Everyone knows this, it's been a re-occurring theme in "FE" since before I was born.
New inventors have skin that can barely be measured in nanometers (1 nanometer = 10 angstrom, otherwise known as "super-thin") and any question of their process or reasoning results in them taking it as a personal affront and dividing the FE community into "skeptics" and "disciples" (Newtonians/Archurians, etc.) as they take a stance of infallibility.
I "cut my FE teeth" on the Quinn/S.O.G. thread, and learned the hard way that supporting (or NOT actively questioning any "inventor" not willing to show a pro ported device) is pretty ludicrous and leaves anyone remotely seen as supporting someone like Quinn (considering the ludicrous gymnastics the thread went through) looking foolish and somewhat mentally deficient (and any other ideas they may have are now looked at w/ a VERY jaundiced eye.).
This (has now for me) become (or SHOULD become) a very big red flag to any newly discovered process announcement thread.
I won't deny that I have been as bad as any "supporter/advocate/'true beleiver' ".
Why is it that any new inventor announcement that comes under major scrutiny or publicity seems to encounter a situation where there is an affront to their intelligence, an outside influence (MIB), or "lights are too bright and hot", etc. that causes this person(s) to "take their toys and 'go home' ", usually to never be heard from (in a worthwhile way as far as "the device, or any other device/process" is concerned) again.
As was said (to me) by many a long time FE enthusiast,
"Where's the proof?"
To which I scoffed "Build it and prove them wrong" (it's history I can't erase w/o major effort. The "Roll on the 20th" thread promoted me from "newbie" to "hero" member to my embarrassment and vilification in about equal amounts).
This (my) thinking is in so many ways FLAWED ( I NOW know) that it beggars the imagination. I will now (although I think I've been pretty careful about being "absolutely convinced" ask that an inventor give precise (and I mean PRECISE!) parts list and instructions to allow independent build and verification, or at least independent measurement and proof of their device to be considered as even remotely plausible.
I learned the hard way.
Quite a few here think me a blithering idiot.
I (as much as it galls me) proved them right a time or 2.
_I_ did it (the exact opposite of what a "thinking reasoning individual" would do in believing the reported effect, rather taking things @ face value and asking for an absolute verifiable instance), but then LEARNED FROM MY MISTAKE.
This is not something I shout proudly. This is something I admit honestly.
There are many here that I butted heads with during this (Roll on the 20th) episode that completely disappeared (NOT the most effective way to prove 'interest in FE' or convincing someone you're not a paid disinformation plant), and others that continue to "poke, prod, and meddle in affairs they have no right to." with many of the threads here.
They(the meddlers) have won my respect for due diligence in experimentation and NOT posting any of the top of their head FE idea as fact, while questioning those that do.
I'm happy that some stay and ask the hard and unpopular questions. I have much respect for them that "waste" their time with such things.
These things I'll ask of any FUTURE inventors making a proclaimation of "I've done it".
1.) Wouldn't it be better to say "I (think) I've done it". (and if you want more respect from the community you loose the news on, prepend it with "Please prove me wrong.").
2.) Prove it "8 ways from Sunday" as many a sharp thinker here on OU will be asking about at least one of those ways you could be mistaken about your discovery.
3.) Independent verification (of mutually agreed upon verifiers).
Any real process works, time after time.
It's like clockwork (in fact, how clockwork was even devised I suppose).
Dream, scheme, and theme about anything; Post about them even.
But post in the "I've done it fashion" about those that can make it in an "independently replicable proven" fashion.
If it works, it works.
End of story, and beginning of a new chapter in history.
I would like to ask that some OU members take a moment to filter hope out of their reasoning and see what is left.
That's where the truth lies.
P.S. Just because someone isn't a Rhodes scholar DOES NOT make it impossible to think of something you haven't!
Be critical, but openminded to VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that contradicts your criticality.
The latest Mylow episode has finally made me want to post this.
I wish him the best, and hope that his effect is true, but I'll wat for independent verification before I start buying (more) magnets and aluminum platters. ;)
P.P.S Above all, cling to your hope for a new better cleaner possibility, but do not let it cloud your reasoning!
Quote from: exxcomm0n on May 05, 2009, 01:31:55 AM
Everyone knows this, it's been a re-occurring theme in "FE" since before I was born.
New inventors have skin that can barely be measured in nanometers (1 nanometer = 10 angstrom, otherwise known as "super-thin") and any question of their process or reasoning results in them taking it as a personal affront and dividing the FE community into "skeptics" and "disciples" (Newtonians/Archurians, etc.) as they take a stance of infallibility.
