as the outer ring closes, then forward motion begins. If there were some hidden way of driving this, why would it make that backwards jump?
This is much how magnets in rotary magnet engine projects behave no?
So, for the sake of argument, I'll suggest:
Too ugly for a fraud.
Too much work for a hoax
No apparent request for investors, and too easy to debunk if they were looking for investors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAHKkuNAuJA&feature=rellist&playnext=1&list=PL3469266BAF9BDA3D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAHKkuNAuJA&feature=rellist&playnext=1&list=PL3469266BAF9BDA3D)
:)
Holey carp.. That is the famous PERENDEV magnet motor. Michael Brady, the perpetrator of that hoax, is now in jail in Germany.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc9rbysrv24
http://www.examiner.com/article/perendev-magnet-motor-inventor-arrested-for-embezzlement
Next? Come on, you can do it. Stump the Koala!
Here, I can tell you are having trouble with this. Let me help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25FRpkbDxU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25FRpkbDxU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkLfpXpO5sQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkLfpXpO5sQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsURAlg9pPY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsURAlg9pPY)
And of course.... here's one that has never yet been proven to be false......
But a few people manage to disbelieve it anyway.
http://mrwaynesbrain.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6knETQiuhCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkD2FQ_QSck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdLA4w3w58
Still watching...
It will take a little time for me to find the articles disproving all of those, or can I assume you are giving example of fully disproved devices?
Well, obviously there are lots of them.
I'm guessing this one is a fake too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF0JvC10edw
I watch this video and think "Who the "F" builds something like this and puts it on YouTube if it's a hoax, easily debunked fraud, or if it doesn't actually work???".
Keep in mind, I have no claims to if any of these work or not. What I will claim is how surprised I'd be if none of them did, and amazed at the resources that went into building them for whatever reason other to obtain their stated goal, and the sheer number of people with that goal who might decide once it didn't work, to claim it did.
That would be (or perhaps is) quite perplexing.
Right?
These are the only motors of a permanent magnet nature that I can say are not a hoax, because I built them. Here are four motors that actually function. They use permanent magnets in the rotor and stator with no internal coils in the rotor and an actuator for power assist. The dual rotor can be made very efficient (70% or perhaps much greater with modification of design). They are of my own creation. Here is the link to one of them that just started up and is accelerating up to about 1800 rpm: http://youtu.be/obOezFhbO9s
(http://youtu.be/obOezFhbO9s)
At the top of youtube link, you can find other motor links. Or go to web site Http://www.dynamaticmotors.com (Http://www.dynamaticmotors.com)
These motors actually use permanent magnets for output torque (and therefore don't need to be powered all of the time) and some of the actuator input also adds to a portion of the rotation.
Liberty
The material manifestation of that vast body of knowledge which surrounds us in our structures, transportation, communications, medicine and resource management, has at it's core the fundamental principles of nature, typically uncovered at great cost to those very few in possession of particular talents crucial to completion of their specific task.
Put another way, but for a surprisingly small number of gifted individuals throughout history, we would to this day be a species of simple hunter gatherers.
Almost without exception each of those innovators, theorists and inventors suffered the scorn, skepticism and often wrath of the very people for whose advantage their work was undertaken. Almost without exception at each new leap forward crowds of those resistant to change assembled and stood guard at the threshold of the new technological dawn. Almost without exception superstition, fear and disbelief gave way to a new perception of reality and the crowds dissolved, their names and faces lost to history.
And again, in virtually every case, where one individual succeeded a thousand more failed in the attempt. Thus nature ensures eventual success, and there is little to separate the one from the thousand save success itself.
Quote from: audiomaker on November 28, 2012, 08:54:05 PM
Still watching...
It will take a little time for me to find the articles disproving all of those, or can I assume you are giving example of fully disproved devices?
Well there are differences of opinion. Some are soundly disproved (Mylow and his twin brother) , some are educational toys from one website ( the Calloway Gate and the magnet-ball-wheel) some are still undebunked but almost certainly hoaxes (the mylow-like motor powering the fan, turned by the box in the guy's hand), some are most certainly frauds (fat people are harder to kidnap) and so on. But every one of them has been completely believed in, and even Mylow still has a following of believers.
The point was to address your puzzlement: why would anyone do these things, they are a lot of trouble for sure, nobody would really go through that if it wasn't real.... so some of them must be real. It's an attempt to show the flaw in that line of reasoning. You would be flabbergasted at the effort some people will go through. Ask any stage magician or card manipulator what they have to do to pull off even the simplest illusion.
Also to point out that you see what you want to see a lot of the time. Almost every one of the videos I posted have "tells" that reveal that they are faked effects. My favorite one is the Mylow one. There is plenty of material there for your voice analysis! I also like this one because of my history with it. Several other people noticed the fishing line drive by sophisticated analysis of the videos, but at the same time and independently, I figured it out as a possible way of doing it and so I did it. I made the "official" first replication of the Mylow drive for Sterling Allan's challenge award.... and he acknowledged my priority.... but he refused me the award because my motor wasn't overunity.... even though it used exactly the same drive method that Mylow used. Think of the irony!
No, I just have a few of my favorites compiled on my YT channel so I looked there first. There are some present cases that are not "fully disproved" that are quite significant. Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat, for example; Mister Wayne and the HydroDifferentialPressureExchange system still has many faithful believers; heck, people are still trying to build Bessler's wheels so they must think that device hasn't been completely disproved.
So.... I'll stop posting my favorites, and let you find some that you think fulfil your criteria, and then I'll let you know what I think the story might be. But really... I cracked up when I saw the reposting of the Brady video. Not too many of the Free Energy fakers actually wind up in jail, but nobody deserves it more than Brady.
Quote from: Liberty on November 28, 2012, 11:41:04 PM
These are the only motors of a permanent magnet nature that I can say are not a hoax, because I built them. Here are four motors that actually function. They use permanent magnets in the rotor and stator with no internal coils in the rotor and an actuator for power assist. The dual rotor can be made very efficient (70% or perhaps much greater with modification of design). They are of my own creation. Here is the link to one of them that just started up and is accelerating up to about 1800 rpm: http://youtu.be/obOezFhbO9s
(http://youtu.be/obOezFhbO9s)
At the top of youtube link, you can find other motor links. Or go to web site Http://www.dynamaticmotors.com (http://http://www.dynamaticmotors.com)
These motors actually use permanent magnets for output torque (and therefore don't need to be powered all of the time) and some of the actuator input also adds to a portion of the rotation.
Liberty
You are not claiming that your motors are overunity, are you? Your motors do need "actuators".
QuoteVariations of these motors are calculated to exceed 100% electrical efficiency. Interested investors can visit web site.
Well... so you are, and you are soliciting investment based on your claim of "calculated" overunity efficiency. Can you support your claim with evidence?
Quote from: audiomaker on November 28, 2012, 09:06:36 PM
Well, obviously there are lots of them.
I'm guessing this one is a fake too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF0JvC10edw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF0JvC10edw)
I watch this video and think "Who the "F" builds something like this and puts it on YouTube if it's a hoax, easily debunked fraud, or if it doesn't actually work???".
Keep in mind, I have no claims to if any of these work or not. What I will claim is how surprised I'd be if none of them did, and amazed at the resources that went into building them for whatever reason other to obtain their stated goal, and the sheer number of people with that goal who might decide once it didn't work, to claim it did.
That would be (or perhaps is) quite perplexing.
Right?
Troy Reed,l like Thane Heins and many others before them, has "discovered" an interesting arrangement and some interesting effects. He belongs in the category I mentioned at the top of the thread: he is sure he's right because he's had a dream or vision or divine revelation, and he's seen some effect that he's interpreted through his rose colored glasses. Sure, people do debunk them all the time, but it doesn't stick. Are you familiar with the story of Steorn and Orbo? It's a hoot and is still going on. They found a really interesting red herring effect some years back, alleged that they could make magnet motors that _didn't need_ any "actuators" and would just run themselves. They rented an exhibit space in London and exhibited simple magnet motors that did NOT run..... at all...... and blamed it on the hot lights. They paid lots of money to bring visitors over the ocean to see them! Then that motor design disappeared and they produced another, electrically powered design that had the best red herring yet: the variable inductance core effect motor, that worked not by increased attraction "on the way in" but by reduced attraction "on the way out".... and they claimed that this thing would recharge its own battery, run on a D-cell, and even heat up its coils for free, making 3 times the energy put into it, and when run backwards would destroy energy. They had a live internet streaming demonstration of these things to much fanfare. The Waterways Steorn demo was amazing -- they showed motors that ran down, motors that froze their reed switches, motors that needed 12-volt car batteries to run, motors that had NO OUTPUT SHAFT AT ALL so not even their torque could be measured. They never showed a battery recharged nor a motor that ran without power supplied to it. Millions of dollars these people spent. Yet today there is no Orbo of any kind and Steorn is trying to sell overunity on-demand home water heaters. I kid you not.
Quote from: tagor on November 29, 2012, 03:44:18 AM
and this one ?
Sorry, I don't speak French. I understand this makes me a barbarian, but there it is.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 05:07:24 AM
Sorry, I don't speak French. I understand this makes me a barbarian, but there it is.
http://pesn.com/2012/11/27/9602230_Water_as_Fuel--November_2012_Update/ (http://pesn.com/2012/11/27/9602230_Water_as_Fuel--November_2012_Update/)
Quote
He stated explicitly that the motor boat requires no fuel tank, i.e. no gasoline tank, no hydrogen tank, and only a normal marine storage battery to start the 50,000 volt autonomous hydrogen generator, and the 500 HP motor. The motor boat has an unlimited operating range at sea, and emits only water vapor as exhaust.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 04:48:53 AM
Well there are differences of opinion. Some are soundly disproved (Mylow and his twin brother) , some are educational toys from one website ( the Calloway Gate and the magnet-ball-wheel) some are still undebunked but almost certainly hoaxes (the mylow-like motor powering the fan, turned by the box in the guy's hand), some are most certainly frauds (fat people are harder to kidnap) and so on. But every one of them has been completely believed in, and even Mylow still has a following of believers.
The point was to address your puzzlement: why would anyone do these things, they are a lot of trouble for sure, nobody would really go through that if it wasn't real.... so some of them must be real. It's an attempt to show the flaw in that line of reasoning. You would be flabbergasted at the effort some people will go through. Ask any stage magician or card manipulator what they have to do to pull off even the simplest illusion.
Also to point out that you see what you want to see a lot of the time. Almost every one of the videos I posted have "tells" that reveal that they are faked effects. My favorite one is the Mylow one. There is plenty of material there for your voice analysis! I also like this one because of my history with it. Several other people noticed the fishing line drive by sophisticated analysis of the videos, but at the same time and independently, I figured it out as a possible way of doing it and so I did it. I made the "official" first replication of the Mylow drive for Sterling Allan's challenge award.... and he acknowledged my priority.... but he refused me the award because my motor wasn't overunity.... even though it used exactly the same drive method that Mylow used. Think of the irony!
No, I just have a few of my favorites compiled on my YT channel so I looked there first. There are some present cases that are not "fully disproved" that are quite significant. Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat, for example; Mister Wayne and the HydroDifferentialPressureExchange system still has many faithful believers; heck, people are still trying to build Bessler's wheels so they must think that device hasn't been completely disproved.
So.... I'll stop posting my favorites, and let you find some that you think fulfil your criteria, and then I'll let you know what I think the story might be. But really... I cracked up when I saw the reposting of the Brady video. Not too many of the Free Energy fakers actually wind up in jail, but nobody deserves it more than Brady.
Ok, I'm on your page. However, I was certainly not expecting that I would have to be the sole provider and judge of what devices show promise (of being real working machines), as I certainly don't have the history to know which have previously been proven as frauds or hoaxes, any more than I would strap you with the burden of solidly disproving every device we could find a presentation of.
I would suggest however, that there must be much easier ways to scam people than to build these devices, and by means much easier to maintain the illusion of legitimacy for a longer time.
I have every confidence that I could send you to examine any of these devices in person, and if it were a mistake, you would very quickly uncover it. If it were a fraud or hoax, the discovery would be even faster.
I would suggest that selling someone the proverbial Brooklyn Bridge is much easier than having to build a life-sized facsimile of that bridge and painting a sign that says "Brooklyn" on it.
I am particularly short on time right now, but I did look for some articles on Brady and read a few. So far I can only find examples where he has gone to jail for the fraud of not delivering machines he had sold. I am still looking for one that shows evidence that the machine itself was a fake. In fact, at least one article states that he might have pirated the patent. Adding the notion that he might have stolen the idea somehow doesn't sit well the the machine being a fake. He stole the patented idea for a fake machine? It would save me some time if anyone has a link to an article disproving the machine itself.
In Brady's case, if the only debunking of his offering is contractual fraud, then I have to suggest that there could be many reasons for this other than the machine itself being a fake. It is unknown what pressures might be put on a person with a working device, what deals might be made, why those deals might be made...etc. Maybe he just has a cocaine habit? Maybe he just wants to live?
No, I'm not on a crusade... Just making a point. Brady's machine is "likely" a fake. Being in jail for fraud doesn't help the case for his machine for sure. On the other hand, is an inventor being discredited going to be our standard for debunking, or is finding the hidden hamster that surely must exist in every fake or fraud?
Speaking of the burden of debunking. I also find it less-than-scientific to debunk based on offerings that were modeled after devices proven not to work.
I have a mechanic's understanding of the internal combustion engine, and a machine shop, but if I were challenged to go down to my shop and build one right now for the first time without any blueprints, I could almost promise you it wouldn't run. It's not that I don't have an understanding of the principles... I do.
However, it would be assumptive to conclude that the next "inventor" who created an internal combustion engine based on my offering was repeating a mistake or offering a fraud. In fact, if my morals and financial situation were such that I took my non-working example and put a hamster in it and ended up in jail after I'd sold a few, that alone does not debunk the internal combustion engine.
While there is some theatrical content in that last example because we actually know the internal combustion engine works, the point I hope is clear in that... if we didn't, my offering would be a poor choice to debunk the entire concept on.
Talk Soon
Since energy is the subject of these investigations, I wonder is there a consensus here on a definition (or perhaps definitions)?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 04:53:21 AM
You are not claiming that your motors are overunity, are you? Your motors do need "actuators". Well... so you are, and you are soliciting investment based on your claim of "calculated" overunity efficiency. Can you support your claim with evidence?
Your comments seem to infer that any experimenter trying to obtain high efficiency is forbidden to talk about the possibilities and should be cast in doubt at every opportunity. Is this not overunity.com?
Does an actuator make a motor under-unity, if so, can you back up your claim with evidence? See, anyone can play that game. Is a calculation not a type of evidence? What is evidence? Certainly "evidence" can mean a lot of different things to different people. What is enough evidence?
I have reason to see that the existing calculations on the current model are sufficient evidence for me to predict expected motor performance within certain parameters. Is this an absolute claim and proof for everyone, no. But it is a reasonable expectation on the part of the inventor.
I understand that there are a lot of fakes out there on YT, or devices that don't actually work, but experimental models from inventors do not come completely tried and tested to everyone's satisfaction, and this should be knowledge that is already well understood from most experimenters, like yourself with limited funds. It's easy to sit on the sidelines, playing strategy with your comments to gain other like minded people's admiration, to cast doubt and make demands that an experimenter provide unlimited evidence that you personally can believe at their expense. This area of experimentation is not without risk. But then without risk, there is no gain.
Quote from: Tusk on November 29, 2012, 07:33:52 AM
Since energy is the subject of these investigations, I wonder is there a consensus here on a definition (or perhaps definitions)?
There is a thread in the "New Theories" section that seeks a definition of "OverUnity" and "Free Energy". It's pretty close to the top right now.
:)
@Audiomaker: Re Brady/Perendev: yes, the magnet motor machine in the video was investigated and the evidence is that it was not a self runner and accelerates because of the initial movement of the brake-shoe like things from further to closer in. I think that's on the PESWiki site somewhere; Sterling gave up on Brady some time ago even before he got arrested, I think. The problem with disproving the other machine, the one that he got sent to jail for, is either easier or more difficult, depending on your opinion.... because there simply is no machine. He made the whole thing up. Even the photo of the "genset" with Perendev on the side as a logo --- the exact photograph was found that he used and photoshopped his "perendev" onto it. The photo was of a legitimate diesel genset from a legit manufacturer that Brady simply copied and altered for his own use. The "testimonials" and the stories of installed units in hospitals and all of that.... not a word of it was true.
No time now for further discussion, will return later, thanks.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 07:34:38 PM
@Audiomaker: Re Brady/Perendev: yes, the magnet motor machine in the video was investigated and the evidence is that it was not a self runner and accelerates because of the initial movement of the brake-shoe like things from further to closer in. I think that's on the PESWiki site somewhere; Sterling gave up on Brady some time ago even before he got arrested, I think. The problem with disproving the other machine, the one that he got sent to jail for, is either easier or more difficult, depending on your opinion.... because there simply is no machine. He made the whole thing up. Even the photo of the "genset" with Perendev on the side as a logo --- the exact photograph was found that he used and photoshopped his "perendev" onto it. The photo was of a legitimate diesel genset from a legit manufacturer that Brady simply copied and altered for his own use. The "testimonials" and the stories of installed units in hospitals and all of that.... not a word of it was true.
No time now for further discussion, will return later, thanks.
Well no doubt that is pretty shady. I'm glad he was caught, and it does demonstrate that eventually some scrutiny will be applied to these machines. I'm amazed (as I stated I would be), that someone would go through with it. He must have known don't you think? Again, please forgive my ignorance of these events.
I'm also short on time, but I'll soon upload a couple more and also begin to start steering this topic towards what I think a solution might be (I suppose I'll have to further outline what I feel the problem is then).
So far, what I've learned is that there are more hoaxes out there than I would have imagined. What I still cannot accept without more evidence is that they all are by default.
Thanks to all of you for your fascinating participation :)
No, it's not quite that simple. They aren't all "hoaxes by default". There is a huge history of scientific theory and experimentation that rules out certain classes of phenomena. If the exhibited effect purports to do something that is ruled out, then the default position is that the claim isn't true, until it has been examined and that attempted disproofs have failed. There are several reasons for a claim not to be true, and I think that by far the most prevalent one is simple error. Innocent error, or not-so-innocent like the antigravity device I told you about above. The hoaxes seem to be multiplying lately, and the clear frauds are always around, if the rarest of the three categories.
You've got to look at what's technically called "face validity". Does it look like it could do what it says on the box? Does it have to violate any of the "rules that rule out" stuff like antigravity or reactionless propulsion or heat engines with no cold sink....
If someone says they have a Tesla-like device and it makes high voltage and careful examination of input-output shows a slight excess in output.... that could have "face validity". The cause is yet to be determined, but at least it "looks like" it could do what it says. On the other hand, someone shows you a couple of alligator clips and a few scraps of copper wire and a magnet, and shows the bulb lighting up brilliantly when he touches it to the clips. This has no face validity at all, anyone who knows anything about electricity knows that it's not possible to do that by normal means. So that demo has no face validity. This is one criterion that can help to separate the real efforts from the hoaxes and frauds.
Sure, the most unexpected phenomena might look to have no face validity either but turn out to be real nevertheless... at which point the ideas of what is valid must change. But I'm talking about a cognitive heuristic, a shortcut, that doesn't always work... just most of the time.
Nicely put TK. The discussion so far seems to have been reasonable with surprisingly little evidence of bias. In the interests of advancing the inquiry I would be delighted to submit my own device (the Paradox Engine) for scrutiny as a test case for this topic.
http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULijnWfp5Qw (http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULijnWfp5Qw)
While not yet advanced to the stage of actually producing usable energy, the potential energy of the mass in motion may be used as a reference. I am prepared to answer any and all questions regarding the device and the theory behind it, thus providing a 'real world' test case for the issues that have been raised here. Since nobody but myself has any reason to believe in the viability of the device there can be no prior knowledge of the outcome, which circumstance should serve to restrict any personal bias to a minimum. It seems unlikely that many opportunities would arise wherein the inventor would put everything on the table (no patents or secrets) and make themselves available for interrogation on an open forum.
If the decision is made to proceed, perhaps the inquiry itself could take place on the PE thread, with the discussion and assessment of the investigative procedure itself being held here.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 07:05:16 AM
No, it's not quite that simple. They aren't all "hoaxes by default".
<snip>
I had a feeling that would draw you out. :)
In a nutshell though, I get the sensation that this "cognitive heuristic" could be applied to the degree where it is self-beytraying. I fully understand however, that one who possesses great intelligence must become both weary and wary after a number of disillusions presented by the ignorant and assaults by the less-than-righteous.
It is however the proverbial "needle in a haystack" that is in one form or another, what most of the members here seek. I have the advantage of ignorance, having intentionally avoided this, and other outlets of its kind over the years. From a position of ignorance, my observation is that ruling out devices constructed on "classes" of phenomena might be going a bit too far.
I feel that it is a dangerous assumption that an inventor...or a re-discoverer should have the burden of proof. It seems no more likely to me that an intelligent researcher with the "answer" would have the correct processes to properly submit a real solution to the community (and the world), than it would for an intelligent hoaxer to have the logic that they will be discredited, or...incarcerated after submitting a fake.
It is because of this, that I suggest the burden of proof lays on the community, else we potentially betray what we seek.
Put another way... there is no prerequisite that a working device have video, not have external wires laying around it, or hooked to it, not have hidden areas or "mystery boxes", not be looking for investment capital, and not be based on a certain "class" of device.
I will submit to you that if I had a 100% working device... of any nature, that I could very quickly make it appear 100% fake. I'd throw some wires on it leading to a connected motor that does nothing, I'd put a battery on the floor next to it with some jumper cables, I'll make strange edits to the video at key points, I'll have a webpage asking for investors, refuse to produce data or schematics, I'll sell holistic herbs next to it and I'll offer a free Ginsu knife set with every purchase.
Point? I can almost promise that I could take a real working device if one existed and have it fail the "cognitive heuristic" process immediately.
While that would be an intentional action, it would not dismiss the fact that the device actually worked.
If I did it unintentionally, the only real thing that could be proven was that I had absolutely no sense of what it would take to get recognition and validation of my device. That lack of sense however does not preclude a working device and the community fails when it bases it's search pattern on that criteria.
It is...after all.. the underlying theme of this community to invent or uncover such a device even if the device is not one's own. No?
Thoughts?
You make some excellent points there audiomaker, so my thoughts...
This site is called overunity.com and the very point of it is a search for a device that produces more energy than it consumes to operate, thus violating one or more laws of nature. This is not an easy thing to do, after all nobody has ever seen one. A device that performs at >100% efficiency is deemed to be impossible, a device that performs at >100% COP is perfectly possible and proven by harnessing the energy available from the environment and adding it to the output.
For me it is about more than that, creating new technologies, integrating and innovating on known proven technologies to create new useful outputs and processes. This community offers the opportunity for many skilled people to share knowledge and have input to improve aspects of the devices. This is why I chose this platform to release all my work, because I knew that there are many people with the skill sets and resources I don't possess that would develop and test my devices for the greater good, it is also my way of paying back all the people who have invested in me by making their knowledge available for me to build on.
I was unable to develop a prototype of my HELP generator due to the position in society I was in at the time, releasing that information fully and openly has ensured that the device is built and tested and the results will eventually become known. When you have invested a large amount of your life in a project and fully developed it theoretically to the point where all of the design problems and architecture are solved and it is ready to be built it becomes very hard to give it all away, however for me it wasn't, it was liberating. The reasons I did it in the first place, for other people, made the choice simple when it became apparent that otherwise I would fail within the timescales I had set.
I was then free to complete the parallel related technologies that would have been shelved had I chosen to be selfish and keep my invention to myself and struggle to build and test it myself. When you consider that the HELP was released more than 2 years ago, and it is reasonable to expect that within one year a prototype would have been completed by the people with the knowledge, skills and resources to do so, we can then extrapolate that for the last year or so the device has been undergoing heavy testing to see what it's potential is. The fact there is no news after all this time is a very encouraging sign, if it did not work as expected I am sure we would have heard about it by now, this forum is not exactly a place where people hold back negative results to avoid hurting your feelings. I am also sure that some people want me to fail.
I designed all my devices on known principles and technologies and focused on integration and innovation, which is why you won't see anyone telling me that it won't work, because if they did that they would be denying the reality of the working devices and principles we already have proven. There are no leaps of faith within my technologies, only the question of "how well" they work, not "if" they work.
I have not presented an actual working model to the community with associated claims about performance, I have given them the designs and my expectations and allowed them to build, test and refine and at some unspecified time in the future we will all find out together if it performs as expected. Something to look forward to next year I would think!
Tusk has just done the same thing in a previous post, offering his device up for independent testing and verification by the community, and I respect him for that. The attitude of the community is changing, it is no longer acceptable to show a working model and claim that is proof of your claims, instead an honest inventor who believes in his device has nothing to fear from full dissemination and independent verification by the community, except failure itself.
Rob :)
@Rob
I think most people here are closer to agreeing on the definition of "Free Energy" than one gets the initial impression of. I think "New technology" as you state is probably the closer definition, or perhaps "Practical New Technology".
The reason I say this is because of wind/solar/hydro...etc.
Certainly these technologies qualify and I can demonstrate this by the example that if someone on this board took "what looked" like a solar cell and buried it 10ft underground producing the same output the same sized solar cell would, then we'd have a winner. However, it is somewhat the "new" untapped energy source we are looking for, and I think in a practical sense, one that could power our homes and cars with no input from the grid, and no additional cost beyond whatever device could produce this. Again... solar already achieves this. Inventing a "cell" that pulls energy from the aether would simply be another form of energy being harvested...yet, that is the goal.
...but back to the topic at hand...
Your "HELP" generator... I've never heard of it. Perhaps with more time spent here, or "in the loop", I would have known. Again I will submit my ignorance as an advantage both to me, but more importantly to the group because all of you can study the reaction of someone who is genuinely "out of the loop"....as nearly everyone on the planet is. Perhaps I have a "Help" type generator myself (I don't), and it's almost complete. What do I do now?
You state that yours is 2 years in progress. 2 years?
What I've tried to do in this thread is approach it as if I had an "OU" device, or a "Practical New Energy Technology" and was at the point of desiring to have it validated, improved to the point of practicality, and manufactured for world consumption.
What I am discovering is that the mechanism to do so is in disarray, and that there is not only a (very logical) bias against improperly construed submissions, a less-than-adequate discovery phase (which is why I have no idea what a "Help Generator" is), a burden a proof that might be beyond my expectations, a threat of suppression, but also no clear or reliable process to the destination.
Take this example of a hypothetical...
