The Key To Perpetual Mechanical Motion

[resonanceman]

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...

Sprocket 

I agree that   suppresion   of ideas is  very much in effect here .

It takes many  forms  .

I have come to belive that this  site is  totally useless  as a place to   openly  develop  an idea .

I have  a few ideas that I have been   researching for  many years .

There is no  way I will talk about them here . 

A new  unproven idea here is nothing  except  skeptic bait
In  most cases   sharing a new idea here only gets you  lots of  posts about why it won't work .   



gary   

[resonanceman]

double post deleated

[Sprocket]

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?

I have you at a slight disadvantage - I am a voracious reader of this forum and am well familiar with your posts and opinions...

But two brief points.  The abundance of debunkers on FE forums makes it clear that there is a supression agenda - these individuals claim to not even believe in OU, yet many expend huge energy and time posting, when "human-nature"  would dictate that most 'ordinary' sceptics would critique something for awhile, get fustrated that the 'FE-idiots' just didn't get Newton and move on.  This does not happen - you have been posting you overtly negative stuff since Nov '07 with no let-up.  Second, while validation is important, history has shown that the scientific establishment only adheres to scientific principles when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of bigoil - one of the most deplorable examples of this concerned MIT - until then, seen as one of the true bastions of science - and cold fusion (LENR).  They were guilty of manipulating test data to indicate that no LENR was occurring - Dr. Eugene Mallove even resigned from MIT over it at the time - when in fact the 'real' results showed that tell-tale tritium was indeed present, and this was further confirmed by another insider many years later (it's on YouTube somewhere).  LENR has also been replicated hundreds of time since by independent labs.  So, if you cannot get someone as 'prestigious' as MIT to tell the truth, why should we expect EE's lower in the food-chain to act any differently...

[Sprocket]

Sprocket 

I agree that   suppresion   of ideas is  very much in effect here .

It takes many  forms  .

I have come to belive that this  site is  totally useless  as a place to   openly  develop  an idea .

I have  a few ideas that I have been   researching for  many years .

There is no  way I will talk about them here . 

A new  unproven idea here is nothing  except  skeptic bait
In  most cases   sharing a new idea here only gets you  lots of  posts about why it won't work .   



gary   

These forums still are pretty good at dissimenating info - you just have to tyr and ignore the background noise.  Have you noticed that some topics seem to be ignored by the debunkers - gravity wheels for instance.  Maybe the 300+ years and no results has something to do with it

[resonanceman]

I have you at a slight disadvantage - I am a voracious reader of this forum and am well familiar with your posts and opinions...

But two brief points.  The abundance of debunkers on FE forums makes it clear that there is a supression agenda - these individuals claim to not even believe in OU, yet many expend huge energy and time posting, when "human-nature"  would dictate that most 'ordinary' sceptics would critique something for awhile, get fustrated that the 'FE-idiots' just didn't get Newton and move on.  This does not happen - you have been posting you overtly negative stuff since Nov '07 with no let-up.  Second, while validation is important, history has shown that the scientific establishment only adheres to scientific principles when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of bigoil - one of the most deplorable examples of this concerned MIT - until then, seen as one of the true bastions of science - and cold fusion (LENR).  They were guilty of manipulating test data to indicate that no LENR was occurring - Dr. Eugene Mallove even resigned from MIT over it at the time - when in fact the 'real' results showed that tell-tale tritium was indeed present, and this was further confirmed by another insider many years later (it's on YouTube somewhere).  LENR has also been replicated hundreds of time since by independent labs.  So, if you cannot get someone as 'prestigious' as MIT to tell the truth, why should we expect EE's lower in the food-chain to act any differently...

Sprocket

Good  example  ....... in my opinion   anyone  with a  brain can  see that there is  something to cold fusion .       I followed  it  for  years  after the news first broke .

Although they are still lying   about it  .............. It looks  like they  are starting to bring it back .

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4833.0.html

A quote   from  the article  in the link above

While Arata?s demonstration looked promising to his audience, the real test is still to come: duplication. Many scientists and others are now recalling the infamous 1989 demonstration by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to produce controlled nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature. However, no one - including Fleischmann and Pons - could duplicate the experiment, leading many people to consider cold fusion a pseudoscience to this day.

There  were  dozens of people   that  successfully duplicated  the experment .   Some of them traveled the  country   showing  people  there results .     All these people  are  forgotten .

One of the   problems with  duplicating the results seemed to be with palladiem .......  I read that  some of it  worked ........and  some of it  didn't.     If you  got a good batch of paladium  you  would get  good results every time .      I  didn't  hear  if  anyone  found out  what  it was that was  causing  the  different results  with different batches .

It was  very  clear to me that most of the replications  failed   because they were  designed to fail .      It  isn't  very hard to  fail  at  getting  something  to work  if getting  it working may  put  your  big fat job  at risk .


gary