Why we fail to replicate OU devices?

[Allcanadian]

@velacreations

The problem is that a lot of people see debate or criticism as a threat. While requests could definitely be worded differently, I am surprised at how defensive a lot of people get on these forums when someone asks for clarification or data. And then the "believers" jump in and a full-on bombardment happens against the critic. It is really unprofessional, and ultimately leads to people not wanting to contribute for fear of attack (as has happened in countless threads right here in this forum).

Yes in many cases it is reminiscent of a good old fashioned witch hunt where someone decides that they do not agree therefore that person should burn at the stake. Once the fire is started it is very difficult to put out.

However I see the same thing happening at many other sites such as Randi.org which promotes critical thinking. Very intelligent people who when confronted with alternate views go into attack mode. As such I have come to believe it is more related to the personality type rather than intelligence or any given belief.

In my profession we tend not to form lynch mobs but rather start an open and healthy debate and let the person in question hang themselves, it is a better option in my opinion.

This sort of "cult mentality" has no place in a scientific discussion, IMO.

A very good read on this subject is "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" by Gustave Le Bon.
The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

AC

[Michelinho]

Vela,

I really think you are full of it.

The problem is that a lot of people see debate or criticism as a threat. While requests could definitely be worded differently, I am surprised at how defensive a lot of people get on these forums when someone asks for clarification or data. And then the "believers" jump in and a full-on bombardment happens against the critic. It is really unprofessional, and ultimately leads to people not wanting to contribute for fear of attack (as has happened in countless threads right here in this forum).

You are not debating or criticizing, you run a monologue, you are constantly changing the target and you interpret responses to fit your needs. You are not objective, you are biased. You are not a threat, you are a nuisance and that's how you are treated. When you are asked to vacate a thread, you jump on your horses and multiply the posts. People stop contributing because of people like you who lack manners and civility. You rub people the wrong way and that is something you are very good at.

While requests could definitely be worded differently

This an aspect of you that could really show improvement. You ask, you insist ad nauseam and if you think that is professional, you are really full of it.

Michelinho

[Gdez]

Yes

I agree. I am a very resourceful person, and Most of the parts that I use for my experiments are someone elses trash.This is very frustrating and it seems that it is one of my main problems.
There always seems to be that 40.00$us part that I can't afford!

Getting other people interested is also hard because they initially see this too.

What a conundrum.
Greg

[Ein~+ein]

...most experimenters out there are operating on a shoestring budget.

Seems most OU devices discussed here don't require much $.

...most either have no idea how to design or build a FE or OU machine, since there is no schematic or direction in which to begin.

Those replicating devices have a lot to go on including schematics or they wouldn't attempt replicating them. The problem is insufficient detail.

There are those who know how to design one. There are those who have the equipment and knowlege to build one, and there are those who have equipment to test one, but there are hardly any that have all these things... .

As I said, those unwilling to provide test data when requested, whether relevant or not, registers on my BS detector. The fact they won't even debate it puts the needle way past the mid-point. (Farmhand, is your BS detector digital? )

If someone achieved remarkable results but chose not to openly share their setup, they'd be too busy applying for patent protection and then doing a lot of demos to secure license agreements or investment capital. After that, they'd be as busy promoting their device as Thane Heins has been with his ReGen-X and, in doing so, directly address any skepticism in order to gain credibility.

I won't get into the belief debate given the pseudo-religious nature of this site (energetic ministries) but Stealth is onto something. Amateur inventors/enthusiasts, especially in their eureka moment, lack the scientific rigor to provide a detailed account of their setup and findings. That's why some such as Mark Dansie during the recent GlobalBEM (Breakthrough Energy Movement) conference, called for the following test standards:

1. Establishing a pool of qualified testers and advisors.
2. A set of testing standards and protocols that are internationally recognized
3. A data base of information of past and present projects, what worked and what did not.
4. Supporting BEM in all of the above

1. These procedures not just be based on what mainstream scientists and engineers want to see, but also draw on the experience of people who have been doing this for years and understand where mistakes have been made or what tricks are used to deliberately deceive. I have on many occasions seen engineers, scientists and some pretty smart business people fooled by not understand what they are really seeing, misinterpreting results or just missing some important input or output. (continue reading)