The 5 year old son of a truck driver places an electronic insect "zapper" on top of mom's electric range. It melts, a few traces on the PCB short, and suddenly it lights up brightly and indeed even hovers over the coil of the electric range...producing more heat than the range itself. Truck driver dad grabs a video on his cell phone...cereal boxes in the shot, and uploads it to YouTube.
This example is embarrassing to say the least (I'm sorry), yet even Dr. Tesla purportedly made discoveries by the observation of the side effects of his experiments (ie..by "accident").
Both the floating bug zapper and the HELP generator have something in common... I am unware of them whether they work or not. If either work, then that is a failure of the system, this board in particular, and the mechanisms (or lack of them) in place. I, by my ignorance, am a perfect testifying witness because at this point I can represent the population as a whole in this equation.
This board acts somewhat as a committee of exceptional thinkers in chaos.
(@ members and administrators):
I don't have a solution to this, but I'd like to seed a baseline idea...
While I find the concept of having a "prize" for a verifiable "OU" device admirable, I feel there must be a more pro-active approach.
If I were (standing in the "ignorant corner") going to pledge money, it would be towards a format such as this:
1. A new forum is created for the submission of devices or even concepts.
2. Each submission has it's own thread.
3. Each thread contains a "poll" where the board members can discuss and "vote" on the potential validity of the submission.
4. Threads with high poll ratings get researched.
5. "Research" involves contacting the "inventor" and establishing communications (the board submission might not be by the inventor as in YouTube examples).
6. Once communication is established, and if the inventor still holds to his/her claim and is willing to undergo scrutiny, then "contact" is made.
7. "Contact" consists of say...3... unrelated, yet recognized board members being flown to the location... test equipment in hand.
8. Flights, hotels, car rental, and per diem (i.e...food money) are provided by a "fund" sponsored by the board members. Investigation time is donated.
9. "Prize money" is not required as substantiation from the "verification team" of this board will allow the inventor to make millions simply writing a book about it...even if freely given.
10. All accounts and findings are posted to the individual threads as they happen, and the current status is updated regularly until a success or fail verdict is achieved.
11. If a success verdict is achieved, further assistance is provided by the group as is protection of the inventor and the invention from suppression.
12. All "verification investigations", their status, and their verdicts remain publicly posted as a resource to others.
Ok...well that's a pretty rough draft, but I think you get the idea.
I welcome your thoughts on this approach.
P.S. I am officially claiming the acronym "P.E.T." (Practical Energy Technology) as my own. What a short road to fame that was ;)
Well thought out audiomaker. You seem to have covered all but one important point, as far as I see it. When someone finds themselves confronted by the impossible - and this is how things will appear, especially to a well educated investigator - the tendency is denial and disbelief. The observer goes into something akin to one of those digital glitch repeating loop things (is there a name for that? There should be) which potentially could go on ad infinitum.
So flying three well educated investigators halfway around the world just to have them return confused and unsure of what they witnessed might prove a little imprudent.
I put it to you that the lack of consensus on what constitutes a valid litmus test is the real issue here. It should be obvious by now that the 'real deal' will appear so ridiculously paradoxical and simplistic that nobody will give the thing a second look. Another 'tell' will be the demeanor of the inventor; rather than desperately defending their 'baby' you will probably find them quietly looking around at the ideas of others, adding a comment here and there, waiting patiently for the penny to drop.
The other thing you might notice, but this takes awhile - and it requires a serious first look without which the information doesn't get stored in the subconscious - is a nagging feeling that something is wrong with the universe... something you saw just didn't add up. If you can take a good long look at something and walk away with no nagging doubts, then you probably should do so.
Quote from: audiomaker on November 30, 2012, 10:05:42 AM
I had a feeling that would draw you out. :)
In a nutshell though, I get the sensation that this "cognitive heuristic" could be applied to the degree where it is self-beytraying. I fully understand however, that one who possesses great intelligence must become both weary and wary after a number of disillusions presented by the ignorant and assaults by the less-than-righteous.
It is however the proverbial "needle in a haystack" that is in one form or another, what most of the members here seek. I have the advantage of ignorance, having intentionally avoided this, and other outlets of its kind over the years. From a position of ignorance, my observation is that ruling out devices constructed on "classes" of phenomena might be going a bit too far.
I feel that it is a dangerous assumption that an inventor...or a re-discoverer should have the burden of proof. It seems no more likely to me that an intelligent researcher with the "answer" would have the correct processes to properly submit a real solution to the community (and the world), than it would for an intelligent hoaxer to have the logic that they will be discredited, or...incarcerated after submitting a fake.
It is because of this, that I suggest the burden of proof lays on the community, else we potentially betray what we seek.
Put another way... there is no prerequisite that a working device have video, not have external wires laying around it, or hooked to it, not have hidden areas or "mystery boxes", not be looking for investment capital, and not be based on a certain "class" of device.
I absolutely agree. There is only one "prerequisite" and that is that the data support the conclusions drawn from them, and that the claims made are supported by experimental results. The real data, I mean, not some cherry-picked values obtained by incorrect application of the wrong tools, as we see so many times in these matters.
Quote
I will submit to you that if I had a 100% working device... of any nature, that I could very quickly make it appear 100% fake. I'd throw some wires on it leading to a connected motor that does nothing, I'd put a battery on the floor next to it with some jumper cables, I'll make strange edits to the video at key points, I'll have a webpage asking for investors, refuse to produce data or schematics, I'll sell holistic herbs next to it and I'll offer a free Ginsu knife set with every purchase.
Point? I can almost promise that I could take a real working device if one existed and have it fail the "cognitive heuristic" process immediately.
While that would be an intentional action, it would not dismiss the fact that the device actually worked.
Of course you could do that. What in the world would be the point of that, though? (Although some have speculated that Andrea Rossi must be doing just that). Would it not be better by far to demonstrate unequivocally that your device _did_ work as claimed? It would be easier, too. The best way to keep other people from knowing that your device is real is simply to not tell anyone about it. And what would the point be of that, if you really did have, or thought you had, an overunity device?
Quote
If I did it unintentionally, the only real thing that could be proven was that I had absolutely no sense of what it would take to get recognition and validation of my device. That lack of sense however does not preclude a working device and the community fails when it bases it's search pattern on that criteria.
It is...after all.. the underlying theme of this community to invent or uncover such a device even if the device is not one's own. No?
Thoughts?
Yes, I suppose it is, and part of that process is to winnow out the chaff from the wheat. I cringe when I see creative and intelligent people travelling down a road that they have chosen only because they don't know how to calculate power properly, but believe they do, for example. If mistakes like that aren't run down and publicly corrected..... everybody in this community suffers therefrom. Newcomers think that the wrong way is OK, the creative and intelligent claimant wastes time and money, the villagers get tired of the boy crying "wolf" because he sees a squirrel through his cracked spectacles..... you get the idea, I hope.
But seriously..... what inventor of a real FE device is so inept that he won't claim it is, and pretends that it's not? (I actually know of at least one such case, though.... not that the inventor DID that, but that many people apparently believe that he did.)
Hi audiomaker,
I had a look at the "free energy" "overunity" definition thread when it was opened but have not for a few days so no idea on the progress made. I should probably have another look. If there is almost a consensus reached then it is a very recent development as my experience of watching this community for more than a decade has been one of despair. The terms have historically been abused terribly and manipulated to whatever the person making the statement felt better benefited their agenda. There is a very well known example of bastardisation of terminology on this very forum!
Your example with the solar cell analogy is all about the processing of energy, whether overunity or not, and the processing is the key. In the UK for example when I was a small boy the government privatised and outsourced the central processing of energy and now we are at the mercy of those private individuals who run an energy monopoly vastly inflating prices. To be able to locally process energy on a small scale for your personal family needs is the goal of breaking this monopoly and why there is resistance to communities such as this and the individuals who identify themselves as part of this community. Many choose to stay off the radar until they have something, very wisely in my opinion, I myself did not post a single word for 10+ years before I was ready to disseminate. In fact I wasn't ready to disseminate when I did but I was out of time and options so did so with a heavy heart, because I knew then that I had to complete my task, a daunting prospect and proceeded to do so at great personal cost. It's done now and I am glad, because if I had known all those years ago what it was going to take I never would have wanted to do it, but I still would have because I had no choice.
You don't know what the HELP is, which explains why your talking to me I guess. Nobody else wants to really. Here's some reading for you:
The Hydro Electro Lytic Pump (HELP)
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=181024
You will also need this:
http://www.overunity.com/10425/phoenix-turbine-builders-club-forum/#.ULkykobjlew
and this for the full story:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2781-wood-gasification.html
By the time you reach the end (which will take a while) you will hopefully grasp the implications of what phase change engines could potentially achieve.
This took 16 hour days for more than a decade to complete with the majority of the early years seeing no progress, at all, just learning and answering questions. I then broke all the rules by giving it all away and disseminating globally without condition or restriction. There is a quote floating around that says something like "the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". This quote is true in my opinion, if you are guaranteed to lose by playing the game with someone else's rules there is only one option left, change the rules. This was easy to do, all it took was personal sacrifice. The HELP / HELT is just the first one of all my inventions, everything that followed came from the work done on that.
The other thing you need to know is that turbine generators are twice as efficient (at least) as an internal combustion engine (ICE), the military has been using micro turbines for power generation for longer than I have been alive, but you are still using an inefficient ICE to drive around in and do useful work, are you not ? Ask yourself why that would be and you will be well along the road to understanding the challenges this world faces.
I will have a think about the baseline idea you have seeded, not ready to comment on that just yet.
Have Fun!
Rob
Quote from: Tusk on November 30, 2012, 05:29:58 PM
Well thought out audiomaker. You seem to have covered all but one important point, as far as I see it. When someone finds themselves confronted by the impossible - and this is how things will appear, especially to a well educated investigator - the tendency is denial and disbelief. The observer goes into something akin to one of those digital glitch repeating loop things (is there a name for that? There should be) which potentially could go on ad infinitum.
So flying three well educated investigators halfway around the world just to have them return confused and unsure of what they witnessed might prove a little imprudent.
I put it to you that the lack of consensus on what constitutes a valid litmus test is the real issue here. It should be obvious by now that the 'real deal' will appear so ridiculously paradoxical and simplistic that nobody will give the thing a second look. Another 'tell' will be the demeanor of the inventor; rather than desperately defending their 'baby' you will probably find them quietly looking around at the ideas of others, adding a comment here and there, waiting patiently for the penny to drop.
The other thing you might notice, but this takes awhile - and it requires a serious first look without which the information doesn't get stored in the subconscious - is a nagging feeling that something is wrong with the universe... something you saw just didn't add up. If you can take a good long look at something and walk away with no nagging doubts, then you probably should do so.
Well, I'm not sure understanding it is the first priority.
As I love using ridiculous examples in my points, here's another...
1. A man claims he has created a pill, that once swallowed, will allow the taker to produce up to 100kv and up to 100a between his fingertips using telepathic energy...for the rest of his life.
2. He uploads a video to YT showing him arc welding using his fingers.
3. The group gets ahold of this video, and after much discussion, a little more information gathering, and the result of an ongoing vote (poll) reaching a high state, after contact we send the investigators.
4. The investigators return with video of the guy sitting in his specially made chair that draws power from his fingers to light his home, they all rode around with him in his electric car with the conductive steering wheel (from which the vehicle is powered), they watched him explode people's cell phones across a restaurant by pointing at them. They undressed him, probed him (everywhere), took readings, went to different locations.... everything our "Team" could think of to find the source.
If the end result is that the team returns stating it is impossible but seems to work, I will not only feel that my donation to the fund was justified, but I might order one of these pills, or at least help fund more research or another exploration team.
While this example is designed to produce at least a little smile, viewing the "impossible"...to a degree that someone's own knowledge and beliefs define it, is exactly what we are all hoping for daily.
As I type this, I see that a couple more responses to this thread came through. Forgive me while I try to respond without too much fragmentation of the thread. It might take me a bit.
All the Best
Audiomaker said,
QuoteWhat I've tried to do in this thread is approach it as if I had an "OU" device, or a "Practical New Energy Technology" and was at the point of desiring to have it validated, improved to the point of practicality, and manufactured for world consumption.
What I am discovering is that the mechanism to do so is in disarray, and that there is not only a (very logical) bias against improperly construed submissions, a less-than-adequate discovery phase (which is why I have no idea what a "Help Generator" is), a burden a proof that might be beyond my expectations, a threat of suppression, but also no clear or reliable process to the destination.
Well why didn't you say so in the first place. If you really had a real OU device or a practical new energy technology and you actually wanted it "validated".... what the heck are you doing on this forum, wasting your time? Are you waiting for Mark Dansie to visit with cameras and meters and give his holy Imprimatur?
You can simply take your device to, for example, SouthWest Research Institute, who last year alone funded inventors with real, innovative or "face-valid" speculative ideas to the tune of over four million dollars. Or EarthTech International, if your device is even more speculative and touchy. Convince them that you have something worth a second glance.... like some cold fusion cells and tech, like some inertial propulsion schemes, like some antigravity claims..... then ditto: you will have free ride, with lab support and funding and NDAs and your own protected IP thru the patent process, all the way through to the stage of working "push-button" prototypes. With real, peer-reviewed scientific publications along the way. Or Bigelow Aerospace, another company that does similar things.
The very fact that a claimant chooses to come _here_ with his ideas and claims, rather than to one of these solid funding agencies, tells me a lot right away. I am not talking about experiments or development efforts or even the tabletop electronic OU devices that are so much fun to fool around with. I am talking about things like the HydroDifferentialPressureExchange system, AKA "Zed" buoyancy device. If it's really as claimed.... what in the world is the point of wasting time discussing it +here+ of all places? The graduate commons at the University of Oklahoma's School of Mechanical Engineering over in Norman might be a better place to do it.
(ETA: That "threat of suppression" bit is really laughable. The only people around here who get suppressed are the clear liars, and that only after multiple, years-long continuing offenses, and of course.... the skeptics. Just last week a known and outspoken skeptic was banned for his comments in the HDPE thread and _all his posts removed_ from the thread.)
I'm not so sure I want a high-speed turbine in my automobile. When you have a crash in an ICE powered car the engine block is already dangerous enough, without having parts spinning at 20KRPM.
Can you imagine what a hundred turbine powerplants, each of at least 150 hp, many with much more, would have done in this crash?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/us/texas-highway-pileup/index.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
I absolutely agree. There is only one "prerequisite" and that is that the data support the conclusions drawn from them, and that the claims made are supported by experimental results. The real data, I mean, not some cherry-picked values obtained by incorrect application of the wrong tools, as we see so many times in these matters.
<snip>
Of course you could do that. What in the world would be the point of that, though? (Although some have speculated that Andrea Rossi must be doing just that). Would it not be better by far to demonstrate unequivocally that your device _did_ work as claimed? It would be easier, too. The best way to keep other people from knowing that your device is real is simply to not tell anyone about it. And what would the point be of that, if you really did have, or thought you had, an overunity device?Yes, I suppose it is, and part of that process is to winnow out the chaff from the wheat. I cringe when I see creative and intelligent people travelling down a road that they have chosen only because they don't know how to calculate power properly, but believe they do, for example. If mistakes like that aren't run down and publicly corrected..... everybody in this community suffers therefrom. Newcomers think that the wrong way is OK, the creative and intelligent claimant wastes time and money, the villagers get tired of the boy crying "wolf" because he sees a squirrel through his cracked spectacles..... you get the idea, I hope.
<snip>
But seriously..... what inventor of a real FE device is so inept that he won't claim it is, and pretends that it's not? (I actually know of at least one such case, though.... not that the inventor DID that, but that many people apparently believe that he did.)
TinselKoala,
I respectfully disagree that the one prerequisite you state has any bearing on if a device works or not. It is only a prerequisite to validation, and to that I agree.
I simply feel that devices without that prerequisite should not be dismissed because of the lack of that prerequisite. Only validation is withheld without your logical prerequisite.
What I am seeing is a jump from lack of data, and lack of experimental results straight to dismissal. The burden of proof is laid on the presenter and we are demanding of that presenter something that not only might not be something they ever thought about, but where ultimately it is
us that has the interest in witnessing positive results.
That is why I use the example of the 5 year old boy levitating the bug zapper and his truck driver dad YT'ing the video. In this example the child and his father might have little interest in what is for some of us a life-long pursuit and obsession, yet we demand of them that they provide satisfactory evidence to us when they might not even know how.
This is why the burden of proof must lay on the community, and why I think this community needs a better mechanism to debunk or validate after all the available evidence has been obtained.
That example is extreme, yet you could back away from it a few degrees and find the backyard inventors and theorists.
I am not suggesting that the community needs to pursue every YT video, or every claim, but instead to have a mean of collective examination of what evidence there is, and then fund our own exploration of what collectively are decided to be prime candidates. The data we collect becomes useful record, discourages hoaxes and fraud, and with some stroke of luck, in the future validates a device that might have otherwise been overlooked.
.....
Ok....to why I would use the example of intentionally making a real device look fake...
Now you must know how I feel. Why would an inventor of a real FE device make it look fake? The point was that looking fake, or looking real is not validation nor dismissal worthy.
Your being perplexed as to why one might do that however, reminds me of how I feel when I see examples of people going to great lengths to produce machines that they know will be discredited and might land them in jail. Why would they do this? We share that question running the equation in forward or reverse.
By the way, I find your stance as that of the relation between the cop and the protester. It is invaluable, as either becomes harmfully out of balance without the other. I hope you will forgive me as I play Devil's Advocate, because I really value your input, and in fact agree with much of what you say.
Ack! ... more posts rolling in. I'm going to need to rest soon...
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 06:43:31 PM
Well why didn't you say so in the first place. If you really had a real OU device or a practical new energy technology and you actually wanted it "validated".... what the heck are you doing on this forum, wasting your time? Are you waiting for Mark Dansie to visit with cameras and meters and give his holy Imprimatur?
<snip?
Quickly, no I don't have a device. In the light YT and other presentations, and as a matter of motive, I wanted to approach the topic from the chair of someone who believed they did.
I just want to clear that up.
Also, I apologize for not better explaining my usage of the word "suppression". I was not suggesting suppression from skeptics, I was suggesting suppression as in inventors having untimely fatal accidents, which I assume has crossed the mind of most people who thought they could build a device...at one time or another. As I have stated, skeptics are invaluable, and I would imagine for the most part, are usually correct.
Peace :)
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 06:50:43 PM
I'm not so sure I want a high-speed turbine in my automobile. When you have a crash in an ICE powered car the engine block is already dangerous enough, without having parts spinning at 20KRPM.
Can you imagine what a hundred turbine powerplants, each of at least 150 hp, many with much more, would have done in this crash?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/us/texas-highway-pileup/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/us/texas-highway-pileup/index.html)
I never said the turbine
had to be in the vehicle.
The point of a turbine is a steady RPM generator to convert the source of energy into electricity via an alternator. A single turbine in your garage could power both your house and store electricity to charge your car battery bank. The issue then comes down to what fuel runs the turbine and there are many options for that raw material. One concept for electric cars is to plug it in overnight and give you local commuting range for work and leisure during the day. The difference is that you would be providing your own on site processing of raw material into electricity and cut the grid companies out completely.
Additionally the Mazda rotary engine has maximum power output at 8,500RPM and they had no problem with gaining a safety rating from the relevant authorities. Agreed it's not 20,000RPM but there are unexplored options for personal rotary turbines that may produce acceptable power output at lower speeds.
http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/about/
Thanks for that in depth reply audiomaker. Your example (yes it did fetch a smile) highlights a point I was trying to make; someone with such an obvious ability, or device with same, would make the process in discussion here simple. Unfortunately the phenomena we seek is much more likely to be 'hidden in plain sight' and if you think this through I suspect you will agree.
Is it not true that IF some phenomena capable of OU - and regardless of some fancy 'workaround' explanation this implies a breach of one or another of our fundamental beliefs or laws - if presented it must by virtue of it's own unfamiliarity and improbability be viewed initially as so unlikely as to not be worth a second glance. Perhaps I may refer here to my own device, and for the moment allow it to be valid (just for the point to be made clear) then there follows an inevitable sequence of implications which in themselves place almost too much burden of acceptance on the rational mind.
For instance, the simple claim that a secondary reactive force equal to the applied force manifests at the centre of mass (apologies to those unfamiliar with the device and the theory behind it - I will add the link at the end of this reply) which appears at this time to be a newly discovered phenomena, suggests that large numbers of physicists around the world with billions of dollars worth of high energy apparatus at their disposal do not understand what happens when someone knocks two sticks together.
A sobering thought if true, and one well worth investigating for obvious reasons.
But my point here is that revelations on this scale simply DO NOT occur; they have never done so in our history, and common sense, logic, experience all remind us forcefully that such a thing can not occur, definitely not here on this forum, and anyway we don't see how anything new or useful could come out of a device that looks like a gutted old record player or a damaged model of the Starship Enterprise.
And yet.....
if we first take a reasoned look at something, if there is even the slightest misadventure between what we see and what is expected, eventually we must either resolve the mystery or return to the source of confusion. And to answer TK's question, why here on this forum? To which I say, why not? Perhaps you underestimate the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills present in such company.
Here's that link again btw:
http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULl0IWfp5Qw (http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULl0IWfp5Qw)
Quote from: Tusk on November 30, 2012, 10:09:09 PM
Thanks for that in depth reply audiomaker. Your example (yes it did fetch a smile) highlights a point I was trying to make; someone with such an obvious ability, or device with same, would make the process in discussion here simple. Unfortunately the phenomena we seek is much more likely to be 'hidden in plain sight' and if you think this through I suspect you will agree.
Is it not true that IF some phenomena capable of OU - and regardless of some fancy 'workaround' explanation this implies a breach of one or another of our fundamental beliefs or laws - if presented it must by virtue of it's own unfamiliarity and improbability be viewed initially as so unlikely as to not be worth a second glance. Perhaps I may refer here to my own device, and for the moment allow it to be valid (just for the point to be made clear) then there follows an inevitable sequence of implications which in themselves place almost too much burden of acceptance on the rational mind.
For instance, the simple claim that a secondary reactive force equal to the applied force manifests at the centre of mass (apologies to those unfamiliar with the device and the theory behind it - I will add the link at the end of this reply) which appears at this time to be a newly discovered phenomena, suggests that large numbers of physicists around the world with billions of dollars worth of high energy apparatus at their disposal do not understand what happens when someone knocks two sticks together.
A sobering thought if true, and one well worth investigating for obvious reasons.
But my point here is that revelations on this scale simply DO NOT occur; they have never done so in our history, and common sense, logic, experience all remind us forcefully that such a thing can not occur, definitely not here on this forum, and anyway we don't see how anything new or useful could come out of a device that looks like a gutted old record player or a damaged model of the Starship Enterprise.
And yet.....
if we first take a reasoned look at something, if there is even the slightest misadventure between what we see and what is expected, eventually we must either resolve the mystery or return to the source of confusion. And to answer TK's question, why here on this forum? To which I say, why not? Perhaps you underestimate the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills present in such company.
Here's that link again btw:
http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULl0IWfp5Qw (http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.ULl0IWfp5Qw)
Yes, and the answer possibly being hidden in plane sight....having eluded the efforts of so many ingenious people for so long... is ever more reason that the burden of proof should lay as much with the community as the inventor. One must not let the hoaxsters, criminals and mistake makers ruin a shared goal by raising the bar too high.
At the same time, enthusiasts who reside in "skeptics corner" such as TK (I really hope that's OK with you TK), are absolutely critical to the exploration process as they help keep our energy focused in the right direction and process the wheat that hopefully someday results in the bread we shall all consume (wow is that awkward paraphrasing or what?). Nobody likes the cop that is keeping the protesters contained until that cop is gone. It is a thankless position that I for one...admire.
That said, I think a better mechanism is in order. A mechanism that is pro–active towards the unified goal of this board. A mechanism that eases the police/protestor relationship by delegating to a jury of peers. Why here? ...as Tusk says... "Why not?".
*******
@Tusk and Rob. Thank you both for giving links to your ideas. Just because I'm not discussing them in this thread doesn't mean I'm not looking. I should mention that I'm probably not qualified to offer an opinion on them, but perhaps someone lurking is.
@Tusk: While I'm here though, I will say that your device has a striking resemblance to something I built 30 years ago to demonstrate that directional propulsion could be obtained by applying Newton's 3rd law to leverage over an elliptical orbit. The idea was somewhat like "momentum in a box" and was (possibly) based on an observation I had made similar to what you are calling a "secondary reactive force". At the time I was convinced that I was going to re-write Newton's 3rd law... I was very young. I did not have the skill set to complete that experiment to my satisfaction, and besides, the girl in the second row was too cute to ignore :)
QuoteThe idea was somewhat like "momentum in a box"
Funny you should mention that audiomaker; I started out trying to achieve the very same thing. But momentum rules. On the up side, momentum rules (in this particular instance) at the expense of CoE.
But then, not suprising really. What is energy if not simply mass in motion?
Quote from: Tusk on December 01, 2012, 12:03:21 AM
<snip>
But then, not suprising really. What is energy if not simply mass in motion?
That notion, I will have to pass on addressing in this thread :)
Quote from: audiomaker on November 30, 2012, 07:06:29 PM
Quickly, no I don't have a device. In the light YT and other presentations, and as a matter of motive, I wanted to approach the topic from the chair of someone who believed they did.
I just want to clear that up.
Yes, I understood that from the beginning. A rhetorical issue and one that served its purpose: sites like this one, while important, are not the way to get your free energy device _for which you have a working prototype_ to capitalization and production, and there are viable alternatives, more than one, where claims that have a chance of being real can apply for help and funding.
Quote
Also, I apologize for not better explaining my usage of the word "suppression". I was not suggesting suppression from skeptics, I was suggesting suppression as in inventors having untimely fatal accidents, which I assume has crossed the mind of most people who thought they could build a device...at one time or another. As I have stated, skeptics are invaluable, and I would imagine for the most part, are usually correct.
Peace :)
Hmmm.... so you are suggesting that the fear of having an "untimely fatal accident" has deterred someone from building or publicising a device that works? Not a random accident but one orchestrated by..... whom? Either you believe in an organized suppression conspiracy ( or conspiracies) or you don't. I'm sure that some inventors are huddled over their magnet motors and gravity wheels working in secret for fear of the kind of suppression you mean. There are also people who believe that they are Jesus or Napoleon, sometimes on alternate days of the week.
We know what we know, and we know we don't know everything. But we don't know what we don't know... it is a vast space, possible knowledge. Certainly, if nobody knows of your work, you will be safe from conspirators cutting your brakelines or planting a bomb inside your cereal box.
Quote from: evolvingape on November 30, 2012, 07:17:19 PM
I never said the turbine had to be in the vehicle.