I "cut my FE teeth" on the Quinn/S.O.G. thread, and learned the hard way that supporting (or NOT actively questioning any "inventor" not willing to show a pro ported device) is pretty ludicrous and leaves anyone remotely seen as supporting someone like Quinn (considering the ludicrous gymnastics the thread went through) looking foolish and somewhat mentally deficient (and any other ideas they may have are now looked at w/ a VERY jaundiced eye.).
This (has now for me) become (or SHOULD become) a very big red flag to any newly discovered process announcement thread.
I won't deny that I have been as bad as any "supporter/advocate/'true beleiver' ".
Why is it that any new inventor announcement that comes under major scrutiny or publicity seems to encounter a situation where there is an affront to their intelligence, an outside influence (MIB), or "lights are too bright and hot", etc. that causes this person(s) to "take their toys and 'go home' ", usually to never be heard from (in a worthwhile way as far as "the device, or any other device/process" is concerned) again.
As was said (to me) by many a long time FE enthusiast,
"Where's the proof?"
To which I scoffed "Build it and prove them wrong" (it's history I can't erase w/o major effort. The "Roll on the 20th" thread promoted me from "newbie" to "hero" member to my embarrassment and vilification in about equal amounts).
This (my) thinking is in so many ways FLAWED ( I NOW know) that it beggars the imagination. I will now (although I think I've been pretty careful about being "absolutely convinced" ask that an inventor give precise (and I mean PRECISE!) parts list and instructions to allow independent build and verification, or at least independent measurement and proof of their device to be considered as even remotely plausible.
I learned the hard way.
Quite a few here think me a blithering idiot.
I (as much as it galls me) proved them right a time or 2.
_I_ did it (the exact opposite of what a "thinking reasoning individual" would do in believing the reported effect, rather taking things @ face value and asking for an absolute verifiable instance), but then LEARNED FROM MY MISTAKE.
This is not something I shout proudly. This is something I admit honestly.
There are many here that I butted heads with during this (Roll on the 20th) episode that completely disappeared (NOT the most effective way to prove 'interest in FE' or convincing someone you're not a paid disinformation plant), and others that continue to "poke, prod, and meddle in affairs they have no right to." with many of the threads here.
They(the meddlers) have won my respect for due diligence in experimentation and NOT posting any of the top of their head FE idea as fact, while questioning those that do.
I'm happy that some stay and ask the hard and unpopular questions. I have much respect for them that "waste" their time with such things.
These things I'll ask of any FUTURE inventors making a proclaimation of "I've done it".
1.) Wouldn't it be better to say "I (think) I've done it". (and if you want more respect from the community you loose the news on, prepend it with "Please prove me wrong.").
2.) Prove it "8 ways from Sunday" as many a sharp thinker here on OU will be asking about at least one of those ways you could be mistaken about your discovery.
3.) Independent verification (of mutually agreed upon verifiers).
Any real process works, time after time.
It's like clockwork (in fact, how clockwork was even devised I suppose).
Dream, scheme, and theme about anything; Post about them even.
But post in the "I've done it fashion" about those that can make it in an "independently replicable proven" fashion.
If it works, it works.
End of story, and beginning of a new chapter in history.
I would like to ask that some OU members take a moment to filter hope out of their reasoning and see what is left.
That's where the truth lies.
P.S. Just because someone isn't a Rhodes scholar DOES NOT make it impossible to think of something you haven't!
Be critical, but openminded to VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that contradicts your criticality.
The latest Mylow episode has finally made me want to post this.
I wish him the best, and hope that his effect is true, but I'll wat for independent verification before I start buying (more) magnets and aluminum platters. ;)
P.P.S Above all, cling to your hope for a new better cleaner possibility, but do not let it cloud your reasoning!
Posted well Exxcomm0n, maybe you will contact me?
Well said and I agree!
;)
Your requirements, while completely fair, are impossible to meet for any free energy device inventor.
@ utilitarian
In which way?
It's impossible to keep from saying "I've done it!" until you've done it multiple times and in a way that can be replicated independently?
Or impossible to disclose complete method because of patent application purposes?
Or impossible not to get offended by question and debate about the announced device?
Or perhaps another I've not mentioned here?
Which one would be impossible please?
Quote from: exxcomm0n on May 11, 2009, 03:59:57 PM
@ utilitarian
In which way?
