The notoriously thin skin of "new" inventors or the way to announce a new device

[exxcomm0n]

Everyone knows this, it's been a re-occurring theme in "FE" since before I was born.

New inventors have skin that can barely be measured in nanometers (1 nanometer = 10 angstrom, otherwise known as "super-thin") and any question of their process or reasoning results in them taking it as a personal affront and dividing the FE community into "skeptics" and "disciples" (Newtonians/Archurians, etc.) as they take a stance of infallibility.

I "cut my FE teeth" on the Quinn/S.O.G. thread, and learned the hard way that supporting (or NOT actively questioning any "inventor" not willing to show a pro ported device) is pretty ludicrous and leaves anyone remotely seen as supporting someone like Quinn (considering the ludicrous gymnastics the thread went through) looking foolish and somewhat mentally deficient (and any other ideas they may have are now looked at w/ a VERY jaundiced eye.).

This (has now for me) become (or SHOULD become) a very big red flag to any newly discovered process announcement thread.

I won't deny that I have been as bad as any "supporter/advocate/'true beleiver' ".

Why is it that any new inventor announcement that comes under major scrutiny or publicity seems to encounter a situation where there is an affront to their intelligence, an outside influence (MIB), or "lights are too bright and hot", etc. that causes this person(s) to "take their toys and 'go home' ", usually to never be heard from (in a worthwhile way as far as "the device, or any other device/process" is concerned) again.

As was said (to me) by many a long time FE enthusiast,
"Where's the proof?"
To which I scoffed "Build it and prove them wrong" (it's history I can't erase w/o major effort. The "Roll on the 20th" thread promoted me from "newbie" to "hero" member to my embarrassment and vilification in about equal amounts).

This (my)  thinking  is in so many ways FLAWED ( I NOW know) that it beggars the imagination. I will now (although I think I've been pretty careful about being "absolutely convinced" ask that an inventor give precise (and I mean PRECISE!) parts list and instructions to allow independent  build and verification, or at least independent measurement and proof of their device to be considered as even remotely plausible.

I learned the hard way.
Quite a few here think me a blithering idiot.
I (as much as it galls me) proved them right a time or 2.

_I_ did it (the exact opposite of what a "thinking reasoning individual" would do in believing the reported effect, rather taking things @ face value and asking for an absolute verifiable instance), but then LEARNED FROM MY MISTAKE.

This is not something I shout proudly. This is something I admit honestly.

There are many here that I butted heads with during this (Roll on the 20th) episode that completely disappeared (NOT the most effective way to prove 'interest in FE' or convincing someone you're not a paid disinformation plant), and others that continue to "poke, prod, and meddle in affairs they have no right to." with many of the threads here.

They(the meddlers) have won my respect for due diligence in experimentation and NOT posting any of the top of their head FE idea as fact, while questioning those that do.

I'm happy that some stay and ask the hard and unpopular questions. I have much respect for them that "waste" their time with such things.

These things I'll ask of any FUTURE inventors making a proclaimation of "I've done it".

1.) Wouldn't it be better to say "I (think) I've done it". (and if you want more respect from the community you loose the news on, prepend it with "Please prove me wrong.").

2.) Prove it "8 ways from Sunday" as many a sharp thinker here on OU will be asking about at least one of those ways you could be mistaken about your discovery.

3.) Independent verification (of mutually agreed upon verifiers).
Any real process works, time after time.
It's like clockwork (in fact, how clockwork was even devised I suppose).

Dream, scheme, and theme about anything; Post about them even.
But post in the "I've done it fashion" about those that can make it in an "independently replicable proven" fashion.

If it works, it works.
End of story, and beginning of a new chapter in history.

I would like to ask that some OU members take a moment to filter hope out of their reasoning and see what is left.

That's where the truth lies.

P.S. Just because someone isn't a Rhodes scholar DOES NOT make it impossible to think of something you haven't!
Be critical, but openminded to VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that contradicts your criticality.

The latest Mylow episode has finally made me want to post this.
I wish him the best, and hope that his effect is true, but I'll wat for independent verification before I start buying (more) magnets and aluminum platters.

P.P.S Above all, cling to your hope for a new better cleaner possibility, but do not let it cloud your reasoning!

[ALFPARTS]

Everyone knows this, it's been a re-occurring theme in "FE" since before I was born.

