So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?

[MarkE]

You're adding too many vague terms to the argument and changing it yet again.

No, I have held my end of the discussion constant.  You objected to "taking a closer look" were an honest and talented researcher to report an extraordinary observation of apparent free energy.  As I have read your argument it is:  The likelihood of an apparent free energy observation being correct is so low that it is a waste of time to pay any attention to such observations.  I have stated reasons why we should pay attention to such observations especially because they represent something that is almost guaranteed to be false.  There is nothing vague about those reasons:  Experiment practice is a very imperfect thing.  The better we understand how we get results that are wrong, or almost certainly wrong, the better equipped we are to reduce experiment errors.  In the very exceptional case we also come upon a discovery.  The OPERA experiment exemplifies how something as simple as a poor cable connection can foul-up very expensive and time consuming experiments.

The specific statement I made that you have argued against is: 

Russ is an honest and talented guy.  If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.

  Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable.   One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c.  Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all.   So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result.  Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.

Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.

Perhaps this is simply my limited sampling of the world but here most people are not employed in an a experiment to determine if 2LOT can be violated. By contrast more people are asked to spend some of their time examining CLAIMS of OU from various people.  Several orders of magnitude more by my estimation but again that just might be with whom I associate.   So your attempt to use this to argue a general principle is invalid.

Next?

These are all extraneous issues that you have introduced.  Kindly take the statement I made and only that statement as the issue under discussion.

[sarkeizen]

The specific statement I made that you have argued against is: 

  Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable.   One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c.  Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all.   So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result.  Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.

Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.

Then you are trying very hard to misunderstand or your argument is poorly phrased. Your argument appears to be that it is GENERALLY (or perhaps universally but I try to make the argument harder for me rather than easy) the right thing for anyone to do is spend time/money examining any claim to free energy so long as the person meets whatever you deign as "brilliant and diligent".  It is generally the right thing to do because it will significantly improve future experiments.

Does this reasonably approximate your position?

[MarkE]

Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.

Then you are trying very hard to misunderstand or your argument is poorly phrased. Your argument appears to be that it is GENERALLY (or perhaps universally but I try to make the argument harder for me rather than easy) the right thing for anyone to do is spend time/money examining any claim to free energy so long as the person meets whatever you deign as "brilliant and diligent".  It is generally the right thing to do because it will significantly improve future experiments.

Does this reasonably approximate your position?

My statement repeated once again was very simple:

Russ is an honest and talented guy.  If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.

Note the predicates:  honest and talented.
Note the conditional:  thinks
Note the proposed action:  look

I have explained why I find such activity worthwhile even if what Russ or someone suitably honest and talented like Russ reports would still be almost certainly wrong:  There is either something to learn about how they went wrong, or in the case of great exceptions learn of a discovery. 

[CANGAS]

The only living human that I am sure that I can trust is ME.

Having had a long old man's lifetime to notice every which way that I have ever lied or been deceptive in any way, in all the excitement I lost count myself, I know that I can trust myself completely in respect to OU (should I somehow ever    accidently stumble across such a device).

I know every way, and for what all reasons, I have ever lied. Mostly out of cowardice.

I know that I would never lie to anyone about any OU device. Unless you are a MIB and I needed to lie to to you to keep from you slitting my throat. Then I will tell you that up is down and right is left. I can't devote all the profits to help the poor of the Earth unless I am alive to do it.

Everybody else is a liar until they are proved honest beyond any doubt.

A real OU device would only be worth USD 200 Trillion added over a 20 year patent lifetime.


CANGAS 108

[forest]

It's simply a matter of choice. You don't know if OU exists but two facts makes a bet fruitful .
First, we are already discussing OU and history proved that mny such things being disputed were in fact lost reality. Second we have a resonable amount of patented and documented devices. I don't care if most of them are hoaxes.
Based on two above facts I can say :
" it is wise to BET that free energy is real thing, rather then unresonably state it doesn't exists"
In the first case we have a hope which leads us to work in this direction, while in other case ..why have you ever been on this forum ?




sorry, I'm the man who never learned how to speak well in english