The point of a turbine is a steady RPM generator to convert the source of energy into electricity via an alternator. A single turbine in your garage could power both your house and store electricity to charge your car battery bank. The issue then comes down to what fuel runs the turbine and there are many options for that raw material. One concept for electric cars is to plug it in overnight and give you local commuting range for work and leisure during the day. The difference is that you would be providing your own on site processing of raw material into electricity and cut the grid companies out completely.
Additionally the Mazda rotary engine has maximum power output at 8,500RPM and they had no problem with gaining a safety rating from the relevant authorities. Agreed it's not 20,000RPM but there are unexplored options for personal rotary turbines that may produce acceptable power output at lower speeds.
http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/about/ (http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/about/)
1) I have no problem with stationary turbine power plants, in fact they would be good sources for my wireless auto power transmission scheme using the guardrails and antennae embedded at stoplights and other stopping points for transmission to the autos.
2) the Mazda engine only makes that RPM when it is topped out, it isn't a constant RPM device like a turbine power plant would be. In a vehicle you'd operate the turbine at a constant RPM to turn your genset to make power for the wheelmotors. But leaving the turbine in the garage is a much better idea.
QuoteThere are also people who believe that they are Jesus or Napoleon, sometimes on alternate days of the week.
I demand to know who, and which days. I have first dibs on Tuesday through Friday (Napoleon). Nothing going on Saturday through Monday - what sort of nut would think they were JC ::)
@audiomaker: hey, I'm firmly in the skeptic's corner but I'm no cop. I'm more like the fellow who wants to keep things quiet and orderly so that the cops _don't_ have to come. Any community should police itself first, before abdicating that responsibility to some governing _force_.
After all, I've stated my beliefs and delusions about what Tesla called the Wheelworks of Nature and I'm doing work of my own involving at least visualizing what might be there and "borrowing" some of it for a while even though I have to return it right away. And lately I'm learning that high power/high voltage/high current might not be necessarily the way. Nature might like to be tickled and teased, rather than bullied and forced, to open up her secrets...
But if research isn't done correctly, and if conclusions based on bad measurements or no measurements at all are made that indicate, falsely, overunity performance from some device or system.... . that only hurts everyone concerned. There's no stigma attached to trying, failing, and reporting failure. That is how we learn what _won't_ work, often more important to know than what _might_ work. But if one misinterprets and misuses an instrument or procedure, makes math and reasoning errors, and then claims OU success based on that.... it really really needs to be pointed out and corrected and in fact hammered home until the "offender" recants and admits the error of his... or her.... ways. To do otherwise is to allow falsity and misdirection to detract and distract from our real work of discovery.
If you can call it that.... ;)
@Tusk: I'm not dodging you... much. I just don't feel qualified at this time to give your interesting device the attention and analysis that it deserves.... especially after our discussion in the pendulum paradox thread. I'll be following your progress and if I can think of anything at all relevant to say I'll try to say it, maybe.
Meanwhile, I am working with some basic dynamical problems of my own, "revolving" around forced gyroscopic precession, as illustrated in this old video of Professor Laithewaite's remarkable demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo
No problem TK, I fully appreciate your position on such things and have no issue with it assuming fair and reasonable handling, which you appear to uphold. Not 'seeing' the paradox (with the pendulum bias experiment) is quite common - frustrating for me, but a typical response so you are not alone in that. I don't think the same thing happens with the Paradox Engine though, it seems to throw everyone off balance if they give it anything more than a cursory glance.
I'm familiar with the phenomena in the link you provided, and gyroscopic phenomena in general. If my opinion is worth anything, and not that I rule out advantage with gyroscopic effects, but my own phenomena is a walk in the park next to that nightmare. I was really hoping to get your particular style of robust investigation going on this thing and get it sorted out, since your opinion has a high value on this forum. I have no qualms or doubts about the viability of the concept and without wanting to seem aggressive, challenge anyone to give the material their full attention and not come away either converted or confounded.
I am nearing the end of two driven years. We each have our reasons for engaging in such projects. Since my initial 'lightbulb' event we have seen Fukushima Daiichi blow several rather large gaskets; not one of us can be certain that some small particle originating from that mess is not silently radiating our insides. I therefore take my work very seriously, for this and several other pressing reasons. So please forgive my occasional blunt delivery, my intent is simply to make a positive contribution, if at all possible.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 01, 2012, 04:15:51 AM
@audiomaker: hey, I'm firmly in the skeptic's corner but I'm no cop. <snip>
I know. And I'm no protester.
I was suggesting a similar relationship though where protesters...as reasonable as they find themselves to be, often end up breaking windows, flipping cars and lighting fires in the street without someone to remind them to be reasonable. No offense was meant.
As to inventors huddling over their devices (working or not) fearing the black van that's been parked across the street for a week...
...Heck ya, sure that's the case. Considering that govt's spend billions and puts 100's of thousands of people in harms way (who are killed by the thousands) just to influence the price and availability of oil, I don't find it at all fantastic that an inventor would be concerned with the safety of tampering with a trillion dollar industry.
There are some who speculate that Dr. Tesla's research was terminated by people who had less-than-admirable intentions.
So yes, I do believe that might be a concern of anyone with a viable device, or even with a viable concept. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not actually out to get you".
:)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 01, 2012, 03:47:59 AM
1) I have no problem with stationary turbine power plants, in fact they would be good sources for my wireless auto power transmission scheme using the guardrails and antennae embedded at stoplights and other stopping points for transmission to the autos.
2) the Mazda engine only makes that RPM when it is topped out, it isn't a constant RPM device like a turbine power plant would be. In a vehicle you'd operate the turbine at a constant RPM to turn your genset to make power for the wheelmotors. But leaving the turbine in the garage is a much better idea.
1) Yes agreed. I also have plans for your wireless power transmission technology to replace the slip ring assembly on the HELP.
2) Yes stationary turbine micro power plant is an extremely desirable option. I have also had a chance to think about an automobile mounted turbine as an onboard powerplant, and your concern is valid. So a potential solution...
I have suggested using carbon disc brake technology as suitable for a RotoMax turbine. A carbon brake "brakes" by using hydraulic pressure to compress a pressure plate against the rotor and stator assembly using 3000 PSI of pressure as an example. High surface area for contact and high pressure compression slows the rotor and converts that energy to heat, which is why the brake discs glow red hot. If you reverse the operating procedure and on startup use 3000 PSI of pressure to compress the spring assembly (big ass springs) you can move the side housing stator away from the rotor giving operating clearance. Now close the fluid inlet and you can lock that 3000 PSI of fluid pressure and turn the hydraulic pump off. Then all you need is a collision sensor like for airbag activation to open the fluid exhaust valve(s) and the spring pressure asserts itself causing the pressure plate to brake the rotor. I know this is viable, I do it almost every day at work when static proof testing, sometimes at pressures of 6000 PSI +.
@TK
Ok, I was looking for your input on this one.
You know, it takes time to browse all the threads and like you, I have things in life I have to do.
http://www.overunity.com/11937/accelerating-motor-generator-selfcharging-capacitors-without-any-batteries/#.ULrK2qXDlbw
Now, I am not make a challenge here. Skimming the thread, it appears that they were communicating with the inventor at some point and that kind of faded away.
I don't feel like there was ever any resolution to the thread. After 7 or so pages of mostly positive remarks, it just sort of faded with some other member mentioning something about "fake".
It's like a bad movie that ends without ever knowing what happened to the heroes.
In this particular thread, there's a lot of talking about the validity of the device. Some people usually cloud the thread with discussions of other devices and what really should be other topics, and in the end, one is left wondering... "Ok, what happened there??"
It might be my conspiracist's nature, but I can almost "feel" the private messaging going on, and then... it sort of goes quiet. I don't like that, and this isn't the first time I've witnessed it.
It's like something that should have the full attention of the board until a public verdict is reached (including physical confirmation if warranted), just gets boring and fades out as the main players stop posting in the thread.
Thoughts?
Ah... the Quanta charger. Yes, I remember that one pretty much as you do.
You are right about the "back-channel" communication network. Nobody but Stefan knows the depths of that web or who is talking to whom. I've got some doozies in my PM box from people trying to get me involved in one thing or another... Mister Wayne even asked about the possibility of hiring me, isn't that a laugh? And I have a few friends that I talk about this and that with in PMs too.
Back to the Quanta thing. Well, it's a case of effects interpreted in certain ways, tight control of real data, and perhaps a bit of exaggerated hyperbole to get the pot stirred up and cooking. They are making and selling a nice little PWM controller unit, more power to them. But would they have reached their target customer base as easily, had they not shown something remarkable?
I have no real data, but I can speculate. There is one bit of real knowledge I can share with you, though: any motor that uses cylindrical coils with one pole pointing out into space is wasting half of the magnetic field of that coil. Perhaps that's important for the "effect"... but I will guarantee more torque, and stronger HV spikes, if both ends of the coil ( and both ends of any PMs) are put to work. The ideal setup for a pulse motor/generator with PMs in the rotor would be to have your coils wound on "toroids with a gap" and have your rotor turning thru the gap. This would put both poles of the electromagnets pushing or pulling or engaging in core effect, working with/against both poles of each rotor magnet: optimal use of the magnetic field for no extra cost in current (essentially doubling the field for the same current), no waste.
It is very rare to see pulse motor aficionadoes using all the magnetic circuit. But real commercial motor designers always do: They even include mu-metal shells on simple DC can motors to close the magnetic circuit from the stator magnets that would otherwise be wasted outside the can.
Anyhow... if anyone has a Quanta setup that they would like to test, let me know and we can work out a procedure. Beyond that, my impression of how the Quanta system works is pretty much contained in what I saw when I clicked thru to watch the video:
(Sorry... it is actually pretty hard for me to take this seriously, when stuff like this comes up. I must be the last person on the planet who does not allow ads or make money from my YT videos. Maybe I should start.)
How about this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 02, 2012, 12:33:11 AM
How about this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk
Thanks. The problem for me is that my own past pursuits only involve one or two concepts and there are so many concepts out there that it is daunting to even try to become educated on one, let alone all of them.
What that means simply is that I only have one qualification that is written in crayon.... does the device continuously produce energy in either motion or electricity without that motion or electricity coming from outside the loop of the machine itself (on the whole at least).
You can imagine for someone that a machine is presented and the math-minded begin to present problems with the equation, and I'm sitting here thinking ..."math?". Is it self running or is it not?
While I am not beyond examining the physics math behind any device, every time I begin do so, my brain begins to question why I'm doing math at all when I'm looking at what appears to be a self running machine?
Now in the example of the last link I provided... "quanta" was it?... The device appears to be self running, accelerating, and producing an increasing voltage output. In fact, I don't even care if it produces a voltage output (much), I am only interested in the fact that it appears to be under self power.
The best way I can describe it is that I feel "stunned" by what I am witnessing, while at the same time watching the other responses such as "Nice work!... have you considered using a different factor in your cap's?". Um... who cares?
To me there is no point in discussing a fake machine, and if the machine is real...well...we'll figure out why it works, who's concept it is modeled after, and how to improve upon it... later, or let NASA figure it out.
In the example in that thread, I only care if the energy that is producing motion is coming from an outside hidden source (ie...a fake), or if somehow the energy was stored (and enough of it) in those cap's to explain it running for the length of time that it did (ie...a mistake), or if it is actually a closed loop device producing more power than it took to begin the process.
If the later is true, I'd rather spend my time figuring out if I could get on a plane to see it and help verify it than all the other commentary I witness. If you read through that thread, you will observe the commentary I'm speaking of.
Instead, if feels like we missed the window. The group just yacked about it and possibly there were some offline channels, and it's gone....err..faded away.
Even if the machine is a fake, I'd like to see a consensus and some evidence that it is a fake. That device was possibly a good candidate for pro-active verification.
It leaves my mind very unsettled. I mean... it's pinned on this board why and to what end?
Grrr... I have to continue...
I am getting quite frustrated by this and I'm going to rant a little...
I just re-read the thread and each time I read it I get more aggravated.
7 pages of noise, clutter, and a whiff of smoke.
This is how that should have gone...
1. Person from OU.com validation team contacts the inventor and asks "Would you allow 3 unrelated independent persons from our board to fly to your location and verify your device?", fully explaining to them that experts would be arriving who would quickly discredit any hoax, fraud, or mistake... and that the results would be published publicly.
2. If the answer is "no thanks", that is published. If the answer is "No Problem", then 3 independent team members call the inventor on the phone and discuss his device.
3. The 3 members report to the board their opinion on if they all feel that this is worthy of "fund money" to investigate.
4. If there is a consensus, All 3 fly to the location immediately and validate or discredit the device and the inventor.
5. All tests, data, video, results are submitted in real time (ie...same day) to the board as they arrive.
6. Go from there.
It takes a day or two, a couple phone calls, and perhaps a couple more days to verify....done.
Instead they're talking about space aliens in the thread.
Very insightful audiomaker. For what it's worth, I agree with most if not all of your observations - not necessarily in relation to that specific device but in general.
May I just point out what seems an unnecessary specification for meeting OU? You stated
Quotedoes the device continuously produce energy in either motion or electricity without that motion or electricity coming from outside the loop of the machine itself
.... and I point here to the use of the word 'continuously'. Since the universe is asymmetric (Lee & Yang, 1956 or if you prefer a more tangible asymmetry, energy and matter) would it not be reasonable to expect that a device capable of encouraging motion (energy) in matter capitalising on this bias might be cyclic in nature? No doubt fusion stands as the prime example of a continuous release of, shall we say 'pressure' for want of a better term, into our material realm. But since such a method carries with it the risk of a sudden and catastrophic event due to failure of the flow control system we might prefer to realise our energy needs by use of some cyclic device which by it's very nature can be kept under firm control.
The Paradox Engine is cyclic btw - and apparently therefore does not pass even your first level of scrutiny?
@audiomaker:
Well, somebody has a kit that he'll sell for 200 dollars under cost, right? That is either a bargain, if it runs itself, or a ripoff if it is supposed to but doesn't.
The statements made by the claimaint are ambiguous at best. My opinion is that it is/was an advertising ploy, like I said earlier. That is certainly worth doing, look at his channel hits and consider that he gets a few cents every time someone watches an ad in his videos. I don't know if it's a crime to claim "free energy" in a YouTube video and then sit back and watch the ad revenue start coming in when people watch your video.... but to me it's almost the same thing as making the claim in front of prospective investors in a boardroom somewhere. Unethical, certainly.
The reason the device wasn't challenged and tested just exactly as you say is because the maker wouldn't allow it. There are plenty of people... like me.... who are able and willing to run complete tests on many kinds of such apparatus and report them straightforwardly and honestly and who will do it for free. You should be very suspicious of any claimant who pays someone to evaluate their free energy device, because there are several laboratories, maybe even many, that will gladly do it for free and with complete IP protection and NDAs and all that. There are even prizes and awards for proven FE/OU devices, one offered on this forum website, even. And the bar for some of them is very low: Hal Puthoff at ETI has his "one Watt" challenge for example.
Here are some good rules to live by if you are an inventor of a free energy device:
First, never NEVER take your working prototype apart for any reason whatsoever.
Second, once you have a working prototype that you think is capable of making free energy or consistent OU performance, _immediately_ construct another identical one, make sure it works, and lock it away somewhere.
Then make a _third_ one and send it to me. If it still works when it gets to me and I take it out of the box, I'll refund your shipping costs.
;)
TK, you said
QuoteFirst, never NEVER take your working prototype apart for any reason whatsoever.
Second, once you have a working prototype that you think is capable of making free energy or consistent OU performance, _immediately_ construct another identical one, make sure it works, and lock it away somewhere.
Then make a _third_ one and send it to me. If it still works when it gets to me and I take it out of the box, I'll refund your shipping costs.
What if
1. the prototype is a proof of concept device not capable of generating any output energy
2. the inventor has used up all their available resources building the prototype
Your advice is good provided the inventor has sufficient funds to produce a fully functional device then two more identical units. I would struggle just to meet the cost of postage, but clearly have no interest in profiting from my work or receiving cash bonuses from Youtube advertising. Does this not suggest something to be taken seriously?
QuoteThere are plenty of people... like me.... who are able and willing to run complete tests on many kinds of such apparatus and report them straightforwardly and honestly and who will do it for free.
Yet no reply to my earlier challenge. Perhaps an easily verifiable OU phenomena and a potential new law of physics hold no real interest for you ???
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 05:53:15 AM
1. the prototype is a proof of concept device not capable of generating any output energy
An error. You claim OU phenomena without the data to support it. If you had designed the concept device with 3 different devices measuring input energy, a laser tachometer giving accurate RPM of the output shaft, and a permanent magnet alternator converting back to electricity on the output shaft with 3 different methods for validating the measurement
then you would have a reliable data set that could be analysed should it show OU performance.Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 05:53:15 AM
2. the inventor has used up all their available resources building the prototype
I sympathise. Your only option is to give your device away publicly and hope someone recognises it's merit and funds further development. Been there, done that.
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 05:53:15 AM
Your advice is good provided the inventor has sufficient funds to produce a fully functional device then two more identical units. I would struggle just to meet the cost of postage, but clearly have no interest in profiting from my work or receiving cash bonuses from Youtube advertising. Does this not suggest something to be taken seriously?
No, it does not. I have re-read your thread this morning and I find nothing in it that convinces me you have OU or the understanding to analyse what you are seeing. You have no data, but you have conclusions.
An error.Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 05:53:15 AM
Yet no reply to my earlier challenge. Perhaps an easily verifiable OU phenomena and a potential new law of physics hold no real interest for you ???
I repeat, you have no data of value to draw any conclusions at all. Data analysis is a prerequisite for conclusions, without that no resources will be invested in investigation unless a particular party is interested in the effects your prototype demonstrates. I have no interest in your device.
@audiomaker... do you see what this community is up against ? reliable data sets that indicate OU performance are investigated by individuals and groups in this community. It is the responsibility of the inventor to provide said data set's the conclusions are based upon. If they cannot do that for whatever reason and they believe in their invention they must hope that other people see the potential merit and invest their own resources in development to prove that potential. This is exactly what I have done, and I await results, my devices are designed on solid known laws and principles and violate
none. Hence the interest, if you can call no public discussion whatsoever in 2 years + interest...
The solution to Tusk's problem is just as I have said earlier. When you have reliable repeatable data that indicates an anomaly, then you camp out in the graduate commons of a major research university, with a pitcher of beer and your device on the table. You demo and explain it to a bunch of physics grad students, every one of whom is casting about for a dissertation research project.
Or you put together your best dog-and-pony show, bring your smoke and your mirrors and show it to Bigelow, or Southwest Research Institute, or ETI. If you can interest them then you are off and running. If not.... then maybe your data and theory aren't really all that convincing to people who really are "skilled in the art".
Right now there's a case on this forum of someone who has "proof of concept" systems.... lots of them to hear the tale.... and is soliciting investment, applying for patents and promising huge returns.... he gave a PowerPoint presentation to a group of investors last year in which he projected that _if_ he got the investment funds he would, within 3 months, install a self-running system generating 50 kW of free electrical power for his local church. This is a person who claims to have working prototypes and has even published the usual videos, and has had a site visit from the Pope of Skeptics himself, the great Mark Dansie, whose stamp of approval is highly sought after and without which, apparently, no real Free Energy device can ever make it to production.
The fact that the investors were not conquered by the full brunt of this claimant's attack, along with the promise of the 50 kW unit at the church in three months... did not faze him at all, he still believes in himself and in his system, even though he has shown me, to my satisfaction, that he is all wet.
Why, if he had solid data and a real repeatable anomaly and a working prototype, would any investors NOT invest? The answer can only be because he doesn't have what he promises, or at least can't show it consistently and unambiguously.
@ evolvingape
QuoteYou claim OU phenomena without the data to support it
Perhaps you missed the graph showing clear potential OU of the main disk (not even considering the motion of the main rotor).
Or are you suggesting that a bench mounted disk driven by this method has losses other than EM and mechanical inefficiencies such that energy in does not correspond to the kinetic energy of the rotating disk?
QuoteI find nothing in it that convinces me you have OU or the understanding to analyse what you are seeing
Do you have data to support this?
QuoteI have no interest in your device
Under the circumstances I look forward to your continued lack of interest.
*sigh*
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 08:27:45 AM
Perhaps you missed the graph showing clear potential OU of the main disk (not even considering the motion of the main rotor).
Or are you suggesting that a bench mounted disk driven by this method has losses other than EM and mechanical inefficiencies such that energy in does not correspond to the kinetic energy of the rotating disk?
One graph does not a data set make, especially when making extraordinary claims. I have not posted in your thread as I have no desire to discuss physics concepts with someone who does not understand physics. Been there, done that, not doing it again.
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 08:27:45 AM
Do you have data to support this?
That is my opinion, not a claim requiring supporting evidence. If you want data in support of that opinion have a read here, it is fairly convincing:
http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/msg346668/#new
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 08:27:45 AM
Under the circumstances I look forward to your continued lack of interest.
Agreed. Maybe now you will stop pushing your extraordinary claims, unsupported by relevant data, in alternative threads to your own.
QuoteThe solution to Tusk's problem is just as I have said earlier. When you have reliable repeatable data that indicates an anomaly, then you camp out in the graduate commons of a major research university, with a pitcher of beer and your device on the table.
It's a good idea in principle TK, but in my case not practical for various reasons. As it happens this forum was not my first choice for public release. But it is a reasonable one. Since you have made it clear - from the point of view of an OU skeptic - that you dismiss any concerns about vested interests taking action against OU inventors, you would be unlikely to understand the cautious approach associated with such a disclosure.
However you will allow (I assume) that these concerns do exist, if misplaced; in which case you must also allow their impact on the disclosure process. A full and open release of material on a forum such as this at least places the work in the hands of those (supposedly, although I see no clear evidence so far) dedicated to investigating such matters and advancing the science. In addition, once released there is very little point in persecution of the inventor, unless of course the material is being ignored or dismissed as unworthy out of hand, as in my own case.
So you might then allow that a philanthropic inventor having an invalid claim (since you allow no validity) yet believing completely in it, and misguidedly supposing his invention threatens 'big oil' posts here notwithstanding a real fear of the consequences, which the typical response does little to alleviate.
Apologies if this isn't a 'feel good' moment for you.
@ evolvingape
Progress, in terms of new concepts, can occur as the product of an obscure line of investigation in a laboratory (such as various quantum phenomena) or as the result of an individual gaining an insight into the fundamental nature of a common circumstance which was previously not even given consideration (such as Newton with gravity).
In the interest of further understanding allow that up to this time no such knowledge of gravity has yet come to light, and poor old Sir Isaac (perhaps knighted for some other enterprise) pops in here to announce the inverse square law and a basic outline of his gravitational model. While no data has yet been collected, he explains that for a man of his age (370 give or take) and financial disposition (the knighthood doesn't come with an annuity) he thinks it best to pass on his findings post haste to a community with an interest in such matters.
Presumably this fantasy needs no conclusion; there are things that go unseen for many years, generations even, before someone looks in the right way. The fact that one person (or even a multitude) cannot see something is not sufficient evidence that it does not exist. The fact that only limited data is available, likewise.
It is also prudent to understand what a "claim" is: http://inventors.about.com/od/definations/g/claim.htm (http://inventors.about.com/od/definations/g/claim.htm)
QuoteIt is also prudent to understand what a "claim" is: http://inventors.about.com/od/definations/g/claim.htm
Useful link Liberty, for those interested in protecting their ideas under patent law.
Yes, I agree with you Tusk, most of the ideas here are not a specific defined machine that is patented. It is just an idea (an idea can not be patented) or basic machine that has not been patented, and therefore have no "claims", but may have reason to believe in a certain level of performance or act in a particular way, (which is fine) without having absolute proof in all cases. "Claims" only appear in legal patent descriptions as points to protect in the patent.
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 05:53:15 AM
an easily verifiable OU phenomena
A clear
claim without sufficient supporting evidence or the intent to provide such evidence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claim
5. A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truthStop wasting my time with semantics!
Work the problem fellas. Work the problem.
There is a reason this thread is titled "The Solution vs Hoax equation".
TK is representing the group that suggests for a claim to be taken seriously, it must have repeatable data and experimental results.
I represent the group (actually just myself), that if a real device exists, it requires neither to be real, and that not taking such a device seriously would be a monumental failure not only of the inventor, but of the community to which we are part of. Real is simply....real.
Between these two lays a gap. That gap is created by the assumptions on one end that any viable device will be for the most part already proven out, and by the assumptions that the community (and the world) would simply jump if you took a video of a working device. Furthering that gap are the noise of hoaxes, frauds and mistakes.
TK's logic is sound. I hope mine is as well.
Here's another cartoon example:
A man works for 50 years on a gravity machine (random pick). He gets it to work one day. It is real. He shows his 16 year old grand daughter this machine he built in his basement. His life achievement.
20 minutes later this man is taking a shower and has a heart attack and dies.
After the funeral, his grand daughter is telling her high school friends about her grandfather and what stuff he could do. She takes a cell phone video of this machine that is still running in the basement and uploads it to YouTube. She never checks that channel again.
A little later some member of this community stumbles on this video (it's actually titled "Grandpa's weird wheel") and they upload it here.
Ok, now please answer these questions:
1. Was the device in the example real?
2. Is a real device something that this community seeks?
3. Did this device pass the requirements to be taken seriously?
4. Do you think this device and presentation are going to get any traction in the community?
5. To who's life does it make a difference if the answer to #4 is "no". The girls? The dead grandfather?
6. Would this oversight be trivial or "OK"? What is the gravity of this oversight? (hehe)
7. How does this community not let this happen, while at the same time not let hoaxes, frauds, and mistakes waste our time?
Your Friend
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 08:59:08 AM
It's a good idea in principle TK, but in my case not practical for various reasons. As it happens this forum was not my first choice for public release. But it is a reasonable one. Since you have made it clear - from the point of view of an OU skeptic - that you dismiss any concerns about vested interests taking action against OU inventors, you would be unlikely to understand the cautious approach associated with such a disclosure.
However you will allow (I assume) that these concerns do exist, if misplaced; in which case you must also allow their impact on the disclosure process. A full and open release of material on a forum such as this at least places the work in the hands of those (supposedly, although I see no clear evidence so far) dedicated to investigating such matters and advancing the science. In addition, once released there is very little point in persecution of the inventor, unless of course the material is being ignored or dismissed as unworthy out of hand, as in my own case.
So you might then allow that a philanthropic inventor having an invalid claim (since you allow no validity) yet believing completely in it, and misguidedly supposing his invention threatens 'big oil' posts here notwithstanding a real fear of the consequences, which the typical response does little to alleviate.
Apologies if this isn't a 'feel good' moment for you.
