Honey Pot

[ion]

In self assessment tests, incompetent people rank themselves much higher than competent persons.

So we see this nearly everywhere on OU forums.

I agree totally Farrah and Exn.

What do I consider a competent person? In regards to a "scientific researcher":

One who understands and is skilled in the use and interpretation of his measuring equipment and it's limits.

One who carefully records his experimental data and test results for peer review.

One who questions his own experimental data and first looks for answers through conventional understanding.

One who has enough understanding of conventional science to make reasoned judgements in forming a hpothesis.

One who is willing to deeply research prior art on the subject under study.

One who is able to communicate new ideas or hypothesis in a clear concise fashion.

One who understands what effects have already been looked at in detail and are fairly well understood.

Then perhaps something new can be launched by using the "known" in a novel way, as most inventions do.

There is more....anyone care to add?

(ION, checking his watch, notes that the contrarian should arrive at any moment)

[muDped]

I'd say that pretty well does it (defines it.)

It would be wondrous indeed if within the
world of scientific research those standards
could be conscientiously adhered to by all
who reside there.

If the world of science could be truly independent
and freed from all external pressures, political and
otherwise.  Getting back to its original purpose; to
find truth rather than pushing some AGENDA. 

Aye, Farrah does have a unique talent for hitting that
proverbial nail squarely on its head.  Ex does well too.

[Farrah Day]

That's a very decent check list, ION.

And reading down the list it is quite clear that many OU claimants or indeed anyone claiming new, so-called unknown science often fail to tick even one of the boxes. 

How many times do we see people claiming something as new, when in actual fact the prior art is well-known and fully understood. It seems that very few people are prepared to knuckle down and do their homework - however misguided they're only interested in one thing: the glory!

[TinMan]

One who can use their imagination.

DC.

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Albert Einstein

[Chet K]

Sigh........
The "Contrarian" must be sleepin in,So Chet the "glory seeker" is gonna step in for a quick comment.

A Sincere purpose !! well defined by "actions" or ethics and personal history, that would indicate they are not running on "Agenda"!! or status Quo !{here on false pretense ] or seeking "Glory"

Personal integrity ,someone who can be brutally honest even if it means personal loss embarrassment or hardship...

Character plays a big part in all of this Brutal honesty as well as Ego.......

In addition to the above "standards", a slight addendum to purpose .....for the sake of forming an actual community!

Actually wanting to be a part of an Open source community working together with others towards a common goal [NOT ""sneaky""BUSINESS  Harvesters !!}

Defining the goal should be a good mandate towards a solid "foundation"...

Thx
Chet the Glory seeker  [Chet grabs another very dull dart and flings it towards the ever diminishing 8x10 glossy}

[ion]

One who can use their imagination.
DC.

Thanks DC

This line:

Then perhaps something new can be launched by using the "known" in a novel way, as most inventions do.

The "novel way" implies having imagination.

[BEP]

The REALLY true sign of intelligence is knowing how to live peacefully with a woman ;+}


DC.

I have doubts about that. According to my wife of multiple decades in a peaceful marriage I'm as dumb as a rock 

[exnihiloest]

The REALLY true sign of intelligence is knowing how to live peacefully with a woman ;+}
...

This intelligence should firstly solve the problem of squaring the circle, which is much more simple   

[exnihiloest]

...
What do I consider a competent person? In regards to a "scientific researcher":

One who understands and is skilled in the use and interpretation of his measuring equipment and it's limits.

One who carefully records his experimental data and test results for peer review.

One who questions his own experimental data and first looks for answers through conventional understanding.

One who has enough understanding of conventional science to make reasoned judgements in forming a hpothesis.

One who is willing to deeply research prior art on the subject under study.

One who is able to communicate new ideas or hypothesis in a clear concise fashion.

One who understands what effects have already been looked at in detail and are fairly well understood.

Then perhaps something new can be launched by using the "known" in a novel way, as most inventions do.

There is more....anyone care to add?
...

I couldn't say it better.

About the question of imagination, it's rather "New ideas" mentioned above that are really required.

I agree that imagination for producing new ideas and pragmatic results is useful. This is imagination dealing with the reality through competence (Tesla).
But unfortunately in the free energy field, imagination is widely based on the following archetype: "couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity!". Yes it's also imagination!

Too many imaginative people saw themselves as bright minds because they wouldn't be conditioned by the academic knowledge and they would "think outside the box". But their imagination is in fact very narrow: they don't even imagine that such products of their imagination have already be thought and rejected for good reasons, often by academics, sometimes centuries before them.  

[TinMan]

I couldn't say it better.

About the question of imagination, it's rather "New ideas" mentioned above that are really required.

I agree that imagination for producing new ideas and pragmatic results is useful. This is imagination dealing with the reality through competence (Tesla).
But unfortunately in the free energy field, imagination is widely based on the following archetype: "couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity!". Yes it's also imagination!