No doubt, there are those who will distrust this but it's far beyond what currently exists. Even websites long dedicated to FE can't agree who's a scammer and who's for real. Compare what PESN's Sterling Allan vs New Energy Times says about A. Rossi's E-Cat (LENR)

[boguslaw]

The short answer is : money. When money is on route trust is limited. I saw many examples of supposedly successful OU devices spoiled and forgotten just because of money demands, not only by inventors , investors but also by many related people (testers,advisors,scientists) trying to make fortune on invention of other person (mostly not highly educated ,who spent decade or more working on it). That's the other side of the problem. One common practice is to take as much information as possible from inventor then left him alone only to resurface again later with the similar but evolved concept with a team of scientists and engineers and funds to produce device, a new device of course

[Dave45]

Here's the flywheel we have been looking for

A magnetic field resists change, there is no change here, no bemf, the magnet will feed the coils polarity's into the caps. No bemf only femf in both coils.
Simple

[velacreations]

I can relate to those not wanting to publish everything on an open forum. After spending years experimenting and improving a design, it is hard to just give it a way so easy. Some can do it, but most cannot. The main thing that years of research and experimenting will show you is, "what doesn't work." As Sherlock said, after you have dismissed all other options, whatever exists, no matter how rediculous, must be the truth. Many are and have been on a mission to find the truth. Maybe it would be easier to post things that don't work, that way no one would need to do those experiments again. I feel many on here are making the same experiments that many of us have already done, but haven't told them that it won't work. Probably, most healpful would be to start a post of unworkable devices that we have built. Once these are dismissed, then whatever is left could be made into a workable device. If we do this, it should be done in categories such as, mechanical, magnetic, gravity, electrical, electronic or specialty. I know many here want people to build a design and experiment with it themselves, for the experience, but this can take much time and money that could be used to further investigate a possible better device. Good Luck. stealth

I think you have a good concept, here. A catalog of failed replications/unworkable devices. This would save a lot of time and research for people looking for something that will work.

[velacreations]

The only problem with that is, even if someone couldn't get it to work, that doesn't necessarily mean it won't work, it only menas that whoever did the replication, either didn't have all the information needed to make it work, or they didn't follow the schematic-instructions to the letter. Some devices are very sensitive and hard to get working. If we are off only a few thousands of an inch, sometimes that is enough to render the device inoperable. In that case, someone with more patience or more information may get the replication working, or at least, give some advice to those whose replication failed. If the FE community worked together many of the problems could be addressed and corrected. Many of my unworkable devices I have replicated have resulted in my not having enough information to fully complete the replication. Most patents have deliberately left out vital information that is needed to make a working replication. Only those very familiar with the principle of operation will have a chance to get it working. Even then, it would be a hit or miss proposition. Good Luck. stealth

yeah, I agree, though if you had 150 failed replications and 0 successful, that could help you judge the device on whether it is worth your time. A Newbie with little experience might want to focus on things that have 150 successful and 0 failed.

I think it could be a wonderful tool, a way to sort through the likely candidates.

[Allcanadian]

@velacreations
All I can tell you is what I know, it is hard enough sifting through mountains of literature trying to find a needle in a haystack, it is even harder trying to manifest this knowledge as something half workable sitting on my bench. Add in variable fields, currents and potentials changing in time, phase variations, a thousand details and it amounts to trying to balance an elephant on a razor blade. However there is one thing we all understand... it's worth it.
Maybe not so much for us but for them ... it's worth the time and effort.

AC

[Ein~+ein]

According to Mark Dansie, the guy I quoted above who travels around the world investigating FE devices, 99% of FE claims are bogus. In this interview on SmartScarecrow, he discusses some promising developments and a few major scams.

[Gdez]

Pretty good idea Stealth

The only thing I suggest is that for everyone of your failed/negative attempts, what were your most positive and encouraging test/replications/etc. This would also be good for newbies. ( and others)
Greg

[Gdez]

Case in point

I still like milkovics ideas, and no one has really disproved them. I have built many TSMO's, and I think that mostly, I am not building them correctly. I want to blame myself, but, Milkovic does not give exact specs, only guidelines.