You don't seem to get it. Since approximately 1998 I have worked full time and as a consultant for three different organizations whose explicit purpose was (one past tense, two present tense) to seek out, find, encourage and fund speculative investors like yourself. I cannot give you the specific details of my present involvement because I am under the usual NDAs concerning my present work. But I can talk about ISSO..... The "International Space Sciences Organization" funded by the internet "former" millionaire Joe Firmage. You can look this up for yourself. Joe, in his present incarnation as "Motion Sciences" has an idea about antigravity, a mechanical system that he calls "Streptation" and is actively pursuing this even now, long after ISSO became moribund. "We", during the time I was involved with them at the laboratory in San Francisco and later at Alameda NAS, Building 29..... funded and supported with laboratory space and equipment and technical help, several sets of experimenters like yourself. These included Viktor Roznyay, whose ignitron antigravity device I have described and who got over 1.5 million dollars US in funding from Joe, and Mark Comings, who had a few speculative ideas, managed to get himself a staff position and a bunch of equipment which he then never used, and Hawkins Kirk, a fellow who had Admiral Bobby Inman's number programmed into his speed-dial and claimed to have an alien implant..... and another antigravity scheme using multiple coils and other electronics.... and so on. Purple plates. Nikolayev Newton-Violators. Mikhailov's electron anomalies. We were mostly interested in propulsion and antigravity tecnologies but "free energy" and overunity devices were also in our bailiwick. We funded Kohei Minato on a visit with a load of his magnet motor overunity generators and "self runners" to visit the lab in SF for "validation testing". He and his wife and his retainer Murakami came, stayed for a week at the best hotels in SF, demonstrated their devices... I even repaired one that had been damaged in transit, Minato was so impressed that he offered to hire me and find me a Japanese wife, I am not kidding..... and so on.
The other operation, for whom I still sometimes consult, was working intensively on the superconducting antigravity system of Eugene Podkletnov and in fact had Pod himself as consultant so we KNEW we had the ceramic SC right, we KNEW we had all the operating parameters correct.... and so on. We did the best replication of Pod's claim that anyone, including Ning Li, had ever done. We made a 300 mm sintered hot-melt YCBO doped hi-temp SC disk _in house_ with Pod's supervision and approval. This is real, Big Science, with deep pockets to delve into for support of stuff of real interest. Next we went on to Peter and Neal Graneau's ideas about water arcs releasing excess energy and Neal's MHD-style system for getting electrical OU from a similar arc discharge system, Peter working in Canada and the USA and Neal working in a completely funded (by us) laboratory at Oxford. Seven years of support and funding for Peter and three or more for Neal. And on from there.
Activity at the latter organization has slowed lately because of LACK OF CREDIBLE APPLICANTS, not from lack of funding or interest.
And another one for which I still sometimes consult is known for having the best bulk calorimetry system in civilian hands and has directly funded and examined the claims of several Cold Fusion researchers whose names anyone in the field would recognise as the best candidates for success at the time. This lab is right now spending a good amount of time and money investigating a theory of modified Newtonian dynamics that seeks to explain the anomalies observed in galactic rotational profiles, by using a Cavendish-style balance that is so sensitive it picks up the gravitational attraction from cars in the parking lot.... so most of the lot is roped off so cars don't come too close to the building.
So I am sorry, but I happen to KNOW, of my own secure knowledge, that if you have something of real interest and can present it coherently _to the right people_ , you can get secure funding with absolute protection for your IP and your person, with real laboratory support and real scientists helping you in your investigations.
Did you bother to look up Southwest Research Institute? Tom Slick? Please do so. I know you are not going to change your strongly held opinions, but you should at least inform yourself of the opportunities that are available to speculative inventors and scientists who actually DO have something of real interest.
I am afraid I cannot even parse the statement I highlighted. What???? Maybe I need another cup of coffee.... it makes no sense to me.
I'm here for a number of personal reasons, but one big personal reason is that I am keeping my "ear to the ground" so to speak. If I can bring an inventor with a good idea, something that looks good, to my principals and get them interested in it, this will not only be very good for the inventor/claimant, but also for me, personally. I might get assigned to help with the project in a real way, and I'd get my usual consulting fees paid and the inventor would not be out a thin dime, nor would he be at any risk of the kinds of mythological suppression you seem to fear.
It is my opinion that the fear of suppression is a hystrionic excuse for the avoidance of exposure to real investigation that would in most cases result in the demolishing of the claimant's house of cards, in the way that it did for Rosemary Ainslie, or, in the final end, for Podkletnov, for Roznyay, the Graneaus, some Cold Fusion claims, and many many others.
The stories of active suppression and the difficulty of finding real "validation" without personal risk.... just do not wash with me. Or perhaps my whole career for the past fifteen years has been one of disinformation, as I unwittingly worked for the very agents of suppression you fear. Right.
If you like, I will put you, Tusk, in touch with the organizations for whom I still consult, and you can present your device and ideas to them directly for consideration. If you can strike up some interest, it's possible that they might hire me to look into your system officially, in their labs with their facilities at my disposal as usual. Or you might disappear, never to be heard from again. But your strongbox, when opened years from now, will still have your working prototype inside, and the legend of your disappearance at the hands of the forces of Big Oil will spread. Right.
Thanks TK for a well expressed and well reasoned reply :) I think we are making some progress, despite your obvious mild (?) frustration.
Let me put it to you this way; you are asking me to engage with some real heavyweights in the business, possibly get on an aircraft and travel halfway across the globe, to appear before a board of professional investigators (presumably holding significant academic qualifications) and advise them that regardless of their impressive educational achievements and extensive experience in the field, that they are however completely either unaware of or else misinformed regarding the processes involved when someone knocks two sticks together.
You are I suspect representative of the type of people I would be meeting with; you were - and remain - completely oblivious to the paradox in my introductory experiment. That a paradox exists is without question, providing the observer has no clear understanding of the phenomena involved and how it applies. I suggest to you now, as I did previously, that you had no clear understanding (at the time) but simply rested on a long held conviction implanted by the literature that the two elements were fundamentally distinct, each operating independently of the other as a matter of course. Such beliefs require no questions, and renders any paradox invisible.
I have no way of knowing if you were genuinely aware of the true principle behind the phenomena. That is a matter for your conscience alone. But considering that you had both the opportunity and (as a result of my blunt challenges) a justifiable reason to give me 'both barrels' I wonder that you chose not to do so.
No matter. Hopefully you will see my point in this instance. Since we have become so fond of comical metaphor, please allow me to paint yet another picture.
Consider the personal impact which would accompany a seemingly impossible discovery - let's say, while strolling through the local park one fine evening you happened upon a Frisbee sized disk shaped craft, hovering silently at head height, flashing lights, beams, unusual rapid motion... the whole business. After first checking around for signs of some prank, your attention is drawn back to the disk, which is now flashing it's lights rapidly while hovering just ahead of you at eye level. Some attempt at communication perhaps?
With a final brilliant flash which lasts several seconds, the disk deposits what appears to be a simple gaming dice at your feet and disappears into the night sky at high velocity. Retrieving the dice you note that while it has an unusual configuration of dots marking the faces, it appears to be made from some plastic material much as you might find with any cheaply manufactured board game.
Several months later, having carried the dice around (deep in thought no doubt) and having rolled it on multiple occasions, you become suddenly aware of a pattern in the sequence of numbers which occurs as a result of repeated casting. Grabbing a pencil and paper you begin to record the 'data'. After a surprisingly brief period of 'data collection' the dice begins to glow brightly and then disappears completely with what sounds like a relieved sigh. Analysis of the 'data set' proves tricky at first, but eventually the penny drops. There are five dates in chronological order; a quick session on the web reveals their meaning, at least with respect to the first four dates.
Windscale. Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukushima.
The fifth and last date is for some point in the not too distant future. You now have a problem. #
So tell me honestly, who would you approach in such circumstances? The nuclear power industry? Academia? The media? The circumstances are of course a fiction, but the essential elements of the conundrum itself are quite real. Definitely not something to aspire to.
If you can point me in the direction of that representative of the establishment who deals with impossible discoveries which by their very nature call into question even the most fundamental tenets of that vast and seemingly most propitious body of scientific knowledge, I shall indeed be very obliged to you for your assistance.
# no aliens were harmed in the termination of this fiction
More aliens?!
Where are my pills?...
@Tusk: I'll ignore for the moment your dismissal of my knowledge and my analysis of your little thought experiment, and tell you this: Either you have missed the point or I have not made myself clear. Neither I nor the people I sometimes work with care _one whit_ about theoretical explanations or predictions of unusual behaviour. We want only --at this stage-- to "see the sausages". That is, if you are making some extraordinary claim of unusual behaviour of a prototype system, fine. Who cares whether you are doing it by merging Newton with Einstein and throwing in a dash of Tesla and Bedini, or whether you have made a pact with Lucifer himself and forfeited your immortal soul in exchange for a lifetime of Free Energy. I DON'T CARE. And, until you have demonstrated your _real_ anomaly and shown that it cannot be understood by "normal" physics, the issue of the viability of any theory that is non-standard is moot. Show me the sausages. I don't need to know your theory about how Ethiopian spices are better than Eritrean spices for your particular sausage because the moon is brighter on that side of Africa..... I just need to see, and taste, the sausages. If they blow my mind with their incredible, unobtainable elsewhere flavor, THEN we can talk about constructing testable hypotheses from your overarching theoretical framework and see what we can rule out.
No sausages.... no recipe required, not interested in hypotheticals. This is where, for example, Mister Wayne breaks down. He will not show sausages, only projections of future sausages, and he continues to improve his sausage machine... but as long as it makes no sausages, it's a waste of my time.
QuoteIf you can point me in the direction of that representative of the establishment who deals with impossible discoveries which by their very nature call into question even the most fundamental tenets of that vast and seemingly most propitious body of scientific knowledge, I shall indeed be very obliged to you for your assistance.
Check your PMs.
QuoteNeither I nor the people I sometimes work with care _one whit_ about theoretical explanations or predictions of unusual behaviour.
I was genuinely not aware of this TK. Your response (and that of others) left me with the impression that it was otherwise.
So perhaps we now have a mutual understanding of the basic requirements; is this thread the place to advance the investigation, or would it be more acceptable to discuss the matter either in private or elsewhere on this forum? Or have I misunderstood your level of interest?
And btw, what probably appeared as my 'dismissal' of your knowledge and your analysis earlier was in fact the exact opposite. Anyone familiar with classical physics would likely not see the paradox, which is neither an accusation or condemnation. I would be surprised if you believed your own experience with the education system to have been completely without fault. Knowledge is everything, as they say, but there is an occasional benefit to being in a position to disregard convention.
Quote from: Tusk on December 02, 2012, 11:42:34 PM
I was genuinely not aware of this TK. Your response (and that of others) left me with the impression that it was otherwise.
Sorry if I misled in any way. And perhaps the statement was a bit too strong anyway. Several of the people I mentioned to you in the PM are strong theorists after all and would be interested in any _coherent_ theory that is also consistent with what is known. But theory is nothing without experimentation, and there's a quote from Richard Feynman, the theorist heavily responsible for the most accurate theory of reality that we know, quantum electrodynamics.
QuoteIn general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
Quote
So perhaps we now have a mutual understanding of the basic requirements; is this thread the place to advance the investigation, or would it be more acceptable to discuss the matter either in private or elsewhere on this forum? Or have I misunderstood your level of interest?
I am against "private" discussions in the context of this forum. Either you want to discuss things fully and openly on this "opensource" forum.... or you want to keep things private. I don't think you can do both. If you are investigating something and you want lots of help-- and criticism both constructive and destructive-- then this is one place you can do that. If you have an agenda to push and a point to prove, but don't really have something you need help developing, well, there are plenty of those people around too.
This thread, I thought, was about winnowing out hoaxes from probable solutions. Does your device/program fit into either of those categories? If it's a solution, then open a thread and show us how it is. If it's the other.... well, you could be hoaxing yourself, stranger things have happened.
I'm interested in many things, mostly things I can touch and feel. Right now, my machine tools and much of my mechanical test equipment is unavailable to me, since it's in Canada and I'm in south Texas. So I'm devoting most of my personal interest to the electronic gadgets. I don't really know how to gauge my level of interest appropriately without knowing just what it is you are claiming, in a paragraph or less, and what the numbers are, the data, that support your claims, in a couple of graphs or a nice YT video of it doing whatever it is it does that nothing else does.
Quote
And btw, what probably appeared as my 'dismissal' of your knowledge and your analysis earlier was in fact the exact opposite. Anyone familiar with classical physics would likely not see the paradox, which is neither an accusation or condemnation.
I think several people who had quite good familiarity with classical physics, the mechanics of materials and statics and dynamics from an engineering perspective have told you that there is no paradox in what you showed.
QuoteI would be surprised if you believed your own experience with the education system to have been completely without fault.
By and large I submitted to the knowledge of those who taught me. There have been one or two incompetents or persons whose knowledge of their subject clearly was inferior to my own. I have trained in a Japanese martial art for over 20 years and I know what it is to have knowledgeable teachers and what it means to submit to instruction. I also know what can happen when you question your teachers... and you turn out to be wrong.
Quote
Knowledge is everything, as they say, but there is an occasional benefit to being in a position to disregard convention.
Just make sure of your position, before you yank on that lever. Convention just might be sturdier than you think and your position could crumble under your feet.
For your viewing pleasure, please look up and watch "The Way of All Flesh", an excellent documentary by Adam Curtis, telling the story of HeLa tissue culture cells and cancer research in the last decades of the 20th century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0lMrp_ySg8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0lMrp_ySg8)
The system won't let me send another PM right now, but in answer to your question.... look at the "about" tab, I would suggest that you send a fax with a good "hook" and your contact info.
...and while my thread becomes the inevitable sausage swinging contest....
quick, yet unrelated observations....
1. I am not 100% convinced this forum is completely open source at this point.
2. What I am getting from Tusk (correct me if I'm wrong), is simply that he doubts others will understand the phenomena he is describing, therefore not validate it based on misunderstanding, not because it isn't there or until now discovered (is that close?).
3. TK, paraphrasing your "show me the sausage and we'll figure it out later" is not fundamentally unlike my presentation of "show me it works and we'll do the math and data later".
4. I feel my desire to improve the mechanism with which this community winnows the wheat was mostly ignored here, so I'm going to pout like a little girl :(
Cheers!
Thanks TK, re your suggestion
QuoteIf it's a solution, then open a thread and show us how it is.
I may have my wires crossed on forum etiquette; I had assumed that any serious discussion of the Paradox Engine would naturally take place in that thread. If this is not the case I would appreciate further guidance.
QuoteI don't really know how to gauge my level of interest appropriately without knowing just what it is you are claiming, in a paragraph or less
(abbreviated quote there but one step at a time) The concept is so simple that perhaps it was overlooked. Everything hinges on the following statement:
A force applied at any point on a body in equilibrium results in an equal and parallel reactive force at the centre of mass of the body acting in the direction of the applied force. This reaction causes such linear motion of the body as would occur if the original force were applied at the centre of mass, independent of any rotational motion produced by the moment of the applied force......which began life as an observation but may very well qualify as a new law (unless it is pre existent in the literature, but I could find no reference to it). In a nutshell any force applied to a body which causes rotation also causes linear motion equal to the linear motion which would otherwise manifest if the body were subjected to the same applied force at it's centre of mass.
Or perhaps you prefer 'the energy imparted to the body causes it to rotate
in full measure of that energy, and
in addition imparts a linear motion at the centre of mass of the body
also in full measure of that energy.'
Two for the price of one; nature's little secret, hidden in plain sight. Check out the peg pendulum demonstration, better still apply some of that robust scientific method and check my results. If you manage to produce a non-rotating object with a higher velocity than the rotating object then my tentative new law will be disproved (not every day you get a chance to do that). Mass of the two objects must be equal, obviously.
I'm not sure how else to put it; I performed a series of various experiments (on a budget, but this is basic stuff) before committing to the expense and trouble of building a device which could exploit the phenomena, which it clearly does - unless someone can provide a convincing argument that despite the main disk actually accelerating more rapidly while the main rotor turns (main rotor has total mass over x3 of the disk - that's a solid steel rotor arm) the disk is somehow losing energy to the main rotor - this while the data suggests less power being drawn during the acceleration of the disk. Also the main rotor turns in the opposite direction with similar vigor during braking of the disk (i.e. regeneration cycle) which
must provide yet another opportunity to recover energy.
Apologies, I've gone over my single paragraph limit - not so simple, maybe. Although in my defence I did say basically the same thing three different ways. Was it not clear I have been suggesting a new law? Or possibly a caveat on Newton's Third. Does anyone even know the correct procedure for doing this?
Apologies audiomaker, missed your earlier question:
Quote2. What I am getting from Tusk (correct me if I'm wrong), is simply that he doubts others will understand the phenomena he is describing, therefore not validate it based on misunderstanding, not because it isn't there or until now discovered (is that close?).
Correct. On the basis that it constitutes a key element of the fundamental nature of the universe. Such things always go unnoticed (hidden in plain sight) until someone notices them. They are also usually quite easy to test, i.e. the twin peg experiment. Another explanation for the result might yet be forthcoming, yet it sits there quietly resisting apprehension.
Apologies also for hijacking your fine thread. Once someone points me in the right direction I'll be out of your hair.
@tusk: Linear momentum and angular momentum are separately conserved. If you have observations that indicate otherwise that would be interesting indeed. From your brief description it sounds like you think you are creating angular momentum out of nothing. So I must be misunderstanding.
You said "this thread" and I said to open one discussing your device and claims. If your Paradox Engine thread is already discussing your device to your satisfaction then of course you don't need to open a different one.
One of the most profound things I have learned came to me from a rather strange colleague. He said to me "As a thing is viewed, so it appears."
And I have told you the story of Peter Graneau, professor emeritus Physics, MIT, who has for years espoused a simple, conservation of momentum based argument that claims and predicts anomalous results from water arc discharges. Unfortunately he is using the wrong model, which is why for years his experimental results didn't come up to his expectations. Perhaps there's a lesson in that, for those who have time to smell the nasturtiums.
Quote from: Tusk on December 03, 2012, 01:59:28 AM
Apologies audiomaker, missed your earlier question:
Correct. On the basis that it constitutes a key element of the fundamental nature of the universe. Such things always go unnoticed (hidden in plain sight) until someone notices them. They are also usually quite easy to test, i.e. the twin peg experiment. Another explanation for the result might yet be forthcoming, yet it sits there quietly resisting apprehension.
Apologies also for hijacking your fine thread. Once someone points me in the right direction I'll be out of your hair.
Well Tusk, I hope you'll forgive me for saying, but that kind of puts you in a bind that will require an enormous amount of patience and effort on your part.
It would not be unlike me saying "I've discovered the falabriganth effect and you can't understand what it does." (I made that word up). You might as well resign yourself to the idea that very few are going to be able to jump on your boat.
What if what the "falabriganth" effect does is make things smell like strawberries elsewhere in the galaxy? It may exist, but hey... you see. In your case, not only will data need to be provided, but there is the risk that there is no way to interpret the data itself. Tough spot to be in.
I could come up with 100's of examples about being unable to prove that which nobody can understand the effect of. I might write a book, but that doesn't help you.
I would suggest taking it easy on yourself, and especially others while you formulate the best presentation of your ideas that you can. There will be some frustration involved, both coming and going.
:)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 03, 2012, 02:10:47 AM
@tusk: Linear momentum and angular momentum are separately conserved. If you have observations that indicate otherwise that would be interesting indeed. From your brief description it sounds like you think you are creating angular momentum out of nothing. So I must be misunderstanding.
You said "this thread" and I said to open one discussing your device and claims. If your Paradox Engine thread is already discussing your device to your satisfaction then of course you don't need to open a different one.
One of the most profound things I have learned came to me from a rather strange colleague. He said to me "As a thing is viewed, so it appears."
And I have told you the story of Peter Graneau, professor emeritus Physics, MIT, who has for years espoused a simple, conservation of momentum based argument that claims and predicts anomalous results from water arc discharges. Unfortunately he is using the wrong model, which is why for years his experimental results didn't come up to his expectations. Perhaps there's a lesson in that, for those who have time to smell the nasturtiums.
I feel myself getting smarter. I currently only have to Google half of the words TK uses :)
@TK
QuoteLinear momentum and angular momentum are separately conserved.
Since the pegs demonstrate equal velocity certainly linear momentum is conserved.
QuoteFrom your brief description it sounds like you think you are creating angular momentum out of nothing. So I must be misunderstanding.
Angular momentum is not the issue here. The
kinetic energy of the rotational motion has more significance. However it is not created 'out of nothing'. It is the action or reaction (you choose) of Newton's Third Law.
So on the one hand we have linear momentum conserved at the centre of mass; on the other Newton's Third Law provides an equivalent energy of rotation to the linear energy of the non rotating peg. The sum total of which, in consideration of the energy of the linear motion, exceeds expectation. Fully explained however, if you allow my earlier observation as fact.
In support of these findings, the data collected from the device shows that the kinetic energy of rotation is at least equal to that evident in a fixed disk bench test. Which suggests that the kinetic energy of the event manifests in rotation while the linear momentum manifests at the centre of mass.
Missed your post yet again audiomaker :)
QuoteWell Tusk, I hope you'll forgive me for saying, but that kind of puts you in a bind that will require an enormous amount of patience and effort on your part.
It would not be unlike me saying "I've discovered the falabriganth effect and you can't understand what it does." (I made that word up). You might as well resign yourself to the idea that very few are going to be able to jump on your boat.
That's Fa
llabriganth with a double L, and I'll thank you to check the name on the patent application before trying to capitalise on the idea.
As for the difficulties of the situation, I sympathise with anyone struggling to grasp the concept - don't think for one moment that a lightbulb came on one day and there was immediate understanding and acceptance on my part.
QuoteWhat if what the "falabriganth" effect does is make things smell like strawberries elsewhere in the galaxy? It may exist, but hey... you see. In your case, not only will data need to be provided, but there is the risk that there is no way to interpret the data itself. Tough spot to be in.
Since the effects of this phenomena are right here in plain sight I don't expect quite so much trouble as you are suggesting. But there is a definite blind spot with this, and no doubt many other phenomena as yet undetected. If you want to write a book, there's your story - how to 'look around' your personal blind spot (by audiomaker). I can provide some background information there, if you decide to proceed with it.
QuoteI would suggest taking it easy on yourself, and especially others while you formulate the best presentation of your ideas that you can. There will be some frustration involved, both coming and going.
You are very considerate. Due to a personal firmly held belief in a universe which goes about it's business regardless of our uninformed expectations, I have no concerns about either the rate of progress or the final outcome itself. I will of course do whatever possible to assist others in their understanding of the material, if they show an interest. Those who do not, or demonstrate an interest only in confrontation for it's own sake, will find me unusually passive and content to let matters 'slide'.
"nasturtiums" ... a type of flower.
I should have known that.
There are a lot of "experiments" being done all around us that can inform us "amateurs" about kinematics and dynamics. For example, consider the Cassini spacecraft mission to Saturn.
This robot spacecraft journeyed for years on a complicated looping path thru the Solar system before eventually arriving at Saturn. The spacecraft itself was put on such an accurate track that some scheduled mid-course corrections weren't even needed. The craft has a solar PV panel that sticks out to one side, asymmetrically with respect to the CofM of the spacecraft itself. During its long journey, the thrust from the Sun onto this panel creates a couple resulting in a torque which tends to rotate the spacecraft about its CofM, changing the aim of its antennae and etc. To compensate for this small but continuing torque, the designers included a gyroscope/flywheel arrangement. This gyro rotor/flywheel is slowly accelerated by its electric motor, and the reaction against the spacecraft structure offsets the torque caused by the Sun hitting the offcenter panel. But this can't go on forever; the flywheel has a maximum RPM. So at that point, the spacecraft fires its attitude thrusters to offset the reaction as the gyro rotor is braked quickly to a standstill.... and the process begins again.
Nine hundred million miles.... actually well over that due to the slingshot navigation...... and it arrived on time, antennae properly oriented, and dropped a robot lander which navigated to a soft landing on Titan.
Now, Tusk ... tell me again what part of the dynamics of angular momentum, linear momentum, and energy conservation that we have "missed"?
If that's not enough, consider Gravity Probe B. Its gyro spheres are the most accurate spherical objects that humans have ever made. They spin in a chamber with very little wall clearance. When the clearance needs adjustment, how is it done, since they are free-floating and spun by gas jets?
The entire spacecraft is nudged slightly by its attitude jets, thus moving the chamber, not the sphere itself which is spinning rapidly but is "motionless" in free fall space.
What I am saying here, to put a fine point on it, is that physicists and engineers are pretty good at doing things involving angular momentum, linear momentum, total energy and resultant forces. If there is really something significant that they "haven't noticed".... how come they can do these amazing things with such accuracy and confidence?
Further, as the story of Peter and Neal Graneau indicates, and hopefully the Adam Curtis documentary drives home, fully intellgent and accomplished people working in academic contexts, surrounded by colleagues of similar smarts and education.... can be utterly and completely wrong about the interpretation of their observations, to the point of wasting entire careers barking up the wrong "tree"... or cell line as the case may be. What makes you so sure that you are immune to this kind of cognitive blindness?
QuoteWhat makes you so sure that you are immune to this kind of cognitive blindness?
The spinning of the disk
# + the rotation of the main rotor + the counter rotation of the main rotor
#at a higher rate for lower power than when bench mounted
All of which was predicted in the hypothesis prior to the build. I understand how, why, and how much.
It should be obvious that if the disk rotates at X RPM at Y power for Z seconds when bench mounted, that achieving an even higher RPM with less power over the same period, and then over and above this gain we get an acceleration of the main rotor in one direction, then again in the other direction, that something interesting is taking place. And by interesting I mean significantly more mass in motion than we would normally expect; and that means more energy.
I do not think it reasonable to hold me responsible for the lack of insight of others. Since the hypothesis is quite straightforward, as are the experiments, and considering the full disclosure with the offer to provide whatever details or specifications I have at my disposal, it should be a relatively simple matter to mount a devastating rebuttal supported by your own experimental results and hypothesis. I do understand your skepticism under the circumstances and I sympathise. What I don't understand is why you are wasting time and energy on posturing when you could be near to reaching your own conclusion by now based on your own experimental data, given your extensive experience in such matters.
Oh come on. You sound almost exactly like Professor Herr Doktor Peter Graneau explaning his perfectly simple CofMomentum argument to a room full of stupid engineers and scientists who can't even make an apparatus that will produce the numbers he wants to see.
Did I not mention earlier that I do not have my machine tools here with me at the present time? And that, contrary to rumors, I am not some "well funded" minion of the Great Oil Barons? And that I am involved in other things at present?
I am not interested in making your sausages for you, Tusk. If I had my tooling here and some spare time and money I might tinker around a bit with your ideas, stranger things have happened to me in the past. But right now I have to say that your attitude sucks, to use an Americanism. You fail to admit that you could be wrong or fooling yourself. You fail to see your own cognitive blindness... which is perfectly logical, nobody does _unless_ they are aware of these biases and blindnesses and continually guard against them.