Too many imaginative people saw themselves as bright minds because they wouldn't be conditioned by the academic knowledge and they would "think outside the box". But their imagination is in fact very narrow: they don't even imagine that such products of their imagination have already be thought and rejected for good reasons, often by academics, sometimes centuries before them.  

couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity.
Lol-yes how stupid are they.
I mean thats as bad as some one telling us that heavier than air machines can fly,or man can travel faster than the speed of sound.
Then there were those loonies that said we will go to the moon lol.
Not to mention that scifi show start trek,with there silly little hand held flip comunicators.
Oh and what about there ! way out there ! ion star drive's lol.
And here is a realy good one-modifying beach sand to make it the basis of a machine that could out do the human brain-and only be the size of your thumb nail-Lol.

We should listen to those academics-they know there stuff.

The fact is that the very same people as our selfs will be laughing at us,just as we laugh at those that said it will never work 100 year's ago.
The knowledge you have today is only basic of what is yet to come.
There is nothing that cant be done.
Only our knowledge stop's a machine from working,but as history has shown us over and over again-the day will come when we are found to be wrong and that motor coupled to a generator will power itself and provide free electricity.

[Peterae]

A good example is using a diamond to play vinyl records, DOH
A scientist would never have thought of that one either 

[ion]

couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity.
Lol-yes how stupid are they.
I mean thats as bad as some one telling us that heavier than air machines can fly,or man can travel faster than the speed of sound.
Then there were those loonies that said we will go to the moon lol.
Not to mention that scifi show start trek,with there silly little hand held flip comunicators.
Oh and what about there ! way out there ! ion star drive's lol.
And here is a realy good one-modifying beach sand to make it the basis of a machine that could out do the human brain-and only be the size of your thumb nail-Lol.

We should listen to those academics-they know there stuff.

The fact is that the very same people as our selfs will be laughing at us,just as we laugh at those that said it will never work 100 year's ago.
The knowledge you have today is only basic of what is yet to come.
There is nothing that cant be done.
Only our knowledge stop's a machine from working,but as history has shown us over and over again-the day will come when we are found to be wrong and that motor coupled to a generator will power itself and provide free electricity.

Don't make the mistake of painting all of academia and science with such a broad brush because one or two short sighted persons in that club were naysayers. You will find naysayers in every group. If you cherry pick information, you can present any point of view.

Most scientists that could do the calculations were able to project that  lighter than air craft were possible if a lightweight power source were only available. When such a source became available, the airplane was  naturally birthed.

Almost anyone could predict that radio sets would become miniaturized as science fiction often has predicted.

All of the things you mention were incremental advances built upon prior art, including the Star Trek communicator, an advancement and miniaturization of radio art that we now use daily.

Most of the naysayers come from the uneducated people of the street, not academia and science. Such people were laughing at the idea that moving images could transmitted into their homes, but were wide eyed with amazement when scientists and researchers showed them how it could be done.

Getting a motor to run a generator and close the loop is not an incremental advance of motor / generator technology, but represents a quantum leap in technology, as motors and generators have been around for 150 years and we see no such incremental progression as we have seen in other fields. The field is very mature, but we do not see this miracle. Why is that? Can it be that it is the wrong rock to look under as an energy source? Possibly. Every young schoolboy, when taught about motors and generators will jump to this conclusion of coupling the devices. Many have spent a lifetime and gone to their grave pursuing this.

Of course, we should try, but maybe it would be also good to study the prior art and paths of those that have tried and in addition, the advance of motor technology from it's inception. A hypothesis regarding where the extra energy would come from would also promote such a case.

"Professors" teach or profess what is "known". These are only tools given to the hopefully imaginative that are sometimes used to create new inventions. Anyone with or without imagination can use these tools, but as with any tool, it is up to the skill and creativity of the user.

e.g. a skilled carpenter can create more than just houses for people to live in, yet that may be all they teach in schools.
Thus, his knowledge of tools and skill in using them does not limit him to "just building houses".

By the way, I am not schooled by academia, being mostly self taught, but also continually learning from others, and having to learn in order to excel.

[TinMan]

Getting a motor to run a generator and close the loop is not an incremental advance of motor / generator technology, but represents a quantum leap in technology, as motors and generators have been around for 150 years and we see no such incremental progression as we have seen in other fields. The field is very mature, but we do not see this miracle.

Point taken ION.
But two things also must be considered.
1-150 years is hardly a large time frame when looking at advancments over the period man has been around.

2-our advancments are govern'd by those that stand to loose billions if such a system existed.

Never asume that it cant or hasnt been done just because you havnt seen it.

We are so young when it come's to what is possable.

[ion]

Point taken ION.
But two things also must be considered.
1-150 years is hardly a large time frame when looking at advancments over the period man has been around.

