...
There's always the possibility that someone can stumble onto something that works without being well-understood, even by the inventor. I am well aware of this. But this one knows what he has built and can explain to others how to build the same thing. And before that, he should present what he has done to third parties who can measure the effects. Then even the skeptics will be convinced. We are in the 19th century, electric motors do not yet exist. It was enough for Oersted, who did not understand the principle of the effect he was observing, to show that a current in a wire near a compass could deflect the compass needle, and everyone understood that an electric motor was now possible. There is no need for more. There's also the opposite possibility, someone may have a perfectly viable theory or principle that is not capable of implementing it. Probably everyone here could explain in great detail how an internal combustion engine works, but only a tiny fraction of us would actually be able to build one. Contrary to the "overunity", the explosion engines did not question the knowledge of the time. They were in the continuity of the first steam engines of the 18th century, so they could be analyzed with the known physical principles and engineering tools. When this is no longer the case, when a theory contradicts what is known, then a proof of concept is required, a simple experiment showing the claimed new effect, such as overunity. This is what Vedmedenko has just done recently by showing us the 2 spherical magnets that go up in the test tubes when you rotate them. No need for more. This is what those who claim to have free energy or who claim to know how to have it, are unable to do, simply because they don't have it and don't know how to have it.
That said, there is a lot of fluff and flak and distraction that does demand some strategy for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I've narrowed my strategy to the following:
* Do they show or describe a principle of operation, or at least some operating parameters of how it functions? Just showing a spinning motor, even if it's real, tells us basically nothing about how it works.
Real or fake, no engineerable details = useless to our work.
* Do they use articulate language/equipment/math? Someone using words like impedance and reactance correctly demonstrates depth of knowledge in the field. I'd trust someone making VNA plots over someone using a pair of dollar-store multimeters. 
* Do they actually build things? (Armchair engineers) You can't really be a car mechanic unless you actually work on cars.
I agree. 
---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
|
Author
Topic: Principles of Operation (Read 10984 times)