Did you watch the Adam Curtis documentary, where an entire generation of cancer researchers found out that their entire 20-year careers were simply _wrong_, because they were studying HeLa cells instead of whatever it was they thought they were studying? And you expect me to believe your indignant protest that you could not ever be so foolish as to be _wrong_ about some subtle matter of kinematics. OK, fine.
Why don't you proceed then as I have suggested, because I can tell that you have no respect for me or for what I could tell you. You have already decided that you are right, so if I were to tell you otherwise you would only attack me. You can see this happening right now in two threads on this forum alone, and it does tend to wear a fellow down after a while. I don't know what is happening in Australia, but I know of at least three agencies here in the US and one in Canada that would be happy to build and test and support you IF you can get your foot in the door by showing at least a can of little Vienna sausages... so to speak. I've already given you contact info for one of them, so I'm sure you have sent off your info and will be getting an answer from them shortly. Right?
Hi, I think that this is a marvelous topic and addresses my own situation. Perhaps this might be considered a test case for the proposal.
How to not let some potential free energy device slip by or disappear unnoticed or unrecognized or untested.
I got an idea for a machine, or had a vision if you will, while working on improving the efficiency of a Stirling Engine for a moneyed acquaintance in California who wanted to build a Stirling Engine powered by a parabolic solar dish small enough for a back yard installation but powerful enough to run a typical household.
While running several possible designs in my head, visualizing them that is, I got one engine running (in a mental picture or visualization) that kept running after the sun went down. It was pulling heat from the air. That is, latent solar heat, or so it seemed. In other words, the parabolic dish could be dispensed with entirely.
I was surprised by this result. i.e. a "hot air engine" engine running on latent ambient heat, but as it kept running and I kept analyzing it, I could find no reason why it shouldn't work, though I knew this to be theoretically "impossible".
Anyway, I sent an email to my friend telling him about this. Previously he was contemplating flying me out to California to work in his shop or at his plant as he knew I knew a great deal about Stirling Engines, But when I told him what I came up with he ran it past his "experts" out there and they told him it was impossible and violated the second law and all that and the plans were canceled. (He is a government contractor and very well to do).
I got rather miffed at this off hand dismissal. I would have liked to work on such a project in a well equipped facility, which might have happened had I not mentioned just how efficient the engine I came up with was supposed to be (theoretically).
So I decided to just post the basic idea on the internet in various science and energy forums such as this one, thinking that perhaps someone else with a little money and/or interest in such a thing might get interested.
I though, like the starter of this thread that there should be SOMEWHERE out there where such an idea could be presented for serious consideration and possible funding or some such, or at least collaborative research towards testing out a new device or theory.
So, I would second the proposal for some such formal submission area. I'm not particularly interested in "protection" or patenting or fame and fortune. I would just like a chance to build some kind of prototype and see if it works.
Currently I'm growing garlic as a means of raising capital for the project. There are of course, many others in a similar boat I suppose.
What gets to me is that apparently some people are quite willing to throw away millions on some obvious fraud, or invest capital in an idea that has a patent with some hope of a return, but when an idea is fully disclosed and no patent is sought after, the inventor is not interested in money, it seems quite difficult to generate interest. I was contacted by one investment company guy who was talking about providing me with funding to the tune of a million or so until I told him that I had already disclosed the idea on the internet years ago so it probably wouldn't be patentable. Not to mention Stirling Engines are 1880's technology and I also found an Article by Tesla describing the basics of such an engine, which came as a surprise to me but was encouraging.
I have taken note of some of the suggestions here for possible help: Southwest Research Institute etc. and will look into that but again, I'm not interested in any "non-disclosure agreement" particularly or patent protection, I would just like a chance to share the idea and by one means or another see a prototype built to see if it can work. So I am very interested in this discussion and anxious to see how it pans out.
I kind of gave up Tom.
However, I did get some valuable insight from the thread, plus I got to coin some terms for myself:
1. P.E.T (Practical Energy Technology) "I am working on a P.E.T. Project"
and
2. "A committee of exceptional thinkers in chaos". I just love that one :)
There is always a positive outcome.
@ Tom Booth
Sounds promising Tom, Stirling's are a favourite of mine also. Why not drop the material into a new thread under the appropriate 'department' i.e. 'Mechanical' or wherever you think it should reside (be advised I'm no expert on forum etiquette). I look forward to taking a look myself.
@ TK
QuoteI am not interested in making your sausages for you, Tusk.
I do not require any.
You seem to be under some misconception regarding my motives and goals; probably based on your experience with other inventors who tentatively offer up their ideas, cap in hand, hoping for your stamp of approval. I am not an inventor nor do I seek approval - from you or anyone else. In order to advance my work it was necessary to 'invent' the device, which is in effect simply a piece of experimental apparatus. Inventors typically hold, or seek to hold patents, and generally aim to turn a profit from their work (and I have no issue with that btw). If the device can be called an invention then by all means tar me with that brush, but the association is entirely incidental.
There also appears to be some misunderstanding about the nature of a gift. If the community rejects it then so be it. If the hypothesis is thought to be invalid then delete the thread and all reference to it. I will be quite content to accept the general consensus and move on. But while the material is still under review it is my duty of care to ensure no false evidence or negative 'spin' go unanswered. Like someone leaving a box of toys at the doorstep of an orphanage I must stand guard until the box is in the hands of those for whom it was intended, else some thief in the night may spirit the gift away.
I did give your offer of a referral some consideration. Possibly you will interpret my decision not to accept as evidence of some other intention. Again I have no concerns regarding such perceptions, but since you were interested enough to make the offer I feel that common courtesy demands an explanation. As stated earlier I seek no approval and will be well satisfied to go to my grave having had no acceptance of the work. The only further insight I can give here is in the form of yet another metaphor. If you had stumbled by chance into the previously unknown ruins of an ancient civilisation hidden in the jungle, and seen there many wondrous things; and on returning home you were unable to convince anyone to mount a second expedition, you would nevertheless think yourself well served and rightly so.
I have no problem with you referring your associates to my PE thread, they appear to have a genuine interest in such matters and I would welcome their input, but do not require it.
I should add that there is no personal element to our discussion from this side at least. We all have our own agenda, mine is beyond the scope of this forum and yours is none of my business, although you have made it quite clear where you stand on OU. As for personal doubt, there is a time for it I agree. In the 'pee or get off the pot' world of aviation any trainee pilot will concede to harbouring an almost unhealthy amount of it; but any experienced pilot will tell you that once you have the bird strapped to your back the time for personal doubt has passed. I do doubt however that you would feel very safe if the next time you hopped a red-eye the guys up front were sweating with anxiety.
Well, there is a lot there, and going from back to front: I don't fly commercially because I know too much. I hold FAA Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance Technician's licences, commercial pilot ASEL, flight instructor glider licenses (no longer currently flying though due to health issues) and I have over 2000 flight hours logged as PIC and as flight instructor. I've flown a low-performance sailplane, the SGS1-26, over 500 km in a single flight with no power except the aero tow to 1600 feet agl. I've been to over 30,000 feet altitude in sailplanes more times than I can count, and I used to give aerobatic demonstrations at air shows in a big two-seater glider called the IS28-B2 Lark, and I also gave flight instruction in aerobatics in that sailplane and other two seaters. I owned a 300-HP Cessna A188A ag-wagon converted to a glider towship and used it during the 1991 World Soaring Championships in Uvalde Tx, then sold it to a fellow that wanted to turn it into a Stuka dive-bomber replica.
So... unless I have access to a fully functioning set of controls I do not fly in heavier-than-air aircraft.
As to the rest... I am distracted right now because of this:
http://www.techcentral.ie/20420/apple-wireless-charging-system-revealed-in-patent-application (http://www.techcentral.ie/20420/apple-wireless-charging-system-revealed-in-patent-application) (find the claims and read them)
and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw)
(note the date)
You will forgive me, I hope, if I go and sulk for a while.
And of course there is this, for your amusement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw
@ TK
QuoteSo... unless I have access to a fully functioning set of controls I do not fly in heavier-than-air aircraft.
And you accuse ME of overconfidence lol ..... do you have no faith at all in your fellow aviators?
But therefore at least you know whereof I speak; address all doubts during a thorough and detailed preparation, then commit with full authority. The question for you now becomes 'was his preparation sufficient or will he crash and burn?' Whereas I have no doubts; I wouldn't be here wasting your time if it was otherwise.
Quote from: audiomaker on December 04, 2012, 12:48:27 AM
I kind of gave up Tom.
Well, I just got here, so I'm still enthusiastic. The title of the thread doesn't really reflect the content. I mean, as far as your proposed solution or idea for a place to submit "open source" if you will, collaborative research projects. I've had the same idea myself, or a very similar idea for a long time and call it "People's Research Center".
If the idea doesn't fly here, I'm also a computer programmer. Well, at least I know enough to register a domain name and install (or possibly write) a message board system, similar to this one (minus all the advertising).
But you might try starting another thread with a more pointed heading. I only stumbled in here because I'm kind of fed up with all the "free energy" hoaxes and am rather skeptical, even of my own "invention". I can't really imagine it could work. It seems too obvious or simple. Rather low tech and relatively cheap to make, I should think. Given that, other than the second law of thermodynamics, which seems more a rule of thumb than a fact, and probably inapplicable to this device since it is an open system, I can't figure out any reason why it shouldn't work. That is, running the cycles in my head I don't see, or cannot locate any failure point. It just keeps running. So I think it would be worthwhile to at least build a "Tin can" prototype, as an educational exercise if nothing else - to find out why it fails and further validate the second law or something. Besides I think it would be fun.
Quote
However, I did get some valuable insight from the thread, plus I got to coin some terms for myself:
1. P.E.T (Practical Energy Technology) "I am working on a P.E.T. Project"
and
2. "A committee of exceptional thinkers in chaos". I just love that one :)
There is always a positive outcome.
LOL...
I still think it is an excellent idea.
Personally I'm not in favor of any kind of "non disclosure" arrangement. I'm an "open source" Perl Programmer and I believe in the open source model. Besides it flies in the face of pure scientific research or "Scientific Methodology" which demands full disclosure to the community. We can go open source and move ahead together or we can have an eye for some kind of big payoff and work in isolation keeping everything secret. There may not be time for the latter. We need some kind of energy solution pronto before we destroy ourselves and the earth beyond repair.
So, IMO, some kind of open source energy research forum is something that could move things ahead and speed progress. The pay off would be cheap clean energy for the world and future generations. If that isn't pay off enough for anybody I would say they haven't looked around. What good is money in your pocket if you live in a world where the air isn't fit to breath and the water isn't fit to drink and the food is radioactive? Aside from the host of other problems conventional energy sources have brought us.
So, don't give up on the idea. We could set up another forum if necessary.
Anyway, as I said, what you propose is not what I expected to find here going by the title. Seems more an invitation to debate - solution vs hoax - believers vs skeptics - something along those lines. So I'd try a new thread with a different title. One that more directly reflects the idea you are actually proposing.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 04, 2012, 03:41:38 AM
Well, there is a lot there, and going from back to front: I don't fly commercially because I know too much. I hold FAA Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance Technician's licences, commercial pilot ASEL, flight instructor glider licenses (no longer currently flying though due to health issues) and I have over 2000 flight hours logged as PIC and as flight instructor. I've flown a low-performance sailplane, the SGS1-26, over 500 km in a single flight with no power except the aero tow to 1600 feet agl. I've been to over 30,000 feet altitude in sailplanes more times than I can count, and I used to give aerobatic demonstrations at air shows in a big two-seater glider called the IS28-B2 Lark, and I also gave flight instruction in aerobatics in that sailplane and other two seaters. I owned a 300-HP Cessna A188A ag-wagon converted to a glider towship and used it during the 1991 World Soaring Championships in Uvalde Tx, then sold it to a fellow that wanted to turn it into a Stuka dive-bomber replica.
So... unless I have access to a fully functioning set of controls I do not fly in heavier-than-air aircraft.
As to the rest... I am distracted right now because of this:
http://www.techcentral.ie/20420/apple-wireless-charging-system-revealed-in-patent-application (http://www.techcentral.ie/20420/apple-wireless-charging-system-revealed-in-patent-application) (find the claims and read them)
and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw)
(note the date)
You will forgive me, I hope, if I go and sulk for a while.
And of course there is this, for your amusement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw)
I can see that there will be a very limited need for wireless power in the future anyway, so don't be too down. There will probably be units that are self powered, and will not need power transmitted to them, in the future.
Quote from: Tusk on December 04, 2012, 01:46:31 AM
@ Tom Booth
Sounds promising Tom, Stirling's are a favourite of mine also. Why not drop the material into a new thread under the appropriate 'department' i.e. 'Mechanical' or wherever you think it should reside (be advised I'm no expert on forum etiquette). I look forward to taking a look myself.
Starting a new thread here would be rather superfluous. I've already posted the basics of this idea and have had lengthy debates to the point of exhaustion in other forums.
If you are really interested, I always use my real name when posting on the internet as I have done here. Just google my username along with stirling or heat engine.
If a kind of formal submission area could be set up as proposed, I think that would be interesting. There are some aspects or possible improvements of the engine I haven't yet discussed anywhere. Particularly in regard to the regenerator, and a few other things, but I never really got much of a chance to get into the details or nitty gritty as I was more often than not, in other forums, clobbered over the head with the second law. No matter that nobody could tell me the actual failure point or the WHY as far as why it wouldn't work, other than that the second law forbids it or that it is "perpetual motion" and therefore impossible. At that point all rational argument seems to go out the window. Quite often I've simply been banned from a forum or had my thread locked down by the forum moderator.
In the Stirling Engine forums I'm told it isn't a Stirling Engine and therefore discussion about it is inappropriate, though it is squarely based on Stirling's basic principles and incorporates some Stirling Engine components. Don't really know how else to classify it. I very much enjoy the debates in the science forums but too often the idea is dismissed off hand without actually understanding it. It just won't work because it is impossible. And when my logical arguments cannot be refuted I'm simply shut up by being banned or having my forum locked for some minor transgression. Like fairly recently I had a forum locked (I didn't even start the thread BTW) because I
mentioned "perpetual motion". Though I was only trying to refute someone elses argument that sounded to me like perpetual motion. That is, their argument was, in general that HEAT passes THROUGH a heat engine. My argument was NO, the heat is CONVERTED, so that much of the heat does not actually ever reach the sink. It is converted to another form of energy and goes out of the system as such - motive power or electricity or whatever. I said if the heat simply passed through it would be available for reuse and THAT would be a basis for perpetual motion.
So the thread was locked because I
mentioned perpetual motion.
Really?
If you want some amusement you can view that particular thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?86181-Electricity-from-ambient-heat/page10 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?86181-Electricity-from-ambient-heat/page10)
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 04, 2012, 11:00:59 AM
<snip>
If a kind of formal submission area could be set up as proposed, I think that would be interesting. <snip>
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?86181-Electricity-from-ambient-heat/page10 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?86181-Electricity-from-ambient-heat/page10)
Well Tom, I didn't start this thread as a crusade to begin a new forum. I really was just examining the possibility, or likelihood that a device might already exist and gone unnoticed.
It wasn't long into the thread however, that it became very apparent (to me) that a better mechanism of discovery was needed. This would be of benefit both to the enthusiasts and the skeptics.
For myself, I simply wanted an organized place where all the hoaxes and frauds were disproved, and with "proof of the disproval" if you will, and also listings of "submissions" that were still being considered.
That hypothetical forum would need to have some teeth, not just chatter. The teeth of it being that if a submission had not been obviously disproved and were perplexing the observers of this board, the board itself could take action to solidly place it in the "hoax" category...with explanation of that exposure.
The rough draft I proposed included a "poll", which means members could vote further action up or down. "Polls" are often built into the software of internet message boards, although I don't know about this one.
Anyway, my process was a rough draft and I was expecting some interests and suggestions on how one would make such a forum fair and effective.
After witnessing the path that many (not just this one) threads take, I would also add to my original format that only one post per member be allowed in each thread, and that post should directly reflect the person's analysis of the item being submitted. In other words, members may offer a summary.
That collection of summaries, over a certain period of time (say 2 weeks) produces a certain percentage of "votes" in the "poll" that if > than "X" (75%?) triggers the "teeth" of the forum which draws from a fund to put boots on the ground at the site where the device resides.
The rest of my thoughts on format are back in this thread somewhere.
Anyone can sign up for this forum with a new name, using a proxy server, as many times as they like. Some people are known to do this on a regular basis and you cannot stop this from happening. You ban them and they come back pretending to be someone else. Sometimes they will even have a conversation with themself to appear to offer support from "the community" or take the heat off and misdirect when tough questions are asked they cannot answer.
Therefore...
Polls are useless.
Limiting the members who actually know what they are doing and talking about to one post each is completely pointless. The process of discovery often requires that the members "chat" over multiple pages until all the facts are known. The fraudsters often deliberately hide and withhold vital information so in that case no summary can be made until discovery has occurred, which is often fought tooth and nail by the fraudsters, because the game is up when the facts are known.
If you did have a team of knowledgeable experts, with suitable funding to investigate "promising devices", your finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.
@ evolvingape
Quoteyour finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.
Just wondering if that was a typo, or intentional?
If I may quote myself, from earlier in this thread:
Quotewhy here on this forum? To which I say, why not? Perhaps you underestimate the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills present in such company.
There appears to be an issue here with direct bearing on audiomaker's investigation. Which of us is correct?
We might follow the lead of the legal system and have a 'jury' of trusted investigators... not sure about the selection process, that would depend on which of the above statements were in line with your own thoughts. Rather we might in the second instance a call it a 'panel', I believe the correct term for the first would be 'posse' or perhaps 'lynch mob'.
Quote from: evolvingape on December 04, 2012, 05:12:54 PM
Anyone can sign up for this forum with a new name, using a proxy server, as many times as they like. Some people are known to do this on a regular basis and you cannot stop this from happening. You ban them and they come back pretending to be someone else. Sometimes they will even have a conversation with themself to appear to offer support from "the community" or take the heat off and misdirect when tough questions are asked they cannot answer.
Therefore...
Polls are useless.
Limiting the members who actually know what they are doing and talking about to one post each is completely pointless. The process of discovery often requires that the members "chat" over multiple pages until all the facts are known. The fraudsters often deliberately hide and withhold vital information so in that case no summary can be made until discovery has occurred, which is often fought tooth and nail by the fraudsters, because the game is up when the facts are known.
If you did have a team of knowledgeable experts, with suitable funding to investigate "promising devices", your finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.
Ok, well that's a start, and I had considered this.
My response is that this "chatting", rarely remains on focus. In fact, it becomes such a blur of dogmatic wrestling that anyone trying to follow the thread at a later date simply gives up.
I am going to suggest that even the board members that "don't know what they are talking about", are 3 steps up in intelligence from the average man. Just join the "Justin Bieber Fan Club" board for a few days and I think you'll be right back here with the same conclusion.
I also believe that the "in the know" people on this board would be able to write a very convincing summary in a single post, and that most of the board members are going to be able to give that the weight it deserves vs the summary that states "That ROCKS!.... Do It!" :)
That said, since funding is involved, voting must have a weight to it beyond "it's free for me...why not send the team?". Perhaps this becomes a "panel" as Tusk suggests (although that has some issues too), or perhaps one should pay to vote. I'd happily donate $10 per submission. For $300, I could have 30 as-yet-not-discredited devices off my radar. That's a lot. (p.s. that math assumes I'm in a large group willing to do the same). Surely 300 people from this entire site would put in $10 on an interesting candidate? $3k should get a team and equipment to any site in style.
As far as fraudsters changing their IP's and such, I'm guessing so they could vote down their own submission? It makes no sense that a fraudster would want to be subject to investigation.
The concept that a fraud or hoaxster would come on here and dismiss their own device is quite interesting. Still, the result is that it gets voted down and no money is spent to validate it.
Only the cooperative inventors willing to submit would get a shot at funding an exploration team. Non-cooperative inventors get a thumbs down right from the start.
Here is my first draft copied from earlier in this thread. Take a few of your own hypotheticals (working, not working, hoax, fraud, mistake, voting fraud...etc.) and run them through it and see what results you come up with. Then, if may humbly beg... try to come up with solutions to any problem you might find. Problems are easy to find, solutions are what we are about right?
Here it is:
1. A new forum is created for the submission of devices or even concepts.
2. Each submission has it's own thread.
3. Each thread contains a "poll" where the board members can discuss and "vote" on the potential validity of the submission.
4. Threads with high poll ratings get researched.
5. "Research" involves contacting the "inventor" and establishing communications (the board submission might not be by the inventor as in YouTube examples).
6. Once communication is established, and if the inventor still holds to his/her claim and is willing to undergo scrutiny, then "contact" is made.
7. "Contact" consists of say...3... unrelated, yet recognized board members being flown to the location... test equipment in hand.
8. Flights, hotels, car rental, and per diem (i.e...food money) are provided by a "fund" sponsored by the board members. Investigation time is donated.
9. "Prize money" is not required as substantiation from the "verification team" of this board will allow the inventor to make millions simply writing a book about it...even if freely given.
10. All accounts and findings are posted to the individual threads as they happen, and the current status is updated regularly until a success or fail verdict is achieved.
11. If a success verdict is achieved, further assistance is provided by the group as is protection of the inventor and the invention from suppression.
12. All "verification investigations", their status, and their verdicts remain publicly posted as a resource to others.
Cheers!
I don't know what your game is Tusk but I am starting to become very suspicious of you and your motives on this forum!
There are far more laymen on these forums than there are professionals with knowledge, experience and skill sets developed over a significant time period. 62281 members at present and growing rapidly, many of these laymen freely admit that they do not have the knowledge or experience to be able to accurately assess a device, however that does not stop them having an equal vote with those who do.
Which of us is correct ?
You are seriously proposing that the vast reservoir of knowledge, wisdom and analytical skills available in this community (true) is larger than the vast reservoir of laymen without those abilities ? Seriously ? Your a laugh a minute you are! ::)
Quote from: audiomaker on December 04, 2012, 06:14:02 PM
As far as fraudsters changing their IP's and such, I'm guessing so they could vote down their own submission? It makes no sense that a fraudster would want to be subject to investigation.
The concept that a fraud or hoaxster would come on here and dismiss their own device is quite interesting. Still, the result is that it gets voted down and no money is spent to validate it.
You miss my point audiomaker, I never said they would vote down their own submission. I meant the vote could be manipulated to waste this communities resources. Ask Mark Dansie about his S.Africa trip, he got to the door with his equipment and his experts, only to be refused entry, but a journalist was given the dog and pony show because he did not know what he was looking at. You could probably answer all of your questions that you are posing here with a bit of research...
Quote from: evolvingape on December 04, 2012, 06:53:09 PM
<snip>
You miss my point audiomaker, I never said they would vote down their own submission. I meant the vote could be manipulated to waste this communities resources. Ask Mark Dansie about his S.Africa trip, he got to the door with his equipment and his experts, only to be refused entry, but a journalist was given the dog and pony show because he did not know what he was looking at. You could probably answer all of your questions that you are posing here with a bit of research...
Well... I had some suggestions how to refine the idea. Could you offer some?
Even *I* am qualified to examine some types of machines. My carry-on toolkit: VOM/Oscilloscope/Ammeter, inductive voltage sensor, magnetometer, IR and thermocouple temp' probes, video camera, laptop, and basic tool set.
I would suggest that I could give an examination and report good enough to warrant dismissal or further verification. Someone like TK could probably go much further.
I think Evolvingape, that perhaps you are to an extent....missing
my point.
Inventors refusing a free "analysis" get no analysis. No money is spent and their refusal is recorded in the thread dedicated to their device.
Of course it is possible that an inventor will agree to an exploration team, talk to them on the phone, give them their address, and make an examination appointment then refuse to open the door.
I think in general though, a "we will be there, so if you aren't going to open the door, don't bother", and the fact that such an action would be highly publicized, would discourage most.
I also believe that if the 4 prime players in this thread (including yourself) all spent 20min on the phone with an inventor, we'd have a pretty good idea if it were a prankster.
Is there a risk that the discovery team could end up wasting their time? Yes. If it's a mistake on the inventors part, it wouldn't be a waste of time after a remote analysis was made prior to deciding if it were interesting enough to pursue in person. The whole point is to find the mistake and move on, or if there is no mistake, to verify it. There is ample discovery prior to anyone actually going anywhere.
I think the "Team" would expose far more mistakes than hoaxes or frauds, simply because hoaxers and fraudsters don't want to be discovered as such, and would not submit to examination.
There is a difference between presenting theater to a journalist and letting 3 qualified people with test equipment probe your device.
The mistakes....well... everyone makes mistakes. In this case however, we are only exploring the mistakes we can't obviously explain....which I think is worthwhile.
Either way, I am but one person, but I do think there is intelligence on this board (and likely in this thread) that could come up with a near-foolproof process.
One only has to begin looking at it as a matter of "How To".
:)
Quote from: audiomaker on December 04, 2012, 08:13:27 PM
Well... I had some suggestions how to refine the idea. Could you offer some?
Even *I* am qualified to examine some types of machines. My carry-on toolkit: VOM/Oscilloscope/Ammeter, inductive voltage sensor, magnetometer, IR and thermocouple temp' probes, video camera, laptop, and basic tool set.
I would suggest that I could give an examination and report good enough to warrant dismissal or further verification. Someone like TK could probably go much further.
I think Evolvingape, that perhaps you are to an extent....missing my point.
Inventors refusing a free "analysis" get no analysis. No money is spent and their refusal is recorded in the thread dedicated to their device.
Of course it is possible that an inventor will agree to an exploration team, talk to them on the phone, give them their address, and make an examination appointment then refuse to open the door.
I think in general though, a "we will be there, so if you aren't going to open the door, don't bother", and the fact that such an action would be highly publicized, would discourage most.
I also believe that if the 4 prime players in this thread (including yourself) all spent 20min on the phone with an inventor, we'd have a pretty good idea if it were a prankster.
Is there a risk that the discovery team could end up wasting their time? Yes. If it's a mistake on the inventors part, it wouldn't be a waste of time after a remote analysis was made prior to deciding if it were interesting enough to pursue in person. The whole point is to find the mistake and move on, or if there is no mistake, to verify it. There is ample discovery prior to anyone actually going anywhere.
I think the "Team" would expose far more mistakes than hoaxes or frauds, simply because hoaxers and fraudsters don't want to be discovered as such, and would not submit to examination.
There is a difference between presenting theater to a journalist and letting 3 qualified people with test equipment probe your device.
The mistakes....well... everyone makes mistakes. In this case however, we are only exploring the mistakes we can't obviously explain....which I think is worthwhile.
