Big try at gravity wheel

[conradelektro]

@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:

1) I guess that most people know permanent magnets and gravity can not provide energy for a motor according to conventional science.

2) I appreciate people who put time, effort and money into trying to overcome this conventional wisdom. Why not try? There are many things which we do not know, I would say we know almost nothing which is out there in the universe. If some one proclaims that he wants to try to build a machine which overcomes conventional science, so be it, very commendable. But please, do not announce success without proof. You will not find believers, only misguided people will follow you.

3) What I really hate are people who claim to have overcome conventional science without providing proof. And equally funny are people who immediately endorse such claims without having received proof. We have seen a great number of "inventors" proclaiming OU or who put forward other outrageous claims and who want to be believed without providing proof. This is very strange and we should not even talk to such idiots.

Conclusion: It will be well received if you announce attempts, tries and research concerning OU or other so called "impossible machines". But it will cause ridicule and averse reactions if you want to be believed without providing good proof. If you want to keep a secret, shut up. Talking around a secret with stupid hints is totally useless.

Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in Brasilia and the other in the USA):

To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.

The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.

Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.

Greetings, Conrad

[Red_Sunset]

@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:

................................................................

............................................

Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in [/b]Brasilia and the other in the USA):

To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.

The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.

Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.

Greetings, Conrad

Conradelecktro,

You have spoken some wise words, 
Nothing to delete,  only something to add if I may,

1.. To hope that it will work is o.k.,
2.. To speculate that it will work is o.k.,
but
3.. proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.
4.. proclaiming that it DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.

Regarding your last line about a believable inventor
To be believable, as an inventor, you will have to bare ALL details about your invention to conclusively prove your claim, this is easily done in a boardroom with a selected audience. To broadcast those details on a public forum clashes with all business interests he might have with his invention.
We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap.  It will never happen.  Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.

Regards, red

[conradelektro]

Nothing to delete,  only something to add if I may,

4. proclaiming that it DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.

We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap.  It will never happen.  Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.

Regards, red

@Red_Sunset:

1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.

2) Nobody has to prove that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor is not possible. Classical science says that gravitational forces and also the forces of permanent magnets can not be used to drive a motor because these forces can not be switched on and off or can not be made weaker by shielding, the shield itself interacts with gravity or magnetism in a way to counteract the shielding. No more proof necessary. That is all there is to say.

So you see, demanding proof that OU is not possible and that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor are not possible is utter stupidity.

You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.

Therefore, if you claim OU you have to give proof. If you claim a permanent magnet motor you have to give proof. If you claim a gravity motor you have to give proof. Conventional science says very clearly, that this can not exist. Why should any one repeat 200 years of science? Every inventor should know conventional science in his field. He might not agree with conventional science, but he can not demand that anybody teaches him conventional science.

3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.

Greetings, Conrad

[Red_Sunset]

@Red_Sunset:
1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.
2) ...................................................
You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.
.................................................
......................
Greetings, Conrad

Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
The results will not be "well" either because you are not addressing both aspects (science/technical & business).
When there is a bi-directional interchange, things change dramatically. (like win-win for example)

3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.
Greetings, Conrad

I do not think any inventor in this field wants to be believed by the general public.  What would be the incentive ?  The general public would not be the direct users in any case. 
The prime objective would be to get the invention into production, now that needs help from the business world, finance and others.  To be believed by the academic world would have importance because it would provide assurance for the business world (investor confidence ...ect), but is not necessary essential.

For example, did someone came to you in the 80's (or general public) to get your buy-in to the workability of the concept of a cell phone network.  I don't think so. Were investors and other key businesses approached and the academic world consulted, I am pretty sure they were to get their buy-in, to get it off the ground.

I do not think that we were the intended audience of these strange adverts you are referring to.
Regards, Red

[conradelektro]

Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
...........
Regards, Red

I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".

But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)

Someone who makes an extraordinary claim (in science, in technology or in any area of human interaction) must provide proof. Nobody has to prove him wrong. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.

If one makes an extraordinary claim and if one does not provide proof (for whatever reason), one will be ridiculed, scolded, taken for a fool and one's reputation will suffer severely. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.

All the strange people who showed up in this forum with their extraordinary claims wanted to be believed without providing proof. Well, they were not believed and they disappeared and no working device ever surfaced.

I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:

- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent

Greetings, Conrad