New inventors have skin that can barely be measured in nanometers (1 nanometer = 10 angstrom, otherwise known as "super-thin") and any question of their process or reasoning results in them taking it as a personal affront and dividing the FE community into "skeptics" and "disciples" (Newtonians/Archurians, etc.) as they take a stance of infallibility.

I "cut my FE teeth" on the Quinn/S.O.G. thread, and learned the hard way that supporting (or NOT actively questioning any "inventor" not willing to show a pro ported device) is pretty ludicrous and leaves anyone remotely seen as supporting someone like Quinn (considering the ludicrous gymnastics the thread went through) looking foolish and somewhat mentally deficient (and any other ideas they may have are now looked at w/ a VERY jaundiced eye.).

This (has now for me) become (or SHOULD become) a very big red flag to any newly discovered process announcement thread.

I won't deny that I have been as bad as any "supporter/advocate/'true beleiver' ".

Why is it that any new inventor announcement that comes under major scrutiny or publicity seems to encounter a situation where there is an affront to their intelligence, an outside influence (MIB), or "lights are too bright and hot", etc. that causes this person(s) to "take their toys and 'go home' ", usually to never be heard from (in a worthwhile way as far as "the device, or any other device/process" is concerned) again.

As was said (to me) by many a long time FE enthusiast,
"Where's the proof?"
To which I scoffed "Build it and prove them wrong" (it's history I can't erase w/o major effort. The "Roll on the 20th" thread promoted me from "newbie" to "hero" member to my embarrassment and vilification in about equal amounts).

This (my)  thinking  is in so many ways FLAWED ( I NOW know) that it beggars the imagination. I will now (although I think I've been pretty careful about being "absolutely convinced" ask that an inventor give precise (and I mean PRECISE!) parts list and instructions to allow independent  build and verification, or at least independent measurement and proof of their device to be considered as even remotely plausible.

I learned the hard way.
Quite a few here think me a blithering idiot.
I (as much as it galls me) proved them right a time or 2.

_I_ did it (the exact opposite of what a "thinking reasoning individual" would do in believing the reported effect, rather taking things @ face value and asking for an absolute verifiable instance), but then LEARNED FROM MY MISTAKE.

This is not something I shout proudly. This is something I admit honestly.

There are many here that I butted heads with during this (Roll on the 20th) episode that completely disappeared (NOT the most effective way to prove 'interest in FE' or convincing someone you're not a paid disinformation plant), and others that continue to "poke, prod, and meddle in affairs they have no right to." with many of the threads here.

They(the meddlers) have won my respect for due diligence in experimentation and NOT posting any of the top of their head FE idea as fact, while questioning those that do.

I'm happy that some stay and ask the hard and unpopular questions. I have much respect for them that "waste" their time with such things.

These things I'll ask of any FUTURE inventors making a proclaimation of "I've done it".

1.) Wouldn't it be better to say "I (think) I've done it". (and if you want more respect from the community you loose the news on, prepend it with "Please prove me wrong.").

2.) Prove it "8 ways from Sunday" as many a sharp thinker here on OU will be asking about at least one of those ways you could be mistaken about your discovery.

3.) Independent verification (of mutually agreed upon verifiers).
Any real process works, time after time.
It's like clockwork (in fact, how clockwork was even devised I suppose).

Dream, scheme, and theme about anything; Post about them even.
But post in the "I've done it fashion" about those that can make it in an "independently replicable proven" fashion.

If it works, it works.
End of story, and beginning of a new chapter in history.

I would like to ask that some OU members take a moment to filter hope out of their reasoning and see what is left.

That's where the truth lies.

P.S. Just because someone isn't a Rhodes scholar DOES NOT make it impossible to think of something you haven't!
Be critical, but openminded to VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that contradicts your criticality.

The latest Mylow episode has finally made me want to post this.
I wish him the best, and hope that his effect is true, but I'll wat for independent verification before I start buying (more) magnets and aluminum platters.

P.P.S Above all, cling to your hope for a new better cleaner possibility, but do not let it cloud your reasoning!

Posted well Exxcomm0n, maybe you will contact me?

[stprue]

Well said and I agree!

[utilitarian]

Your requirements, while completely fair, are impossible to meet for any free energy device inventor.

[exxcomm0n]

@ utilitarian

In which way?

It's impossible to keep from saying "I've done it!" until you've done it multiple times and in a way that can be replicated independently?

Or impossible to disclose complete method because of patent application purposes?

Or impossible not to get offended by question and debate about the announced device?

Or perhaps another I've not mentioned here?

Which one would be impossible please?