Either way, I am but one person, but I do think there is intelligence on this board (and likely in this thread) that could come up with a near-foolproof process.
One only has to begin looking at it as a matter of "How To".
:)
The bigger issue that has to be addressed for inventors is: How do you protect the inventor's reputation or idea and/or machine from someone stealing it, or whether it is successful or not? Also what does the inventor have to look forward to as an incentive if approved, that will make him interested enough to want to risk a team looking at what he/she has worked on for years or months to achieve?
Hmmm... well,
From the last few posts since I was in here last, I'm beginning to think I misunderstood the intent. It seems the idea isn't so much to forward promising ideas or potentially workable inventions so much as to investigate probable hoaxes.
It seems to me also that there is certainly a problem. Anybody can photoshop a free energy video and make it look absolutely real, as a joke or a spoof or even with some intent to defraud I suppose. As a recent example, I spent over an hour listening to some YouTube radio show about some South African device that was "The real deal" Ready for market! Some overunity circuit. A guy on the program was going to be receiving one of the first production models off the line for testing and evaluation along with 200 others around the world.
Probably everyone else here is familiar with this. It was new to me.
Following up on it, well... I'll suspend judgement as I know nothing about it but due to some glitch involving the storage batteries no units were ever shipped. Months have gone by. The whole project apparently might just be scrapped if a solution can't be found. Real? A hoax? A Scam? Just a temporary delay ?
If it was a scam from the start, seems like they managed to fool the best investigators who seem to still be holding out some hope though they were left high and dry - so far, as far as I know.
I could slap together a DC motor/generator that runs and recharges its own batteries at a higher voltage - no problem, It could run for hours, no special circuitry needed, but I understand although it looks real. (It really does run and the battery voltage really does go up) but what you need to look at is the Watts.
Low voltage high amperage in -> high voltage lower amperage back to the batteries. Pump high voltage back to a battery and it appears to be charging but is actually being drained. Drained and cooked at the same time. Will any kind of circuit make a difference? I highly doubt it.
I suspect the "secret" circuitry never existed as it wouldn't be needed in the first place to create such an illusion. If it was real but didn't work, why not release it and let someone else tinker with it ?
Anyway, what I'm looking at from my own perspective is there are some without a money motive willing to disclose all they know or have discovered or believe but just don't have the funds to develop it.
I could, for example, probably build a prototype engine with what it would take to send a team to investigate and rule out some more or less obvious hoax or mysterious device.
In other words, if I were going to open a forum such as being proposed here one of the first rules would be that it would have to be "open source". But that's just me I guess. Everybody would like to hit the lottery or at least get a piece of the pie I suppose. I just don't want my grand children to grow up on a poisoned planet.
I don't really understand what Tusk has been driving at exactly. I watched his videos of a spinning motor and the wooden peg pendulum thing. If I throw a baseball it moves forward and spins simultaneously, unless I throw a knuckle ball. When I test a DC motor I have to hold it down tight with both hands as it will twist and roll across the floor otherwise. I can't really discern what the "paradox" is. Yet if I had an extra $10 to throw at something I'd rather give it to him than spend it to investigate some secret device connected with some get rich quick scheme or other as he doesn't appear to have anything to hide. Maybe he really does see something I don't. Though, even if his theory of some extra energy is real, I can't presently fathom how it might ever be harnessed. But maybe it is real and maybe it could be harnessed one day, who knows?
I see a spinning top or a gyroscope. Mere children's toys. But it is a complete mystery to me why they don't topple over. Seems like some kind of anti-gravity force at work holding them upright.
Suppose you put a magnet in the bottom of a top and spin it over a magnetic plate to eliminate friction, then put a bell jar over that and pump out the air to create a vacuum? How long would it spin suspended in a magnetic field in a vacuum? Why not indefinitely ? Would that be "perpetual motion"? Seems like a long time for something to stand there in defiance of gravity just from the force of the initial spin. Is there some other force involved that keeps it standing upright?
I think its good to try and see things from another's perspective. Especially when they claim to see something I don't. If two people see something in a radically different way, someone is seeing some sort of optical illusion or something and I don't rule out the possibility that that someone could be me.
"From the last few posts since I was in here last, I'm beginning to think I misunderstood the intent. It seems the idea isn't so much to forward promising ideas or potentially workable inventions so much as to investigate probable hoaxes."
Well, it shouldn't be to hard to find the hoaxes, or non-working devices. Time usually reveals the truth for free. Rule of thumb; If it is using off the shelf devices (which are all under-unity) and the results are too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. Also, don't use batteries.
On a real device, there would need to be investment and profit involved to be able to manufacture and promote the device, and reward the inventor for work that was invested by the inventor for free. Open source would not work to bring forth a device to manufacture, or reward the inventor.
@ audiomaker
I think your proposals thus far offer a very good 'rough draft' (or better) for a workable solution. Might I suggest that due to the various types of devices likely to be under scrutiny, including but not limited to variations in size, weight, complexity, therefore some might lend themselves to being replicated for less expense than the cost of even a single airline ticket (and let's not forget that if TK was on the field team we would need to hire an aircraft for which he holds certification). It seems a little extravagant to send a team of investigators when the device might be smaller than a shoebox and cost only a few hundred dollars to replicate - always assuming the necessary information is provided for replication, which I think it should be as a matter of course.
@ Liberty
Every case will likely be different, each 'applicant' having their own motives; particularly if you don't restrict the investigation to open source ideas. Was that your intention or did I misinterpret the main point of interest?
@ Tom Booth
You seem to have a nicely balanced outlook Tom; a pleasure to see that expressed so well. I suspect your input will be welcome here, by most members.
@evolvingape
Your statement
Quotethe people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority)
can not now be justified by this statement
Quotemany of these laymen freely admit that they do not have the knowledge
The latter implies an intelligent community recognising their limitations; the former clearly indicates your own perception of a community weighing in regardless and even oblivious of their lack of expertise. The usual response now is to make a hasty retraction, apologise and sit quietly in the corner until everyone forgets about your poor judgement and appalling manners.
Quote from: Liberty on December 04, 2012, 08:41:58 PM
The bigger issue that has to be addressed for inventors is: How do you protect the inventor's reputation or idea and/or machine from someone stealing it, or whether it is successful or not? Also what does the inventor have to look forward to as an incentive if approved, that will make him interested enough to want to risk a team looking at what he/she has worked on for years or months to achieve?
Good question, but...
It seems to me that if you are going to investigate, study, examine anything in an open forum on the internet, there is no possibility of any guarantee of any such protection.
I've posted my "invention" all over the internet in the hopes that someone would "steal" it. I don't care. Please do. with this one stipulation. Nobody gets an exclusive anything. It is for the benefit of all.
As far as incentive.
A better world and a better future for my kids is enough incentive for me.
Apparently that is not enough incentive for investors who want to see a monetary return on their investment. I think that is a shame. Isn't the prospect of living in a world without all the energy related concerns and problems we have now incentive enough for anybody?
My main concern has been how to ensure that my idea cannot be patented.
Patent something and it can be bought and sold and buried, if not by the energy monopolies by the government.
Anyone here read "The Sun Betrayed" ? Very informative read.
Photovoltaic panels for example could be made DIRT CHEAP. If the patents on such processes had not been bought out and buried. If photovoltaic panels were available at the price they SHOULD BE, you wouldn't have to wait 20 years to break even on your investment. More like six months.
"Protection" is publication, in as much detail and as far and wide as possible, so there is no possibility an idea (or its originator) could be buried IMO.
But I guess I'll get off the "open source" soapbox as this thread seems to be headed in some other direction.
QuoteBut I guess I'll get off the "open source" soapbox as this thread seems to be headed in some other direction.
I don't think it is Tom, at least not exclusively. There seems to be a desire to investigate all claims, with a hope that one or two genuine examples will present themselves in the open source environment. At least that's how I'm reading it. And I agree with your comments re open source entirely; unfortunately even a promising idea once disclosed beyond any possibility of a patent claim, big business may very well lose interest. A topic for discussion in it's own right.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 04, 2012, 09:40:30 PM
Good question, but...
It seems to me that if you are going to investigate, study, examine anything in an open forum on the internet, there is no possibility of any guarantee of any such protection.
I've posted my "invention" all over the internet in the hopes that someone would "steal" it. I don't care. Please do. with this one stipulation. Nobody gets an exclusive anything. It is for the benefit of all.
As far as incentive.
A better world and a better future for my kids is enough incentive for me.
Apparently that is not enough incentive for investors who want to see a monetary return on their investment. I think that is a shame. Isn't the prospect of living in a world without all the energy related concerns and problems we have now incentive enough for anybody?
My main concern has been how to ensure that my idea cannot be patented.
Patent something and it can be bought and sold and buried, if not by the energy monopolies by the government.
Anyone here read "The Sun Betrayed" ? Very informative read.
Photovoltaic panels for example could be made DIRT CHEAP. If the patents on such processes had not been bought out and buried. If photovoltaic panels were available at the price they SHOULD BE, you wouldn't have to wait 20 years to break even on your investment. More like six months.
"Protection" is publication, in as much detail and as far and wide as possible, so there is no possibility an idea (or its originator) could be buried IMO.
But I guess I'll get off the "open source" soapbox as this thread seems to be headed in some other direction.
I understand your perspective. However, we need to understand that money is needed for people to live in society. Money is also needed if you ever hope to bring a device to manufacture. Also the inventor could be benevolent and give his device away and save the world, if he/she already had his/her family provided for financially now and in the future. Unfortunately, the realities of this world system does not allow philanthropy at this time. It is easy to avoid a patent on your device. Sell one. It then becomes prior art. Actually I favor a Trade secret over a patent. No cost. Just lease the devices with a contract that protects the tech. That will probably give you as good of a head start as a patent would. You probably couldn't protect the patent anyway. Just ask J.P. Morgan and Mr. Westinghouse.
Quote from: Liberty on December 04, 2012, 09:19:12 PM
On a real device, there would need to be investment and profit involved to be able to manufacture and promote the device, and reward the inventor for work that was invested by the inventor for free. Open source would not work to bring forth a device to manufacture, or reward the inventor.
I beg to differ. Proof? Consider the medium through which we are currently communicating through. One guy, so it is told, "invented" it and gave it away as "open source". Everything that powers the internet, the routers, servers, web browsers, most of the programs etc. are primarily "open source". This has led to all kinds of manufacturing. True, Tim Berners Lee did not get extremely rich but the whole world is richer due to his contribution.
Anything that could be proven to actually work would certainly find investors and manufacturers but its being open source would ensure nobody had exclusive rights which would ensure competition and fair prices.
Really, should one guy, one inventor or one company have exclusive rights to "Free Energy". Even if I was that guy to reap all the reward I would say no. If the World Wide Web was not "open source" it would have NEVER HAPPENED. There would not be this virtually unlimited access to virtually free communication and information. I think the same is true of "Free Energy". No mater what form it takes, if it isn't "open source" it most certainly won't be free.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 04, 2012, 08:51:37 PM
Hmmm... well,
From the last few posts since I was in here last, I'm beginning to think I misunderstood the intent. It seems the idea isn't so much to forward promising ideas or potentially workable inventions so much as to investigate probable hoaxes.
<snip>
Well that is a matter of perspective Tom. In a world where the ratio of hoaxes, frauds, and mistakes likely outweigh genuine OU or FE machines, one has to approach submissions from the point of first proving that a submission isn't a hoax, fraud, or mistake. If it is none of those, then it passes a bar which gives it a major push towards forwarding, funding, and recognition.
It's a glass half empty/full equation. The idea isn't to prove it is a hoax, it's to prove it isn't....or...hmm? Motive really doesn't matter, only result.
I'm not suggesting a witch hunt, but witches do exist and must be looked out for when searching for Puritans. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Tusk on December 04, 2012, 09:24:57 PM
@ audiomaker
I think your proposals thus far offer a very good 'rough draft' (or better) for a workable solution. Might I suggest that due to the various types of devices likely to be under scrutiny, including but not limited to variations in size, weight, complexity, therefore some might lend themselves to being replicated for less expense than the cost of even a single airline ticket (and let's not forget that if TK was on the field team we would need to hire an aircraft for which he holds certification). It seems a little extravagant to send a team of investigators when the device might be smaller than a shoebox and cost only a few hundred dollars to replicate - always assuming the necessary information is provided for replication, which I think it should be as a matter of course.
<snip>
I don't think so because you then end up with the same ol' "Well it works here". Besides, we're not absolutely asking that an inventor give up all his secrets to open source, just showing that our own team of experts couldn't find any evidence that it doesn't work as stated. If I were an inventor, that claim (or certification if you will) would be a huge advantage.
Quote from: Tusk on December 04, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
I don't think it is Tom, at least not exclusively. There seems to be a desire to investigate all claims, with a hope that one or two genuine examples will present themselves in the open source environment. At least that's how I'm reading it. And I agree with your comments re open source entirely; unfortunately even a promising idea once disclosed beyond any possibility of a patent claim, big business may very well lose interest. A topic for discussion in it's own right.
Well, to that I would say good! If you are talking about something any good tinkerer could build in their garage, or a small company could manufacture. Certainly "big business" i.e. Current energy monopolies would do anything but loose interest. They may not INVEST in something that would certainly lead to their own demise, and that they could not control, but I don't think they would loose interest.
I think if a working device is out there and available with no strings attached businesses will develop and grow around it.
You can't get an exclusive patent on an internet router or an automobile and have exclusive rights to that technology, that doesn't keep big businesses from manufacturing those devices or from obtaining patents on their own "better versions" or particular models of those devices because the demand is there. If free energy were a reality think about the demand there would be. Think about the innumerable possible applications, who wouldn't want to get in on it even if they don't have exclusive patent protection for the original technology. Any significant modification or improvements or new design can still be patented.
Personally I think such a thing as a new free energy source is too important for any one company to have exclusive rights to the technology.
Quotejust showing that our own team of experts couldn't find any evidence that it doesn't work as stated
Good point. But isn't that crossing a bridge before we come to it? I would think that with reasonable communications between the two parties, such problems could typically be resolved in time.
Anyway I definitely think you have something going here audiomaker. Personally I think it's worth the effort of thrashing out a method, then post it under a new thread and see what everyone else thinks. If you get enough support (and I'd do that here prior to starting the new thread) you might be able to proceed without weeks or months of second guessing. After all, it's not going to do much damage if your first take is imperfect, better that than have it stillborn.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 04, 2012, 10:29:43 PM
Well, to that I would say good! If you are talking about something any good tinkerer could build in their garage, or a small company could manufacture. Certainly "big business" i.e. Current energy monopolies would do anything but loose interest. They may not INVEST in something that would certainly lead to their own demise, and that they could not control, but I don't think they would loose interest.
I think if a working device is out there and available with no strings attached businesses will develop and grow around it.
You can't get an exclusive patent on an internet router or an automobile and have exclusive rights to that technology, that doesn't keep big businesses from manufacturing those devices or from obtaining patents on their own "better versions" or particular models of those devices because the demand is there. If free energy were a reality think about the demand there would be. Think about the innumerable possible applications, who wouldn't want to get in on it even if they don't have exclusive patent protection for the original technology. Any significant modification or improvements or new design can still be patented.
Personally I think such a thing as a new free energy source is too important for any one company to have exclusive rights to the technology.
...and I don't disagree with that. However, I cannot control the actions or motives of others.
I don't think anyone can demand that a project be open source. Remember, taking baby steps, we have to start with the knowledge that something actually works.
Like other examples in this thread, having the right data or results is not the defining factor in something "working", neither is the motive of the inventor. Works is Works is Works...or not.
I would say though that having an open source investigation is better than nothing, and by it's nature doesn't exclude potential working machines based on the inventor's feelings about giving it away.
?
How about prioritising the list? Put open source at the top. If someone has a 'patent applied for' type device, cloaked in secrecy, put them down the bottom.
Quote from: Tusk on December 04, 2012, 10:40:33 PM
How about prioritising the list? Put open source at the top. If someone has a 'patent applied for' type device, cloaked in secrecy, put them down the bottom.
Because the only qualification is if it works as stated. Working isn't based on morality or social responsibility....or even wanting to drive a Lambo'. :)
That said, I would think in some cases a non-disclosure agreement might be required for the team members.
Yes, we all want to know 'how' it works, but in the end, what is more important is 'if' it works.
Remember folks, if I'm not mistaken, TK made the claim more or less that he had never seen a genuine OU/FE device in his estimation, and I'll bet he's not alone.
So... how many devices are we talking about here? 100's, 10's, none?
I'd love to see the device that all of you in this thread could not disprove in person, and that alone would be open source. Even an open source verification is miles ahead of the risk of something being overlooked, or bought out and buried by whomever the inventor did approach (sans us).
Ok...so we get in first.... It looks genuine, it tests genuine. It's gonna be a lot harder to bury even if we don't know exactly what miracle is driving it. I don't really mind that the inventor wants to hold out for a patent.
What would we KNOW at that point? That a device exists that we have video of, that 3 trusted experts from this board put under scrutiny in person and could not debunk.
That's HUGE!
If on the other hand the the fraud, hoax, or mistake is found, it's (thankfully) off my radar right then and there.
By the way, as far as patents. I believe demonstrating an invention in public (dated) has weight in the courts. On the other hand, some believe the patent office is monitored by the "evil powers" anyway. Point is, having a verification team endorse your advice publicly could possibly strengthen your patent claims if that is the road you choose to go down.
Quote from: audiomaker on December 04, 2012, 10:09:10 PM
Well that is a matter of perspective Tom. In a world where the ratio of hoaxes, frauds, and mistakes likely outweigh genuine OU or FE machines, one has to approach submissions from the point of first proving that a submission isn't a hoax, fraud, or mistake. If it is none of those, then it passes a bar which gives it a major push towards forwarding, funding, and recognition.
It's a glass half empty/full equation. The idea isn't to prove it is a hoax, it's to prove it isn't....or...hmm? Motive really doesn't matter, only result.
I'm not suggesting a witch hunt, but witches do exist and must be looked out for when searching for Puritans. Does that make sense?
Um, yeah, I guess. sort of. But here is my question or perhaps paradox.
Assume a guy has a REAL device.
What is the intent of the "investigating team" ? Really ?
Say I'm part of that team just for arguments sake. What am I looking for or what is this team really looking for ?
Something to invest in ?
In that case it would be in our best interest as potential investors that there be patents, protection, iron clad secrecy, non disclosure agreements etc. the whole nine yards.
Say the inventor is of the same general mind set. He wants to patent his device. He hopes to hit it big time, but realistically, can a bunch of guys with names like audiomaker (not to get personal) from some internet message board be trusted ?
If you were the inventor, would you trust US ? I think not. The whole deal would have to be iron clad and real and legal with lawyers and written signed documentation. Can a "team" of so-called or self proclaimed "experts" make any such guarantees to an inventor ?
As far as I can see there is no real possibility of any such thing happening.
First of all, from an inventors perspective, what is OUR credibility ? Who am I addressing in here ? Really. I have no clue. How is this "team" of "experts" from this internet message board supposed to establish any kind of credibility ?
But, lets just say all that is really possible somehow. Where does that leave the so called "puritan"?
He's left high and dry while the "team" is off chasing some hair brained shyster with a get rich scheme in hand looking for the big payoff.
There is no money in the puritan. He has a rough time just trying to give his idea away to a world full of greed and self interest. All that really seems to mater is not does it work but is the stock ticker going up or down. You can make a million dollars on a fraud if enough people THINK it MIGHT work as long as you get out before the fraud is revealed but then who cares, you can laugh all the way to the bank. That seems to be the current trend unfortunately.
Well you already know my interest in this :)
Put my Paradox Engine on your list and let's have some experts give it a good kicking. I realise it's not a working OU system (yet) but there's enough there to confound any serious investigation.... and may I claim 'first in best dressed'?
Quote from: Tusk on December 04, 2012, 11:19:25 PM
Well you already know my interest in this :)
Put my Paradox Engine on your list and let's have some experts give it a good kicking. I realise it's not a working OU system (yet) but there's enough there to confound any serious investigation.... and may I claim 'first in best dressed'?
I think I'd be in favor of that as as far as I can tell you seem as "puritan" as anybody although I really have no idea what your engine is supposed to be doing and have more or less myself, while trying to keep an open mind, classified it in the... what is the official term for it ?
I see what looks like a motor running, presumably being powered by an attached battery pack all revolving on a lazy Susan. I'll confess to not having taken the first step by reading through your thread. I assume there is some explanation there of what is going on that is such a paradox but at present I just don't get it, though I've been trying. In my experience with motors. ANY motor. If you just set it on the floor you will see some side torque making it turn. But lets not get into that here. I'll visit your thread and ask questions if I have any there after I give it a thorough read. As yet I don't see any potential for anything with this contraption of yours but maybe you can help me take the blinders off.
But, just the same, whatever my personal opinion or first impression of your particular device, it is typical I think of the "puritan" knocking on the door. Certainly not hard to find or identify being ignored.
The "team" has plenty of material at its doorstep, or so it seems to me. Your main flaw is you don't offer any kind of investment opportunity. Get a patent, sign this non-disclosure agreement, then we'll talk.
Thanks Tom (initially misread the origin of the reply - apologies). I'll make myself as available as possible (I occasionally stop to eat, sleep etc) and answer all questions as intelligently and accurately as I can manage. Feel free to use email if you'd rather not clutter up the forum, people are simply not asking many questions and I suspect this is due to concerns about being 'behind the 8 ball', which nobody really enjoys, so you may prefer a private discussion (not confidential - you could re-post any material you thought relevant).
We may struggle to find common ground initially - I have trouble grasping the fact that while there is significantly more mass in motion than is being 'paid' for yet nobody else thinks much of this circumstance. Which seems odd to me as I would have thought this a requirement for mechanical OU.
@ Tom Booth
There appears to be something amiss with the PM system. Following on from our friendly chat here I received a PM with your name on it (although that may be an error) with a hostile and interrogative 'spin' reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Since you have been so clearly open and fair minded during the course of this thread I can only presume a failure during data transfer. Probably your message crossed over with another which somehow changed the content from intelligent discussion to malignant invective. Perhaps we should proceed out here in the open to avoid further confusion; the idea does have an appealing honesty about it.
Quote from: Tusk on December 05, 2012, 01:55:13 AM
@ Tom Booth
There appears to be something amiss with the PM system. Following on from our friendly chat here I received a PM with your name on it (although that may be an error) with a hostile and interrogative 'spin' reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Since you have been so clearly open and fair minded during the course of this thread I can only presume a failure during data transfer. Probably your message crossed over with another which somehow changed the content from intelligent discussion to malignant invective. Perhaps we should proceed out here in the open to avoid further confusion; the idea does have an appealing honesty about it.
Hmmm...
I did reply to your PM, then went over to read your thread. I did check my "Save to Sent Folder" when I responded but now I find nothing in my sent folder.
I don't recall saying anything that should be interpreted as "malignant invective". I asked some honest questions about your device, input, power source etc. Reading your thread answered some of those questions but not all.
Towards the end I think I said something along the lines of how I was more interested in what sort of madness you were suffering from, meant in a friendly spirit, as I stated, I seem to be in the same boat. Certain that there is some significance and potential in my own engine and genuinely perplexed as to why I haven't been able to attract more serious interest.
At any rate, I don't think I said anything I would not have said here in the open, though I can see how some of my remarks might have been taken the wrong way.
Certainly you are mad I think. But so am I. So was Einstein, Tesla, da Vinci,...
So, if there is something you feel is truly "malignant", "hostile", or reminiscent of the Inquisition there feel free to reproduce it here as I seem to have lost my copy.
I don't think asking questions about what your actual data or readings were, power source, input voltage etc. is "a hostile and interrogative 'spin' reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition".
If you are looking for replication of your device or research findings, which seems to be the case, these seem to me to be basic necessary questions.
I apologize in that, as I said, at the time I read the PM I had not yet read your thread where graphs and readings and such were posted, and some of those questions were answered. As yet however I'm still a long way from knowing enough to be able to reproduce your experiments or your prototype engine so you might expect many more such questions in the future if you are really looking to have your data independently verified and tested.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 04, 2012, 03:41:38 AMI am distracted right now because of this:
http://www.techcentral.ie/20420/apple-wireless-charging-system-revealed-in-patent-application (http://www.techcentral.ie/20420/apple-wireless-charging-system-revealed-in-patent-application) (find the claims and read them)
and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw)
(note the date)
You will forgive me, I hope, if I go and sulk for a while.
And of course there is this, for your amusement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw
I can't say that I understood what was going on in your YouTube video there, but I guess it has something to do with, or is related to the Apple patent. Are you saying what you were demonstrating is "Prior Art"?
Isn't this wireless transmission of power what Tesla was proposing or doing on a much grander scale and which I've had some in other forums tell me is a reason for dismissing Tesla as a crackpot because he thought it was possible to transmit power wirelessly?
I'm impressed by your Stirling Engine build. Haven't seen anything quite like it in an LTD engine before.
This may be the wrong place to ask questions or get your opinion on Tesla's heat engine project or theories about heat, But have you read his article regarding his "self acting" heat engine?
I'd be very interested in getting your take on his project, (apparently never completed due in part to the burning of his work shop and other priorities.)
Could, as he imagined, a heat engine run on ambient heat for the reason he stated?
To paraphrase, he believed heat, in flowing towards a heat sink in the course of passing through a heat engine the heat is intercepted and converted into other forms of energy so that little heat ever actually reaches the sink. Given that, once started, there would be little heat to remove so as to maintain the "cold hole". He reasoned that if this is the case, a heat engine, once started, should be able to maintain its own sink and thus run indefinitely on the heat flowing in from ambient. Many of his inventions were actually spin offs from this pursuit which he considered an "Ideal" method for obtaining motive power from the ambient medium.
Obviously you are very knowledgeable (in general) and have practical experience in building heat engines which is why I ask.
@ Tom Booth
No harm done. As I said, crossed wires. But perhaps things will go more smoothly if we proceed one question at a time; since nobody seems to understand even one of my answers I would prefer the luxury of tackling them in bite sized portions, and we can know our position by where we find ourselves lost.
Also I am definitely not 'mad'; and I have the release papers to prove it.
I will admit to a certain unexpected effect resulting from constant repetition of the main elements of the material, apparently to no avail - I would describe it as somewhat tiresome. I should have made a rule from the very beginning not to answer any questions (other than device specifications) until a replication of the device was completed, since the effects themselves are apparently in doubt (I had not foreseen this form of skepticism). I am being constantly 'frisked' so to speak, each time I enter or exit the building. Not a pleasant experience for someone with an honest disposition. There's a tip for audiomaker - 'one time only' frisking on the way in, by someone with a light touch and eyes like a hawk.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 04, 2012, 11:15:37 PM
Um, yeah, I guess. sort of. But here is my question or perhaps paradox.
