The Solution vs Hoax equation

[TinselKoala]

@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.

[Tusk]

TK, you said

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.

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?     

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.

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   

[evolvingape]

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.

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.

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.

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...

[TinselKoala]

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.

[Tusk]

@ evolvingape

You 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?

I 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?

I have no interest in your device

Under the circumstances I look forward to your continued lack of interest.