The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Tom Booth]

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.

[audiomaker]

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.

[Tom Booth]

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.

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.

[audiomaker]

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.

[Tusk]

@ 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;

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.

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.