Assume a guy has a REAL device.
What is the intent of the "investigating team" ? Really ?
Say I'm part of that team just for arguments sake. What am I looking for or what is this team really looking for ?
Something to invest in ?
In that case it would be in our best interest as potential investors that there be patents, protection, iron clad secrecy, non disclosure agreements etc. the whole nine yards.
Say the inventor is of the same general mind set. He wants to patent his device. He hopes to hit it big time, but realistically, can a bunch of guys with names like audiomaker (not to get personal) from some internet message board be trusted ?
If you were the inventor, would you trust US ? I think not. The whole deal would have to be iron clad and real and legal with lawyers and written signed documentation. Can a "team" of so-called or self proclaimed "experts" make any such guarantees to an inventor ?
As far as I can see there is no real possibility of any such thing happening.
First of all, from an inventors perspective, what is OUR credibility ? Who am I addressing in here ? Really. I have no clue. How is this "team" of "experts" from this internet message board supposed to establish any kind of credibility ?
But, lets just say all that is really possible somehow. Where does that leave the so called "puritan"?
He's left high and dry while the "team" is off chasing some hair brained shyster with a get rich scheme in hand looking for the big payoff.
There is no money in the puritan. He has a rough time just trying to give his idea away to a world full of greed and self interest. All that really seems to mater is not does it work but is the stock ticker going up or down. You can make a million dollars on a fraud if enough people THINK it MIGHT work as long as you get out before the fraud is revealed but then who cares, you can laugh all the way to the bank. That seems to be the current trend unfortunately.
There are people who...now, or in the future wish to get exposure and validation for their projects.
No tool can possibly cover every situation, inventor, or device. There is every possibility that some real device exists that we will never see... investigation team or not... because the inventor will never release it based on their own beliefs, paranoia, self interest, or whatever else. That is beyond the scope of any tool except for maybe a psychic.
There are also those who believe that the traditional route of getting a patent is unsuitable or non-viable. For them, public exposure without a patent is the safest way to obtain security, and perhaps...a patent.
There are those who don't care about patents, or money. They just want exposure (for their own safety and the betterment of the planet).
...and lastly, there are those who might not even know what they have, or why it is doing what it is, so just want an explanation.
@TK. Yes, I can hear you out there. I see your point, but you don't need to rub it in. ;)
Quote from: evolvingape on December 04, 2012, 05:12:54 PM
If you did have a team of knowledgeable experts, with suitable funding to investigate "promising devices", your finances would be drained very quickly if the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority) are given the ability to disseminate those resources.
Quote from: evolvingape on December 04, 2012, 06:53:09 PM
There are far more laymen on these forums than there are professionals with knowledge, experience and skill sets developed over a significant time period. 62281 members at present and growing rapidly, many of these laymen freely admit that they do not have the knowledge or experience to be able to accurately assess a device, however that does not stop them having an equal vote with those who do.
I see what your game is now Tusk, taking partial statements out of context and attempting to use them as a weapon against me. The full statements are above, complete with time and date stamps, which you removed when you edited out the context!
I owe you no retraction, or apology.
When it comes to poor judgement you take the cake, I have not forgotten your quickly ditched thought experiment based upon your device where it was pointed out to you that you are analysing your systems components in isolation, an error. You have applied the same error in the analysis of your device. If you measure your output energy and compare it to your input energy your "anomaly" will disappear, i bet ya!
As you have brought up the subject of poor judgement, remember this: ?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/16/dont-worry-the-laws-of-physics-are-safe-new-research-suggests-faster-than-light-measurements-an-error/
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/faster-than-light-neutrino-measurement-has-two-possible-errors.html
Those physicists should have known better than to announce results of such significance without ruling out all possible causes for erroneous measurements, first. You on the other hand Tusk, think nothing of announcing an easily verifiable OU result and a potential violation of Newton's Laws, without even measuring the output energy of your device. The normal protocol is a hasty retraction, apology for your poor judgement and go sit quietly in the corner until everyone forgets you have not got the slightest idea what you are doing!
Quote from: audiomaker on December 05, 2012, 10:34:42 AM
There are people who...now, or in the future wish to get exposure and validation for their projects.
No tool can possibly cover every situation, inventor, or device. There is every possibility that some real device exists that we will never see... investigation team or not... because the inventor will never release it based on their own beliefs, paranoia, self interest, or whatever else. That is beyond the scope of any tool except for maybe a psychic.
There are also those who believe that the traditional route of getting a patent is unsuitable or non-viable. For them, public exposure without a patent is the safest way to obtain security, and perhaps...a patent.
There are those who don't care about patents, or money. They just want exposure (for their own safety and the betterment of the planet).
...and lastly, there are those who might not even know what they have, or why it is doing what it is, so just want an explanation.
For me it is about pooling resources to get something done.
I think that is the basic equation. If we wanted to check something out for whatever the reason, assuming there is some possibility of actually carrying out the plan how can this tool or technology help us to pull it off?
If we thought it a good idea to build a prototype to test a theory, how can we pool our resources to get that prototype built ?
Currently this is easy when it comes to putting our heads together for matters that only involve thinking and communication. Start a thread on the topic and reason things out. Post links, upload relevant documentation, share photos, videos and so forth.
When it comes to actually carrying out some real world physical plan of action such as building a prototype, things get a little more complicated, who is going to do the actual building, who has access to materials, who has a machine shop. These things though are not difficult to work out through simple communication.
Whatever the actual goal of any project, the real difficulty comes in on the issue of who is going to foot the bill. Sending a team to check out a device or claim involves expenses. Building a prototype involves expenses, getting materials etc.
If this is a collaborative project, whatever the nature of it, the major thing that really needs to be addressed and worked out, assuming there is some agreement or consensus about the over all plan or goal as far as what needs to be done or should be done, is how to handle the financing of it.
It is easy to pool our intellectual resources here. The real issue IMO is how to pool our finances. Here things get a bit more complicated and risky.
If there was a list of projects or goals somewhere that needed financing and some easy way to donate so as to see those projects or goals to completion I for one would gladly spend my time pouring over such a list and donating whatever I could to whatever projects I thought were really worthwhile or had potential for making things better.
Another problem is the expense involved in developing such a system in the first place. What would it look like ? Assuming many many projects and idea submissions, there would probably need to be some sort of search engine. Maybe not right away but eventually as it grew. There would need to be a designated contact person for each project. A description of each project, a funding target (how much it is estimated it will cost) and a tally (how much has so far been donated or pledged)
Assuming all that could be done, I think that a person donating should have a page showing what they donated to and how much. along the lines of online banking. and they should retain full control of their own funds. i.e. if a project goes sour, a device or proposal that looked good is found to be unworkable etc. they should be able to withdraw their contribution, transfer it to another project fund or earmark it for a different project or ideally put it back in their own band account if it hasn't already been spent. Or at least do the same with whatever is left if only a portion has been spent.
As far as the expense involved in the system itself, the biggest issue would be where the funds are actually kept until the goal is reached and through what kind of system is the money shunted around. Pay Pal perhaps ? Then PP is taking out a cut for themselves and , well, would everybody be OK with that ? Maybe a "pledge" system would be better. The money is only "virtual" until the target is reached and everybody involved agrees to go ahead.
OK, so who will receive or handle the actual funds and can they be trusted.
Does anyone actually know this person in charge of this project? Are they open to visitors to verify their credibility?
Over all, I think everything I've mentioned above could be worked out.
The programs to create such a sophisticated site could be written. It would be a major project in itself. But perhaps something similar can be done here just having a list of proposals and a means of estimating cost and making pledges.
In the end though I think that whoever is going to actually be on the receiving end of any finances needs to be an open book and not unwilling to entertain visitors who might drop in to check things out. Make sure there is actually a real person behind the username at least.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 05, 2012, 04:27:42 PM
For me it is about pooling resources to get something done.
I think that is the basic equation. If we wanted to check something out for whatever the reason, assuming there is some possibility of actually carrying out the plan how can this tool or technology help us to pull it off?
If we thought it a good idea to build a prototype to test a theory, how can we pool our resources to get that prototype built ?
Currently this is easy when it comes to putting our heads together for matters that only involve thinking and communication. Start a thread on the topic and reason things out. Post links, upload relevant documentation, share photos, videos and so forth.
When it comes to actually carrying out some real world physical plan of action such as building a prototype, things get a little more complicated, who is going to do the actual building, who has access to materials, who has a machine shop. These things though are not difficult to work out through simple communication.
Whatever the actual goal of any project, the real difficulty comes in on the issue of who is going to foot the bill. Sending a team to check out a device or claim involves expenses. Building a prototype involves expenses, getting materials etc.
If this is a collaborative project, whatever the nature of it, the major thing that really needs to be addressed and worked out, assuming there is some agreement or consensus about the over all plan or goal as far as what needs to be done or should be done, is how to handle the financing of it.
It is easy to pool our intellectual resources here. The real issue IMO is how to pool our finances. Here things get a bit more complicated and risky.
If there was a list of projects or goals somewhere that needed financing and some easy way to donate so as to see those projects or goals to completion I for one would gladly spend my time pouring over such a list and donating whatever I could to whatever projects I thought were really worthwhile or had potential for making things better.
Another problem is the expense involved in developing such a system in the first place. What would it look like ? Assuming many many projects and idea submissions, there would probably need to be some sort of search engine. Maybe not right away but eventually as it grew. There would need to be a designated contact person for each project. A description of each project, a funding target (how much it is estimated it will cost) and a tally (how much has so far been donated or pledged)
Assuming all that could be done, I think that a person donating should have a page showing what they donated to and how much. along the lines of online banking. and they should retain full control of their own funds. i.e. if a project goes sour, a device or proposal that looked good is found to be unworkable etc. they should be able to withdraw their contribution, transfer it to another project fund or earmark it for a different project or ideally put it back in their own band account if it hasn't already been spent. Or at least do the same with whatever is left if only a portion has been spent.
As far as the expense involved in the system itself, the biggest issue would be where the funds are actually kept until the goal is reached and through what kind of system is the money shunted around. Pay Pal perhaps ? Then PP is taking out a cut for themselves and , well, would everybody be OK with that ? Maybe a "pledge" system would be better. The money is only "virtual" until the target is reached and everybody involved agrees to go ahead.
OK, so who will receive or handle the actual funds and can they be trusted.
Does anyone actually know this person in charge of this project? Are they open to visitors to verify their credibility?
Over all, I think everything I've mentioned above could be worked out.
The programs to create such a sophisticated site could be written. It would be a major project in itself. But perhaps something similar can be done here just having a list of proposals and a means of estimating cost and making pledges.
In the end though I think that whoever is going to actually be on the receiving end of any finances needs to be an open book and not unwilling to entertain visitors who might drop in to check things out. Make sure there is actually a real person behind the username at least.
Tom, I think what you are suggesting or getting from my suggestion is out of the scope of what this board could do as a community.
I was not suggesting that as a group (or portion of that group), that we fund anyone's project.
The funds I was speaking of were to enable a team of member to validate or invalidate the status of a device already claimed to be working by an inventor.
This is an advantage to the group in that we are aware of the "status" of a device (working, not working, hoax, fraud, mistake).
This is an advantage to an inventor because if they believe they have a working device, they can get verification and acknowledgment for FREE from a team of non-biased, non-interested experts.
This is a disadvantage, and perhaps deterrent to hoaxers and fraudsters because a refusal to have their device examined would be noted in our community.
This is an advantage to investors, or people who wish to help further a project because it has been "certified" to a degree with the "OU stamp of it seems to be working as stated", which is a confidence builder prior to investment.
If I were an inventor with a true working device, a "stamp of approval" from this board would enhance my ability to get it recognized and funded.
Believe it or not, there seems to be no lack of people claiming OU/FE devices. Some there are even YouTube videos of. Of the many I've seen, I've often wondered if they were real?
It would be fantastic if in the YouTube comments, there was "This device has been verified by OU.com", or "This device was proven fraudulent by OU.com", or "This inventor refused examination by OU.com".
In addition, there would be a record of those findings on the board itself... Who was approached, what communication was made, if the inventor accepted examination, who was sent and what tests they did, what the finding were, and the conclusions.
I believe this would help clear the air. I'm not suggesting researching every device there is a claim for, just the convincing ones.
Clearing this air is an advantage to any authentic device and inventor since they don't get lost in the "smog" and have an additional accreditation under their belt on a challenging road to success.
Quote from: audiomaker on December 05, 2012, 05:01:27 PM
Tom, I think what you are suggesting or getting from my suggestion is out of the scope of what this board could do as a community.
I was not suggesting that as a group (or portion of that group), that we fund anyone's project.
The funds I was speaking of were to enable a team of member to validate or invalidate the status of a device already claimed to be working by an inventor.
As I see it, what you propose: "The funds I was speaking of were to enable a team of member to validate or invalidate the status of a device already claimed to be working by an inventor." is itself indeed "suggesting that as a group (or portion of that group), that we fund anyone's project." The "PROJECT" is your own. The remainder of your post is your pitch.
What you propose is a project for which you are in effect asking for funding. No?
I'm only suggesting that yours, or your idea for a project, is not the ONLY project.
Probably everyone in here has something they would like to see accomplished. An ongoing project or an idea for a project.
Your idea is a good one, but as I see it it is one among many. If we are going to work out a funding mechanism or protocol for one project (yours for example) why not make it applicable or serviceable for any such proposal or future similar proposal? Why limit it to just one class of project? i.e. investigating claims?
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a good idea but there are many other types of projects and ideas that could benefit as well if some support/funding mechanism can be worked out.
Quote
This is an advantage to the group in that we are aware of the "status" of a device (working, not working, hoax, fraud, mistake).
This is an advantage to an inventor because if they believe they have a working device, they can get verification and acknowledgment for FREE from a team of non-biased, non-interested experts.
This is a disadvantage, and perhaps deterrent to hoaxers and fraudsters because a refusal to have their device examined would be noted in our community.
This is an advantage to investors, or people who wish to help further a project because it has been "certified" to a degree with the "OU stamp of it seems to be working as stated", which is a confidence builder prior to investment.
If I were an inventor with a true working device, a "stamp of approval" from this board would enhance my ability to get it recognized and funded.
Believe it or not, there seems to be no lack of people claiming OU/FE devices. Some there are even YouTube videos of. Of the many I've seen, I've often wondered if they were real?
It would be fantastic if in the YouTube comments, there was "This device has been verified by OU.com", or "This device was proven fraudulent by OU.com", or "This inventor refused examination by OU.com".
In addition, there would be a record of those findings on the board itself... Who was approached, what communication was made, if the inventor accepted examination, who was sent and what tests they did, what the finding were, and the conclusions.
I believe this would help clear the air. I'm not suggesting researching every device there is a claim for, just the convincing ones.
Clearing this air is an advantage to any authentic device and inventor since they don't get lost in the "smog" and have an additional accreditation under their belt on a challenging road to success.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 05, 2012, 06:13:34 PM
As I see it, what you propose: "The funds I was speaking of were to enable a team of member to validate or invalidate the status of a device already claimed to be working by an inventor." is itself indeed "suggesting that as a group (or portion of that group), that we fund anyone's project." The "PROJECT" is your own. The remainder of your post is your pitch.
What you propose is a project for which you are in effect asking for funding. No?
I'm only suggesting that yours, or your idea for a project, is not the ONLY project.
Probably everyone in here has something they would like to see accomplished. An ongoing project or an idea for a project.
Your idea is a good one, but as I see it it is one among many. If we are going to work out a funding mechanism or protocol for one project (yours for example) why not make it applicable or serviceable for any such proposal or future similar proposal? Why limit it to just one class of project? i.e. investigating claims?
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a good idea but there are many other types of projects and ideas that could benefit as well if some support/funding mechanism can be worked out.
Tom, this board already offers a "Prize" for a verifiable OU/FE device. The funding of that prize is from board members who's intent is presumably to do what they can to promote the discovery of a OU/FE device that could potentially change our world. Your reply is someone suggesting their donations are not generous, nor charitable, but are via self-interest. To that I would say in some regard you are correct. We all have an interest in what most definitions of "Free Energy" represent, even if that's just not paying the power company sometime down the road.
My suggestion is simply a recommendation for the next stage, layer, or step. To be proactive. Because this board is a bubble unto itself, some "reaching out" and "making it easier" might be in order.
It is presumptuous to believe that such a device will automatically find it's way here and to the "Prize" forum, or any other forum that might be helpful to that inventor. I've been working on OU/FE for decades and only recently became aware of this board (about 2 years ago). Had I had a working device 3 years ago, I might just upload a video to YouTube, or make a webpage, or perhaps just get overlooked if my own resources and motivation weren't strong enough to find a clear path to secure success.
Suggesting that this is "my" project is... well...hmm...true in a way. If you read the whole thread you will discover that it wasn't my intent, just an observation of a flaw and I also made a rough suggestion on how that flaw could be remedied to a degree. Is there self interest?... I suppose a little for the sake that I'd like to see a working verified device brought to the public eye.
That said, I am one of the few people in this thread who hasn't said anything about my own projects, nor posted links to my own threads, nor discussed my theories. One might speculate that I might actually have some. In this case however, I started the thread to try to help the group as a whole, and possibly to help the inventor who has no clue how to proceed with a working device (if one should actually exist).
The concept of pooling resources or even funds is a good one, but I think if you look closely, some form of my suggestion is going to happen either way. We cannot possibly support and fund every inventor who simply states theory, or even those who simply claim success because there are 100's if not 1000's of them...and most are mistaken, fraudulent, or hoaxes. I say in bold "
Most".
Verification is going to be part of the pre-funding process. On this I will bet.
Making such an analysis and suggesting a path that involved funding could...in some way.... be looked at as "My" project, but it really isn't about me, it's about all of you...first as a whole, and then possibly as an individual.
@ evolvingape
An insult concealed by proximity to praise is still an insult; but that is for others to judge. I would advise that you attack me rather than the science, which is bullet proof.
You do make a point worthy of note however;
Quotethink nothing of announcing an easily verifiable OU result and a potential violation of Newton's Laws, without even measuring the output energy of your device.
A postal money order has the same value as cash, provided you exchange it using correct protocols. Mass in motion bears a similar relationship to energy; it only requires a simple exchange using correct protocols. I see no problem at all with presenting an excess of mass in motion as evidence of OU.
And just to be clear, I did not claim to have violated Newton's Laws. There is some friction there, but I hope to see the matter resolved - by those more learned than myself - to Newton's satisfaction.
Quote from: audiomaker on December 05, 2012, 06:52:04 PM
Tom, this board already offers a "Prize" for a verifiable OU/FE device.
Really? I wasn't aware of that.
Can you provide more information about this or point me to it. I'm curious.
QuoteThe funding of that prize is from board members who's intent is presumably to do what they can to promote the discovery of a OU/FE device that could potentially change our world. Your reply is someone suggesting their donations are not generous, nor charitable, but are via self-interest.
My reply was made with no awareness of any such prize or donations. My apologies to anyone who may have been offended by my comments, which BTW were not made with any members of this forum in mind but rather with my own past experience. After posting info about my engine on another forum I was directly contacted by phone by a company offering to fund the building of a prototype. I was asked how much it would take. 1 million, 2, 3 ?
I laughed and said: probably about 2 or three hundred dollars. A thousand maybe at most. He said he was "putting me down for $250 thousand.
In followup conversations I mentioned how I had already posted information about the engine online over a year ago and had given out all the details (US patent law states that a patent is forfeited - the invention becomes public domain - 1 year after "public display") and for other reasons, obtaining a patent would likely be impossible.
With that I was told it would be nearly impossible to find investors without a patent, and that was that. No quarter million, not even $200. No further interest.
Other comments were likewise based on previous personal experience and were not meant to be taken as being directed at anyone here.
Quote...I've been working on OU/FE for decades and only recently became aware of this board (about 2 years ago).
It appears that "audiomaker" registered here > November 22, 2012, 09:52:04 PM
Presumably you haven't remained silent for the past 2 years.
I only point this out, not to be accusative or suggest any impropriety, but it goes to the credibility factor I mentioned earlier. If I happen to be a "Free Energy" inventor with a real device in my garage and I'm contacted by who? A "sock puppet" from an internet message board and his cohorts... Should I be "cooperative"?
Someone in here suggested a few sources of possible "help" or "funding" including Bigelow Aerospace? Hal Puthoff ? Joe Firmage ?
Forgive me for saying so but in my general reading and research these circles appear to be crawling with "spooks".
I mention this only because of what can happen with patent applications that have potential "military application". A water filter or a battery can have potential military application.
So exactly who is it from this forum that wants to take a look at my OU/FE device?
Col. John Alexander ? Not likely.
Quote
Suggesting that this is "my" project is... well...hmm...true in a way. If you read the whole thread you will discover that it wasn't my intent, just an observation of a flaw and I also made a rough suggestion on how that flaw could be remedied to a degree.
Only in the sense that you - audiomaker, whoever you are, started this thread and are the apparent chief spokesperson for the idea here at present. It (or any such project) would be a group effort.
Quote... We cannot possibly support and fund every inventor who simply states theory, or even those who simply claim success because there are 100's if not 1000's of them...
It seems to me that your intent is basically to reduce what is "on your radar screen" to a minimum. Winnow out the wheat from the chaff.
Immediately you are talking about numerous expeditions. This "project" could be ongoing indefinitely. No?
How about we just start with one and see where it goes?
I'm personally very curious about this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwQt1tJYa8
There is a thread in this forum:
http://www.overunity.com/5176/selfrunning-waterpump-generator-device-runs-60-watts-lamp/#.UL2YnVL4JGc
US Patent Pending "US Patent App #2007001846
Who would go to all the trouble of applying for a patent if it was just a hoax?
An awful lot of trouble just to light one light bulb but... If such a seemingly crude device works...
There is a name and address on the patent application.
Or, take your pick. What ONE claim or device "on your radar" seems to you to be worth putting some time and money into to investigate further?
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 06, 2012, 01:38:53 PM
<snip>
It appears that "audiomaker" registered here > November 22, 2012, 09:52:04 PM
Presumably you haven't remained silent for the past 2 years.
<snip>
I stated I was aware of this board two years ago...and no, I didn't register. I lurked here and there...not much. I wouldn't say I "remained silent". I would say I didn't really visit much at all.
The rest of your post I will address later in the day.
:)
Quote from: audiomaker on December 06, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
I stated I was aware of this board two years ago...and no, I didn't register. I lurked here and there...not much. I wouldn't say I "remained silent". I would say I didn't really visit much at all.
This is not really of any importance to me personally. I could care less what usernames people have or use or how many.
Reading through this thread though, I get the impression that you are VERY familiar with this forum, seem to class yourself generally among the "experts" here, at least by inference in that it seems logical you would be part of the investigating efforts you are proposing, you seem to know what is or isn't within the capabilities or resources of this forum to do.
In other words I find it hard to believe that you Lurked around for 2 years ("I lurked here and there...not much...
I would say I didn't really visit much at all.) Then reared your head, apparently with the explicit purpose of starting this thread. (you registered just a few days prior) And yet you have come to the conclusion that there are people here with the qualifications to carry out such a plan and are now ready to assemble a team of investigators - - - on the basis of what ? your "Newbie" status ?
Its a good idea anyway. If it were a TV series I'd watch it. "The Hunt for Overunity" coming soon on the FOX Network.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 06, 2012, 06:28:19 PM
This is not really of any importance to me personally. I could care less what usernames people have or use or how many.
Reading through this thread though, I get the impression that you are VERY familiar with this forum, seem to class yourself generally among the "experts" here, at least by inference in that it seems logical you would be part of the investigating efforts you are proposing, you seem to know what is or isn't within the capabilities or resources of this forum to do.
In other words I find it hard to believe that you Lurked around for 2 years ("I lurked here and there...not much... I would say I didn't really visit much at all.) Then reared your head, apparently with the explicit purpose of starting this thread. (you registered just a few days prior) And yet you have come to the conclusion that there are people here with the qualifications to carry out such a plan and are now ready to assemble a team of investigators - - - on the basis of what ? your "Newbie" status ?
Its a good idea anyway. If it were a TV series I'd watch it. "The Hunt for Overunity" coming soon on the FOX Network.
Um... OK.
First, it doesn't take much to find the "Prize" forum as it is one of the main forums of the site. It's kind of hard to miss.
Secondly, I never suggested that *I* would be a recommended person to examine devices. I only said that "
Even I would be qualified to examine
some types of machines"... inferring that it's not that difficult for someone with basic electrical knowledge. Put another way "Any monkey with a VOM could likely do it", which suggests that for at least initial examinations, that it shouldn't be too hard to find qualified volunteers.
Thirdly, I don't "class myself" here at all. I certainly don't present the dogmatism that permeates the board regularly. I stated who I am at the beginning of the thread.
I joined this board because I had a thought in the middle of the night... not even a unique one perhaps... but I wanted to share it before I forgot it. You can likely find that post in the "New Theories" section. It's not that old.
I would not claim that I am an expert at anything, in fact, I claim only that for my ignorance, and freshness to this board, that some things strike me that might get overlooked by the people who endlessly chase their own tails and each other's in this forum while seemingly not much gets done beyond that.
If I were to claim experience however, it would be in having moderated other types of forums for decades and from that having seen how even the smartest people get addicted to negative energy and the the overwhelming compulsion to hear themselves speak (errr..type).
You see, some people just need to argue... even if there's no forward progress to be had from it. This board... is no exception. Smart Humans it seems...are still human.
It's no big deal. Believe as you like. For me, I return to the OU/FE thing every once in awhile to "check progress" as it were. Usually that's just Googling, some YouTube, and some browsing.
This time I joined a message board while FE thoughts were on my mind. Pretty simple really.
If I start getting baited into the negative energy feeding cycle, I'll just stop coming, although I must say that if one could tap into that cycle, we'd have all the energy we could ever use.
:)
Quote from: audiomaker on December 06, 2012, 07:21:18 PM
I joined this board because I had a thought in the middle of the night... not even a unique one perhaps... but I wanted to share it before I forgot it. You can likely find that post in the "New Theories" section. It's not that old.
Yes, something about there's no such thing as magnetism.
If you really want to clear your radar screen, the most immediate solution I can suggest is keep handing them one at a time over to TinselKoala. If it can survive his analysis it might be worth looking into further, if there is anything left. At any rate it makes for entertaining and educational banter. Where'd he go anyway, still sulking?
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 06, 2012, 08:00:44 PM
Yes, something about there's no such thing as magnetism.
If you really want to clear your radar screen, the most immediate solution I can suggest is keep handing them one at a time over to TinselKoala. If it can survive his analysis it might be worth looking into further, if there is anything left. At any rate it makes for entertaining and educational banter. Where'd he go anyway, still sulking?