2-our advancments are govern'd by those that stand to loose billions if such a system existed.

Never asume that it cant or hasnt been done just because you havnt seen it.

We are so young when it come's to what is possable.

If incremental advances in science technology did not lead to the development of the airplane or cellphone (as such an argument is often advanced), then it could and should have been created at any point in prior recorded history. This, as we see is not the case.

Yes, 150 years is a short time considering the span of history and some may not be able to see too far in the future, but you will find most successful investors are savvy at predicting which technology will win, and place their bets accordingly. They also stand to gain billions.

I consider motor / generator technology to be very mature.

In my techno world, if I haven't seen it work or can't replicate it, I have to reserve judgement regarding whether it is real or not.

The "free energy industry" has indeed found an almost inexhaustible form of free energy (your dollars earned by your hard work) in selling countless books, dvd's and devices which don't deliver according to their marketing brochure's or websites claims. We could name much more than a handful of posers that parade in that industry.

No one ever lost money by overestimating the stupidity of the average folk, or as P.T. Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute"

I agree there will be seeming miracles in the future, but as Arthur C. Clarke said  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I think we are mostly on the same page.

[giantkiller]

We are so young when it come's to what is possible.

We have yet to acknowledge we are face down in disaster, let alone even lift our heads to try to crawl away from destruction.

A continual faceplant in the corner of insanity.

[TinMan]

If incremental advances in science technology did not lead to the development of the airplane or cellphone (as such an argument is often advanced), then it could and should have been created at any point in prior recorded history. This, as we see is not the case.

Yes, 150 years is a short time considering the span of history and some may not be able to see too far in the future, but you will find most successful investors are savvy at predicting which technology will win, and place their bets accordingly. They also stand to gain billions.

I consider motor / generator technology to be very mature.

I think we are mostly on the same page.

You may have to reconsider soon.
But yes-we are mostly on the same page.

[ion]

You may have to reconsider soon.
But yes-we are mostly on the same page.

Tinman

I once had an exciting dream of a self running motor. It seemed so logical in the dream. When I woke, I could not make the slightest headway in a possible method to make it work. I would, like you, love to see such an item work.

Like thousands of others I experimented with many types of magnet / coil arrangements (started around 1983 to present) and also tested some of the ideas presented by the "cult of free energy that sell books and DVD's" on the same subject.

I would be very interested in a cohesive hypothesis of how such an item could work and from where it would draw the energy required for it's motion.

Such a design (if it exists) should be able to be explained with the simplest of configurations, a few magnets and coils and a timing diagram. Does anyone really have such a hypothesis?

Somehow, intuitively, we "feel" it should be possible (if only the right configuration could be found). Is intuition always truthful? I can't answer that.

Most of science fiction is based on either intuition of a future new technology, or projection of current technology by the writer.

I encourage you to dream on and experiment.  I hope in the future we can say "its so simple, why didn't anyone think of this before"

[TinMan]

Tinman

I once had an exciting dream of a self running motor. It seemed so logical in the dream. When I woke, I could not make the slightest headway in a possible method to make it work. I would, like you, love to see such an item work.

Like thousands of others I experimented with many types of magnet / coil arrangements (started around 1983 to present) and also tested some of the ideas presented by the "cult of free energy that sell books and DVD's" on the same subject.

I would be very interested in a cohesive hypothesis of how such an item could work and from where it would draw the energy required for it's motion.

Such a design (if it exists) should be able to be explained with the simplest of configurations, a few magnets and coils and a timing diagram. Does anyone really have such a hypothesis?

Somehow, intuitively, we "feel" it should be possible (if only the right configuration could be found). Is intuition always truthful? I can't answer that.

Most of science fiction is based on either intuition of a future new technology, or projection of current technology by the writer.

I encourage you to dream on and experiment.  I hope in the future we can say "its so simple, why didn't anyone think of this before"

Is this the right place to discuss this ? probably not-if looking at some of the comments shot toward those that dare to defy the ruel's that man has set.
But since you have asked here-i will try and answer-as simple as i can.

After many years of reserching and building devices to confirm what i thought to be an effect that go's against current understanding's,i have found this effect to be real.
It is believed that an electromagnet can only work if a current is feed into the coil of the electromagnet.
Well in a certain situation,i have found that no current needs to be introduced into that electromagnet to produce a magnetic field.
This is done using a certain type of transformer,where the secondary becomes the electromagnet itself.
The field produced is an opposite field to that of the primary coil-thus we have an attraction rather than repulsion-this means no lenz force
Infact the result is opposite to the lenz force ruel.
There is no BackEMF produced,but a forwardEMF.
But like i said-this can only be done in a certain situation.

More to the point,it has already been successfuly replicated by two other people-and the effect proven to be there.
How far we can take that effect will depend on the precision of the build.