Quote"The only problem with that is, even if someone couldn't get it to work, that doesn't necessarily mean it won't work, it only menas that whoever did the replication, either didn't have all the information needed to make it work, or they didn't follow the schematic-instructions to the letter. Some devices are very sensitive and hard to get working.

One thing I can tell you is that no matter what the device, the inventor has believed in it more then you.

I still(after many mixed results), like milkovics device, and plan on building another one.

I will not go back into arguing with people about tsmo's, but I will say that I have had some pretty good results also. Once you see the difference in the hand push method of operation, as compared to say pumping water by only a linear style hand pump, you know this has something to it. But-- I could also be completely wrong. Hand pushes don't cut it as far as measurements.

It's something you don't understand till you build one, no matter what the device is.

I also try not to get stuck on just one project, I think that exploring many different ideas is also a great idea, as it will help you learn faster.

Peace, Greg

[Ein~+ein]

If enough people are interested, I could start a thread about failed replications, ... It should not need to go into detail ....

Really? If you had what you were trying to replicate right in front of you and you failed in your 1st attempt, wouldn't you take even more precise measurements before beginning your 2nd? What's needed is an agreed upon checklist of knowns and unknowns (variables) and then methodically testing each combination as if cracking a password. The devil is in the detail presuming of course, the original functioned according to the claims of its inventor.

@Stealth: Re: Your failed attempts to achieve OU. Do you ever get the impression the search for/belief in OU / COP>1 was initiated by those looking for attention or to make a quick buck?

[morpher44]

optimize

Mostly what I have built are no OU, but even if you improve the efficiencies of the prime movers a little bit...

I have to agree with Stealth. COP>1 or OU are NOT the goal.

Violating the laws of thermodynamics might be doable if we
STEAL power from another dimension. Of course, the inter-dimensional
power-companies might come and FINE us for doing so -- if they can come here and catch us in the act. :-)

Free Energy is a misnomer. Cheap energy is the goal. A simple recipe that everyone can follow and replicate and get results.
It has to come with a theory of operation, a user manual, an explanation of WHERE the energy comes from, etc.

Pulling energy from human bodies, ala the movie Matrix, might be feasible, but is it moral? Creating devices that produce HUGE amounts of power, thus enabling WARing nations to destroy each other with doomsday power ... is that wise? Portable Fusion reactors for our cars? Smart?

I really feel the goals should be to work on solution that make humanity, the planet, life -- THRIVE. Implosion appears to be the new buzzword here.

I'm tired of just burning stuff and filling up my tank or turning up and down my thermostat, etc.
We have these little "computers" doing lots of things now. Optimizing power usage is a solvable problem with CHEAP embedded control systems. Smart thermostats. Smart grids. Smart automobiles that allow for a MIX of fuel choices. Cellphones or tablets should charge themselves using ambient power from the environment. Back EMF. Thermoelectric generators to exploit heat sources that are just wasting heat. Ocean wave power.
Small-scale-wind-power with tiny wind generators in a matrix.
New battery technologies. New "capacitors" that don't leak.
Room-temperature superconductivity. Resonance and Harmonics harnessed in new devices. Round-trip chemical re-actions. Harnessing Lighting and weather changes (Tesla's dream). Exploiting the Earth's magnetic field lines and NMR frequencies. Schumann resonances. Space frequencies -- Gamma and lower. New materials -- bismuth and other esoteric metals.
Reverse-engineering LOST devices rumored to work....etc. etc...

I think one problem with why we fail is we are thinking too much in our "left-brain", logical, analytical, NERDish.
Our "right-brains" have many of the answers intuitively.
The trick is to keep your "left-brain" BUSY ... so BUYS that it becomes too tired to argue so that "right-brain" can finally get a word-in-edgewise.
Tesla would work this way. In other words, harness your inner OCD.


--morpher44

[boguslaw]

Exploiting the Earth's magnetic field lines and NMR frequencies