I had considered that. However, TinselKoala has the combination of being quite intelligent, a skeptic, and having the well earned tone of looking down on those who challenge him (this is not an insult).
For me, there is no positive outcome to appearing as a troll or ankle biter. I respect his position and his intelligence. Perhaps one day he will respect mine, but I doubt that endless presentations of candidates for which I have no clue as to the status of is going to do much but dent my ego.
My initial quest in this thread was simply to present the idea that it's not impossible that a OU/FE device might already exist, but if one were going to try to find one, or participate in the progress of one, or even simply to study the potential of one, that it would be a monumental effort for an individual to sort out what was what as status is concerned.
How do I know? Because I tried for a few days and got lost in threads leading nowhere or perpetually stuck in the negative energy feeding cycle. I still don't know.
And what better place to have a forum with an organized list of status than this site? ....and if that status is "probable" as determined by some logical section of the bright minds here, then why let it linger in purgatory instead of getting off our couches and having a look?
As for where TK went? I would guess that the discussion went in a direction the title of the thread didn't support. However, that is only my guess. I obviously cannot speak for a person I don't even know.
By the way, that "water wheel" vid' you linked, I looked at that before even signing onto this site. It was one where I was going "Is this real?"
Still don't know, but instead of just opening the "OU Candidates" forum and finding a status on it, I have to run all over the net, read YouTube commentary (which is pointless), and play "Stump the TK" for an answer. I might not be the brightest nail in the box, but I can spot serious inefficiency when I'm at the mercy of it.
Anyway...
.... and let me continue on another angle....
You suggest in some form "Why should I trust you?" earlier in the thread.
You shouldn't. Nobody should trust a single person to believe. That is why as part of my draft that *3* unrelated people go to promising candidates.
I believe someone mentioned in this thread that there were something like 62,000 members here. That's over 1,000 per state in the USA. Halve that to include the globe and you still have over 500 per state.
You simply create a pool...
Hi, I'm "Bob". I am a circuit board designer and my enthusiasm is in magnet motors. Here is a list of my tools I am qualified to use (X)...
I am available in Vermont, or with notice, able to travel.
So, you might not even have to fly anyone. You might find 3 nearby a location who would be willing to go have a look.
Mine might read "Hi, I'm Audiomaker. I own a machine shop and am qualified repairing CNC machines. My toolkit is a Fluke OSC, VOM's, Magnetometers..etc.
I am available in the Pacific Northwest to inspect and report on potential FE devices and also available to travel.
Simply by being a volunteer, you are already presenting that you are interesting in OU/FE, interested in validating any candidates, and believe you are capable of sniffing out hidden hamster wheels.
Basically you have a pool of volunteers who have the basic qualifications to find a mistake, hoax, or fraud. If three of them together cannot debunk the device, then send more, or send the cavalry.
You aren't trusting any one particular person or group.
The "officials" of the forum select the best 3 volunteers to investigate based on level of skill or education required, field of interest/study, test equipment available/required, and lastly...proximity to the event.
?
?
?
P.S. I would also be glued to "Overunity Hunters". Seems easy enough to have a form of that right here.
Quote from: audiomaker on December 06, 2012, 08:36:54 PM
My initial quest in this thread was simply to present the idea that it's not impossible that a OU/FE device might already exist, but if one were going to try to find one, or participate in the progress of one, or even simply to study the potential of one, that it would be a monumental effort for an individual to sort out what was what as status is concerned.
How do I know? Because I tried for a few days and got lost in threads leading nowhere or perpetually stuck in the negative energy feeding cycle. I still don't know.
And what better place to have a forum with an organized list of status than this site? ....and if that status is "probable" as determined by some logical section of the bright minds here, then why let it linger in purgatory instead of getting off our couches and having a look?
....
By the way, that "water wheel" vid' you linked, I looked at that before even signing onto this site. It was one where I was going "Is this real?"
Still don't know, but instead of just opening the "OU Candidates" forum and finding a status on it, I have to run all over the net, read YouTube commentary (which is pointless), and play "Stump the TK" for an answer. ...
I know what you mean. Lately I've had some time to waste, but more often than not my time for online research is severely limited.
I don't know how much time I've wasted following up on something I saw or read, like a magnetic motor that runs by itself or something on YouTube only to find out in the end that the "inventor" is already in jail for fraud or something, but only after a diligent and extensive search, then I'm still left wondering.
It's a chaotic field. If the world were different perhaps such research could be carried on in a more orderly manner, but at present it is something on the order of a wild west gold rush based only on
rumors of gold in them there hills.
You seem to have reduced what you would like to see into one concise statement in your last post: "...a forum with an organized list of status".
I think you can find some semblance of that on Peswiki.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Best_Exotic_Clean_Energy_Technologies
Quote from: audiomaker on December 06, 2012, 09:14:43 PM
I believe someone mentioned in this thread that there were something like 62,000 members here. That's over 1,000 per state in the USA. Halve that to include the globe and you still have over 500 per state.
You simply create a pool...
Hi, I'm "Bob". I am a circuit board designer and my enthusiasm is in magnet motors. Here is a list of my tools I am qualified to use (X)...
I am available in Vermont, or with notice, able to travel.
So, you might not even have to fly anyone. You might find 3 nearby a location who would be willing to go have a look.
Mine might read "Hi, I'm Audiomaker. I own a machine shop and am qualified repairing CNC machines. My toolkit is a Fluke OSC, VOM's, Magnetometers..etc.
I am available in the Pacific Northwest to inspect and report on potential FE devices and also available to travel.
Simply by being a volunteer, you are already presenting that you are interesting in OU/FE, interested in validating any candidates, and believe you are capable of sniffing out hidden hamster wheels.
Basically you have a pool of volunteers...
Not a bad idea. The biggest problem I see with that, not to be a wet blanket I hope but...
Your talking about a degree of openness that I'm not sure exists.
What I mean is, out of the however many thousands of members here, how many would be willing to... so much as reveal their general location? Go out and knock on somebody's door?
I suppose you could count me in. Sounds like fun. I'm not a particularly private person. You can already find my name and address all over the internet and my phone is listed, but I think I may be the exception to the rule.
It might be worth a try though.
Hi I'm Tom Booth, want me to check something out in the upstate NY area? I'm game. (Really).
At present though, I don't know of any Free Energy or OU devices in my vicinity. I've been working on one myself but I guess that doesn't count.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 06, 2012, 10:16:10 PM
Not a bad idea. The biggest problem I see with that, not to be a wet blanket I hope but...
Your talking about a degree of openness that I'm not sure exists.
What I mean is, out of the however many thousands of members here, how many would be willing to... so much as reveal their general location? Go out and knock on somebody's door?
I suppose you could count me in. Sounds like fun. I'm not a particularly private person. You can already find my name and address all over the internet and my phone is listed, but I think I may be the exception to the rule.
It might be worth a try though.
Hi I'm Tom Booth, want me to check something out in the upstate NY area? I'm game. (Really).
At present though, I don't know of any Free Energy or OU devices in my vicinity. I've been working on one myself but I guess that doesn't count.
Yeah, that doesn't count.
However, actually I think there would be quite a lot. I will assume for the moment that you can operating basic test equipment, take at least cell-phone video, operate a computer, and observe and test a device with an eye for hamsters (I'm coining that one too).
If that's the case, that's 2 in this thread alone so far, and I think I very loosely figured 500/state. It only requires 3.
As far as knocking on doors, well that's just it, you're invited and you're there to help an honest inventor and the world, or... you're there to get a POS off the community radar and discourage frauds.
The factor of 3 means you won't be there alone. Also, there is much less likelihood that a single examiner could be fooled, bought off, or was working for big oil.
The results would also be from 3 perspectives, backgrounds, and levels of expertise.
1. Engineer
2. Physicist
3. Mechanic
or
1. Electrician
2. Magician
3. Magnet Motor designer
Doesn't really matter, but the point is that it's 3 different people from different backgrounds.
If this system were set up already...well maybe that water wheel would pass the "worthy of looking at", and maybe 3 reasonably qualified people from this board have volunteered from that state.
We'd simply have a thread for that device, an answer to whether the inventor (who remember....posted it on youtube) was willing to have it verified by us or not, and if yes, either a "hoax" or "can't find any trickery or mistakes" result right here on this board to look at. Done.
...Well... "Done" unless it looks legit, in which case the device looks a whole lot more interesting to pursue beyond that point.
As for the funding, I'll go for gas and hotel money if it's driving distance. I'll also donate towards the gas and hotel money of others doing the same thing.
This is a pro-active approach in my opinion that is a win win for any legit inventor with a OU/FE device that they "believe" is legit, and that we cannot obviously prove otherwise.
It is a win/win for the community as a whole, and a lose/lose for fraudulent offerings.
My project? I'm just trying to help.
:)
I suppose I'd qualify as either an electrician or a mechanic. Know a few card tricks but I'm no stage magician. Sounds like fun. I have some scientific background. Not professionally but my dad was studying to be a chemistry teacher and had a lab in the basement while I was growing up. I'm open minded but also skeptical. Who wouldn't want to take an expenses paid road trip to see somebody's invention ? Wouldn't miss it for the world.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 07, 2012, 04:04:22 AM
I suppose I'd qualify as either an electrician or a mechanic. Know a few card tricks but I'm no stage magician. Sounds like fun. I have some scientific background. Not professionally but my dad was studying to be a chemistry teacher and had a lab in the basement while I was growing up. I'm open minded but also skeptical. Who wouldn't want to take an expenses paid road trip to see somebody's invention ? Wouldn't miss it for the world.
Right, and I have my own skill set and tools. With the proposed forum, there would have to be a logical process by which the volunteers are selected. I could debunk a few types of devices, but surely there are members better suited to examine other types where the principals of operation, or even the verification of operation are beyond my scope of knowledge (just using myself as an example because I don't want to claim that everyone else doesn't know all there is to know).
I have to say though that I think it's more than an expenses paid road trip (or even flight). The volunteers would bear immense responsibility. All monies spent would be recorded, and a total trip cost per volunteer would be public. #1. "Audiomaker" spent $286 #2 Tom spent $187 #3 TK spent $1024 and was not heard from for 3 additional days at the Nevada site (that's a joke TK :) )
Also, as a volunteer you have to take it pretty seriously as you're spending fund money. One should be frugal, be able to provide terrific feedback to the group (pic's,. vid's, data, explanations of findings), and above all, not endorse a hoax, fraud, or mistake because that's going to be a huge embarrassment to that volunteer after becoming a huge embarrassment to the group.
While not required, I would also think it a welcomed idea that volunteers are participants in the program overall.... in other words, might wish to consider having a history of donating to the general fund, and perhaps that could be considered during the selection process?
Anyway, it's a rough draft.
I'd certainly be willing to contribute to such a fund whatever I could, or even cover my own expenses for such a trip if within my means at the time. And of course I'm not interested in forwarding a hoax but would do my best to give an objective assessment. Your proposal sound good.
But what I've been thinking about is this water wheel thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwQt1tJYa8
It was a long time ago when I first came across this. The first time I watched the video I was rather disappointed that the machine wasn't allowed to operate longer. (less than a minute). The guy seemed hasty to unplug it and I suspected the reason for that might be because he knew it was about to run down.
But how could it run for even 45 seconds or so.
Reviewing the video again I noticed some rather large capacitors on the generator: These can be clearly seen at 2:59, 5:28, 6:04, 6:25, 6:50 and he even makes mention of them at 7:14
The first tome I watched this which was years ago, I didn't know much about capacitors or what function they could possibly serve in a generator.
I know more today, but had forgotten about then in connection with this device.
A capacitor serves basically the same function as a rechargeable batter. It is a temporary storage device. The only difference between a capacitor and a storage battery is that a capacitor stores static electricity while a battery stores the electricity in the form of a chemical, or chemical reaction.
A battery takes a long time to charge. A capacitor charges up almost instantaneously.
Conclusion?
Tentatively, I would say that the generator draws on energy stored in the capacitors, which appear to be quite large and are probably capable of holding a considerable charge, so it is able to run for a brief time, possibly a minute or two, then things would begin to wind down, if it were left to run for more than a minute.
The capacitors discharge more slowly no doubt than they would normally because some energy is being reclaimed by the device, the power chasing its own tail, as in many such arrangements, but this could not go on for long due to losses and inefficiencies.
Since the generator was modified and the capacitors added by someone else, the gentleman in the video may have no idea what they are for and so may not be intentionally perpetrating a hoax.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 08, 2012, 03:15:44 PM
I'd certainly be willing to contribute to such a fund whatever I could, or even cover my own expenses for such a trip if within my means at the time. And of course I'm not interested in forwarding a hoax but would do my best to give an objective assessment. Your proposal sound good.
But what I've been thinking about is this water wheel thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwQt1tJYa8
It was a long time ago when I first came across this. The first time I watched the video I was rather disappointed that the machine wasn't allowed to operate longer. (less than a minute). The guy seemed hasty to unplug it and I suspected the reason for that might be because he knew it was about to run down.
But how could it run for even 45 seconds or so.
Reviewing the video again I noticed some rather large capacitors on the generator: These can be clearly seen at 2:59, 5:28, 6:04, 6:25, 6:50 and he even makes mention of them at 7:14
The first tome I watched this which was years ago, I didn't know much about capacitors or what function they could possibly serve in a generator.
I know more today, but had forgotten about then in connection with this device.
A capacitor serves basically the same function as a rechargeable batter. It is a temporary storage device. The only difference between a capacitor and a storage battery is that a capacitor stores static electricity while a battery stores the electricity in the form of a chemical, or chemical reaction.
A battery takes a long time to charge. A capacitor charges up almost instantaneously.
Conclusion?
Tentatively, I would say that the generator draws on energy stored in the capacitors, which appear to be quite large and are probably capable of holding a considerable charge, so it is able to run for a brief time, possibly a minute or two, then things would begin to wind down, if it were left to run for more than a minute.
The capacitors discharge more slowly no doubt than they would normally because some energy is being reclaimed by the device, the power chasing its own tail, as in many such arrangements, but this could not go on for long due to losses and inefficiencies.
Since the generator was modified and the capacitors added by someone else, the gentleman in the video may have no idea what they are for and so may not be intentionally perpetrating a hoax.
Well I think it's important that the volunteers draw from fund money and not fund the trip themselves. The reason is that the person is already donating their time and experience, possibly putting their own vehicle (and person) at risk, and generally supplying tools they paid for. Keeping this in mind, it makes sense to at least pay fuel/flight, food and hotel for that person so not as to discourage people who are qualified, but might not be motivated due to financial hardship.
That "fund" would be a cooperation of a much larger group of people. I would suggest that if 1 in 100 members on this board donated $10 ($6200), that would fund possibly 3 expeditions to most places.
I would say if the "in state" route were taken, that most people could get within their state, stay 2 nights at a hotel and get back for $333...or $1000/trip. That would be 6 devices examined for $10/1in100 members.
I doubt more than a few devices would come up annually that would really stump the board and look promising, and while I cannot speak for anyone else, I'd happily donate $30/year.
If 1 in 100 people were like me, that would be $18k annually. That should get the top 10 prospects validated, or off the radar for that year. I've blown well over $30 worth of my time in the last
month trying to separate the hoaxes from prospects and still don't have an answer on some of them. For me, $30 would be a bargain.
These numbers are pretty rough. In practice, they could be quite different. You might only get 3 devices in a year that really need a second look, but those three might be in the USA and be able to be examined quite cheaply. The 4th might be in Yugoslavia, and that's going to cost a lot more. However, if that's the "one", it all balances out.
Example: 18K in the fund. 3 devices in the USA @ $1000/device = $3k. 1 very promising device in Yugoslavia @ 10K/device (3k each to send 3 people for 3 days). Balance = +$5K in reserve.
You see my point. Each expedition would surely have a different cost, but overall it cost even a small percentage of members a relatively small amount ($30 in my example of my easy donation) to achieve and examination of 3 interesting devices in the USA plus one interesting device on foreign soil. In the example, the fund still had $5k left over to apply towards future expeditions.
As the wealth of the fund would be publicly known, people could donate more as the fund required. For example, lets say that $20k is a good amount to have on hand to cover almost any spontaneous venture. If the fund were sitting at $22K, and there were no new candidates worth a look, then there's no point in "overfilling" the fund.
If I put in my $30 and the fund reached $22K, then if at the end of the year it were sitting at $15K after a bunch of "local" searches, maybe I'd just add $10 because of the rate of new devices was slower than the fund requirements to investigate them. Make sense? Kind of a "fill as needed" situation.
A bunch of smart people and a little experience should net the knowledge of what it cost on average to get 3 volunteers to a site.
......
....so back to the water wheel. I know nothing about this thing other than what I saw on YouTube. Perhaps it was already proven to be a hoax...maybe not. Just don't know.
The mechanism I'm proposing would have already likely answered my question about that device, and that's the point, because no matter what that answer is, a logical path presents itself.
Well, like I say, sounds good to me. But I'm just a Newbie here.
Then there is working out the details. Like how are funds collected and held and then redistributed to finance an expedition(s)?
How to vote on which potential expedition gets priority?
In other words, I have $10 I could spare right now. The spirit is willing but the means to carry out the plan are not available.
I'm thinking it might be more practical to work backwards. Vote or decide, or somehow arrive on a consensus about what ONE device warrants looking into right now then work on the means to carry it out.
Start small with a "pilot project" so as to work out the "bugs".
So far, the Koala has done a pretty good job of shooting down any prospects. I like that approach in that, as a "Newbie" there are many others here, no doubt, who have been following various developments for years and already know the current status. No reason not to take advantage of the knowledge pool of those with more experience in the field. Saves wasting time and effort, though in some cases I didn't feel that the Koala had made his case entirely, nevertheless I much appreciated his input.
At any rate it gets back to; after making an objective appraisal and getting together all the information already available - is there anything left to investigate further?
But setting that aside, assuming I have the money in hand to donate, how do I get it to the "Treasurer" and what assurance do I have that this treasurer will not pocket the funds and disappear? There would have to be a great deal of transparency from start to finish.
Which brings up another conundrum. As I tried to point out earlier, secrecy, patents, non-disclosure agreements etc. don't exactly mix with transparency and the posting of findings in an open forum.
If an inventor is at all concerned about protecting his device, he isn't likely to open the door to a rag tag group of researchers. There may be other hurdles to overcome that haven't been considered.
So, my suggestion would be to start with a pilot project involving one expedition and see where it leads.
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 09, 2012, 02:03:41 PM
Well, like I say, sounds good to me. But I'm just a Newbie here.
Then there is working out the details. Like how are funds collected and held and then redistributed to finance an expedition(s)?
How to vote on which potential expedition gets priority?
In other words, I have $10 I could spare right now. The spirit is willing but the means to carry out the plan are not available.
I'm thinking it might be more practical to work backwards. Vote or decide, or somehow arrive on a consensus about what ONE device warrants looking into right now then work on the means to carry it out.
Start small with a "pilot project" so as to work out the "bugs".
So far, the Koala has done a pretty good job of shooting down any prospects. I like that approach in that, as a "Newbie" there are many others here, no doubt, who have been following various developments for years and already know the current status. No reason not to take advantage of the knowledge pool of those with more experience in the field. Saves wasting time and effort, though in some cases I didn't feel that the Koala had made his case entirely, nevertheless I much appreciated his input.
At any rate it gets back to; after making an objective appraisal and getting together all the information already available - is there anything left to investigate further?
But setting that aside, assuming I have the money in hand to donate, how do I get it to the "Treasurer" and what assurance do I have that this treasurer will not pocket the funds and disappear? There would have to be a great deal of transparency from start to finish.
I'm newbie here too, and yes, there would be some details to work out.
Just so I'm clear, in all the examples I'm giving, I actually have no plans to be a key player unless requested to do so. This was/is a suggestion to the board leaders. I wasn't even suggesting that I would ever actually go on a "discovery mission" myself. I'm sure there are people more qualified than I (unless it's in my neighborhood).
This is important to recognize, because as I ponder ways to make this achievable, I am making suggestions about funds and such, so I don't want anyone thinking that I'm doing some sort of "setup" where I'd be requesting or handling money myself. I'm just seeding an idea for those who are in much elevated positions compared to mine here.
So...personal disclaimer in place.
That said, you are exactly correct, the sticky parts now would be how to collect funds, how to make the funds collected transparent, how to decide which discovery missions would get funded, and by how much, and how to distribute the money to enable the mission.
There are three levels of trust and confidence that need to be achieved.
1. Trust for the person/people holding and releasing the funds.
2. Trust and confidence in the people/group/committee that decides which candidates get discovery missions.
3. Trust and confidence in the volunteers.
So, we're smarter than the Justin Bieber fan club.... how to we achieve those?
Quote from: Tom Booth on December 09, 2012, 02:17:04 PM
Which brings up another conundrum. As I tried to point out earlier, secrecy, patents, non-disclosure agreements etc. don't exactly mix with transparency and the posting of findings in an open forum.
If an inventor is at all concerned about protecting his device, he isn't likely to open the door to a rag tag group of researchers. There may be other hurdles to overcome that haven't been considered.
So, my suggestion would be to start with a pilot project involving one expedition and see where it leads.
To some degree, if an inventor wishes to maintain secrecy, they probably shouldn't be posting their work on YouTube using 10 camera angles showing every part of the device to the whole world.
The "Discovery Team" is not a raiding party. It is for inventors who
want exactly what the board can offer. Exposure.
Take two examples:
1. Inventor has a suitcase sized black box with padlocks on it that hums and powers a lightbulb. The inventor refuses to open the box. They simply have a YouTube video of a humming box and a claim. I would suggest that this candidate is probably not going to get any focus from the forum...end of story.
2. Inventor is already showing the bulk of the machine (ie...water wheel). The intent is "Look Ma, no Hoax!". They are
Trying to demonstrate that is is not a hoax already. They are
Trying to let us examine it already in a way (video) that is inadequate. This is the type of device that I think would get a second look.
Now, does that leave room for secrets? I think it still does. All the discover team has to do is find the hamster wheel...or not.
That said, if the inventor in example one has a box the size of a toaster with an electric outlet on it, and that outlet is powering a 1200W hair dryer for 5 days and still going.... Well even that sealed box might be worthy of trying to find the hidden wires or magical mirrors, even if we never get to look inside.
If something like this were the case, you'd have 3 investigators on cots with sleeping bags taking shifts staring at this device for 5 days after having attempted to discover any possible external power source.
The findings...in this case.... would be that this amazing toaster sized box is either legit, or it is the best magic trick going. I would suggest that 3 smart people from this board are going to find the trick if there is one. That box on video, or on a website might be convincing, but 3 people with non-contact test equipment who can actually pick up the box in person is going to be hard to fool.
Consider for the moment, the magic trick where the woman is horizontally levitated. This magic only works on video, or from select audience perspectives. Let any layman on the stage and the trick is over.
I think there are a lot of pitfalls we could theoretically come up with, but I also think in practice that it would be easier than you think.
That thought is based on my belief that Hoaxers and Fraudsters do not wish to be discovered. I believe the grand share of candidates who would allow in-person examination of their work would really believe it works, and by nature of us knowing about it, means they already wish people to know about it. Those are the people we are trying to help.
.....Hypothetical....
I will not claim more than average intelligence compared to the other members of this board (which means I'm brighter than the average man).
I can use this equipment: VOM, O'scope, Ammeter, Magnetometer, IR and thermocouple temp' sensors, basic hand tools, video camera, laptop, internet, and this forum.
Does anyone on this board believe they can come up with a device that given 48hrs hands-on, in-person, and allowed reasonable access to (moving it around, looking under it, using my equipment on it's output and non-contact equipment on it's proximity), that I... a guy you don't even really know, couldn't debunk?
I would be amazed if you could, but given that I have no reputation here, what if TK were with me trying to debunk it? How about Me, TK, and another unrelated board member?
In my estimation, that's going to be a pretty solid statement if a group like that can't find a hamster or logical explanation. That statement presents a path.
....Hypothetical....
Let's look at the sealed toaster-sized box running the hair dryer...
I'm on site (using me, because I can only speak for myself, but you could substitute anyone).
Toaster is running 1200W hair dryer.
1. I ask, "can I use my own hair drying I brought with me?" Inventor "Yes/No". Reply Noted.
2. I ask, "can take this to another room?" Inventor "Yes/No". Reply noted.
3. I ask, "can we pick it up and look at all sides?" Inventor "Yes/No" Reply noted.
4. If the answer to any of these questions is "No", I ask "Why Not" Reply noted and test continues.
For instance, maybe it's bolted to a workbench. "can we slide the workbench over to this side of the room?" Inventor "Yes/No". Reply noted.
5. So now lets say I have this toaster moved to the other side of the room still bolted to the bench. I plug in *my* hair dryer and it runs. I also put my oscilloscope on the output and my ammeter and start recording (I have pretty good equipment). I survey the workbench and entire area with the inductive voltage sensor, IR temp probe, and magnetometer noting any anomalies.
Nothing so far.
Well maybe the workbench itself has a bank of hidden batteries built into it... inspect for that...nope.
I look for any connection of this toaster box to the outside world....nada. TK is busy checking for RF's at the same time.
Result, no hamsters found.
I would suggest it doesn't really matter if we got to look in the box, and this is an extreme example. Most devices (water wheels) are a lot more transparent.
Well what do we have here?
1. A truly amazing hoax? Ok, but one that definitely needs more pursuit.
2. A toaster sized battery that can power a hair dryer for days? Well that's amazing in itself even if it's not OU/FE.
3. A way to telegraph enough energy through the air to run a hair dryer without frying us? Well... that's interesting.
4. A homemade toaster sized nuclear reactor? Ok.... I hope I'm at home watching on the internet for that one :)
5. A device that legitimately, by means unknown is providing power more than we are supplying it by conventional methods of input.
I'll buy that.
Seems like a good idea, but what of claims in Australia, Europe ?
Also for some devices it might be a good idea to take a geiger counter some photographic plates/paper and some kind of
noxious gas detector, I would not like to spend five days next to a radioactive device or a device that emitted a noxious gas.
Cheers
Hi,
I know I am taking a bit chance here as most comments about Mike Brady has been quite rude and negative but here goes.......
I need some assistance from those willing to help provide information ONLY.....
.
I am not sure if you actually know my dad (Michael Brady- Perendev) or are friends with him, but I am trying to clear his name and not quite sure how to go about it. I believe he did not have a fair trial and was not given the opportunity to present evidence etc. I have not seen my dad since 2009 and would really like to do my best to get him out of where he is currently. He does not deserve this and is not guilty.
If you have any suggestions it would be greatly appreciated as well as advise how you are linked to him, maybe if you are a good friend of his you can help.
I know this is like attempting find a needle in a haystack but nevertheless I have to try.
Thank you for reading
Jackie Sasso
Daughter of Michael Brady