It's impossible to keep from saying "I've done it!" until you've done it multiple times and in a way that can be replicated independently?
Or impossible to disclose complete method because of patent application purposes?
Or impossible not to get offended by question and debate about the announced device?
Or perhaps another I've not mentioned here?
Which one would be impossible please?
The problem is not in your first step. That just requires self control. But that is not really relevant.
Look, what works, works. No amount of skepticism or criticism or ridicule is going to keep a working device from working. Even if the inventor is a complete jerk, self-confident to the Nth degree to the point where his own family cannot stand him, you cannot keep a good invention down. All he has to do is demonstrate it and have it replicated.
There is no such thing as poor marketing of free energy. It's like marketing pot or crack (not that I approve of using those!). It simply does not need marketing. People already stand ready to buy it. No matter the reputation of the seller or how distasteful he or she is, free energy (like crack and pot) will find support and will sell, I guarantee it.
So why can't anyone meet Step 3 of your requirement. Why is that impossible? I do not know, but Step 3 sure seems to be a problem.
Quote from: utilitarian on May 11, 2009, 10:35:17 PM
The problem is not in your first step. That just requires self control. But that is not really relevant.
Look, what works, works. No amount of skepticism or criticism or ridicule is going to keep a working device from working. Even if the inventor is a complete jerk, self-confident to the Nth degree to the point where his own family cannot stand him, you cannot keep a good invention down. All he has to do is demonstrate it and have it replicated.
There is no such thing as poor marketing of free energy. It's like marketing pot or crack (not that I approve of using those!). It simply does not need marketing. People already stand ready to buy it. No matter the reputation of the seller or how distasteful he or she is, free energy (like crack and pot) will find support and will sell, I guarantee it.
So why can't anyone meet Step 3 of your requirement. Why is that impossible? I do not know, but Step 3 sure seems to be a problem.
@ Exxcomm and Utilitarian:
I actually agree with both of you. Ex, that was a well thought out post. Yes, those of us researching the FE stuff for a while now have seen this same scenario time and again. Why? That is indeed the question.
I also agree with Utilitarian in that, the inventor can control how he approaches his release of a new idea or device but, if it is indeed "real" there is a ready market for replicators, investors, buyers, etc.
The problem I have is the "cry wolf" syndrome. Replicators, investors, researches, etc. will eventually grow tired of these pronouncements. I am a bit concerned that when someone actually "has done it" that it will get received through a filter of "scam" "fake" "hoax" etc.
Maybe Stefan should post some simple rules for a "discovery" posted here. but then, maybe he already has. Look at the rules for the Overunity Prize. If someone's device does not qualify for that, or mostly qualify, then, what good is it? I am speaking more here to the replication requirements than the power output. Mylow's motor is a good example. Even if real and fully verified and replicated, it still, to my understanding, would not qualify for the OU prize. But, as we all know and probably can agree, it was not presented properly, and still hasn't in my opinion even though the latest video of it running was pretty good.
I always go back to myself in these situations....what would I do if I "had done it". I would announce it here, provide the best video I am capable of making (which may not be too good if you have seen any of my videos) AND, I would welcome replications and provide highly detailed part numbers, descriptions, whatever it would take so someone else can jump up and say "Pirate has done it". And even better, 3 or 4 or 30 people say the same thing after replication. Only then would I breathe a sigh of relief to know that I was not reading the meters wrong, or, I made a math error.
Anyway, these dialogs are good. Just don't expect this to stop the next "I have finally done it" from happening. Great posts.
Bill
@ utilitarian
I think we're both saying the same thing.
If it does work the inventor can be King Jerk and get away with it, but it has to work for everyone else then too.
Too often an announced device cannot stand public scrutiny or replication and it does turn into the "cry wolf" situation that Pirate brings up and so might discourage public belief in something that does work, because of so many that haven't.
One the other hand I'm not as worried about the marketing as I am the building and dissemination of the actual device. It has to be built (and preferably mass producible) to be marketed and that is the part where it all seems to fall apart unfortunately.
Your assessment of step 3 seems to mirror my experience too.
@ Pirate
Your discovery procedure sounds like a good plan man, and thanks. ;)
Quote from: exxcomm0n on May 05, 2009, 01:31:55 AM
Why is it that any new inventor announcement that comes under major scrutiny or publicity seems to encounter a situation where there is an affront to their intelligence, an outside influence (MIB), or "lights are too bright and hot", etc. that causes this person(s) to "take their toys and 'go home' ", usually to never be heard from....
They go to another forum.