The Key To Perpetual Mechanical Motion

[Evil Roy Slade]

This is a debate easily settled.

Make a horizontal, complete circular V track and see if the object riding it continues to accelerate.

There is no shame in someone having an idea and trying it out.

There is also no shame in being a skeptic.

I am both, however in this case I am the latter.

ERS

[Sprocket]

Personally  I think  that   the fervor  that  Utilitarian  showed is a sine  that there is  alot  of promise   in this  idea

Another  line I  expect to pop up soon is that ALL  magnetic motors demagnatise the magnets ........... maybe some do .......but  such a broad  generalization  is  kind of like saying  " if man was meant  to fly he would have wings .......... we got  plenty of wings now ........


Personally I  don't think that most of these  guys are paid  debunkers  .........I don't see them as smart enough .
I think they  are just people  with a little  education...........and LOTS of ego .

In my opinion  the paid debunkers would be much harder to  spot . 
I think it was Stallen that said ..... the best way to  control  the resistance is to lead it  yourself .
I would  expect the  paid  debunkers to  actually be helpful most of the time ......... it would  be with  the  few critical points  needed to  get it right that they would  stear   you  wrong .


gary   

Your point about the magnets is relevant - in another forum (ATS) and before Steorn's 'revelations' turned into a farce,  this "demagnetising effect" was the debunkers main point of attack - this despite any real proof that it actually occurs...   btw, this forum also 'outed' a NASA employee, well known to fellow-scientist posters, as a paid-debunker - something he actually freely admitted to!  Apparently there is a budget allocated to this type of thing...    Also, as I posted in another thread here, one of the well-respected members here had been testing this conjecture for over 6 months and had found absolutely no reduction in field strength during this time - anyone remember who this was? - I'd like to know if he has continued testing.

[Sprocket]

.....
Personally I  don't think that most of these  guys are paid  debunkers  .........I don't see them as smart enough .
I think they  are just people  with a little  education...........and LOTS of ego .

In my opinion  the paid debunkers would be much harder to  spot . 
I think it was Stallen that said ..... the best way to  control  the resistance is to lead it  yourself .
I would  expect the  paid  debunkers to  actually be helpful most of the time ......... it would  be with  the  few critical points  needed to  get it right that they would  stear   you  wrong .
gary "


So sad.... And you really believe what you wrote? 

I agree with you to an extent - no doubt there are a few "idiots" posting.  Also, I suspect some of the most "respected" members here are probably not what they claim either!.  However, I have seen it again and again in various forums, where 'newbie' posters join up in droves with the sole aim of disrupting a threads flow - this can be far more effective than reasoned intelligent posts!  Just look at Archer Quinn's thread, especially the back-posts of the newbies - many expend huge amounts of effort in posting purely negative crap, and just to that thread.  'Legendre' for instance, had last posted back in 2006 but has posted lengthy posts there over 40 times in the last few weeks!  So imo, 'low-brow' and 'high-brow' debunking methods are very much in use...

[utilitarian]

I agree with you to an extent - no doubt there are a few "idiots" posting.  Also, I suspect some of the most "respected" members here are probably not what they claim either!.  However, I have seen it again and again in various forums, where 'newbie' posters join up in droves with the sole aim of disrupting a threads flow - this can be far more effective than reasoned intelligent posts!  Just look at Archer Quinn's thread, especially the back-posts of the newbies - many expend huge amounts of effort in posting purely negative crap, and just to that thread.  'Legendre' for instance, had last posted back in 2006 but has posted lengthy posts there over 40 times in the last few weeks!  So imo, 'low-brow' and 'high-brow' debunking methods are very much in use...

All it would take to shut up us "debunkers" is one experiment, replicated and validated, showing a self-sustaining machine based on permanent magnets.  Just one.  What's the problem?

[SINEWAVE]

OK, how dense are you?  I have read many topics in that forum, and the guy with the "Big Oil Rep" nick is a long time and respected member there.  The nick is meant to be satirical, and the post where he admits to being a paid debunker is an obvious joke.

I do think what he said was pretty funny: suppressing OU devices is no harder than suppressing pixies.

And did you even read what he said.  The speed at which things spread on the Internet makes any attempts at suppression futile.  Things can get copied and pasted millions times in one day.  The cost of reproduction is nil.  Try suppressing that.

And since when telling people not to read something or not to believe in something have that desired effect?

So are you saying a howard johnson toy car track doesnt work?....yes or no?