an easily verifiable OU phenomena

A clear claim without sufficient supporting evidence or the intent to provide such evidence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claim

5. A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth

Stop wasting my time with semantics!

It's a good idea in principle TK, but in my case not practical for various reasons. As it happens this forum was not my first choice for public release. But it is a reasonable one. Since you have made it clear - from the point of view of an OU skeptic - that you dismiss any concerns about vested interests taking action against OU inventors, you would be unlikely to understand the cautious approach associated with such a disclosure.

However you will allow (I assume) that these concerns do exist, if misplaced; in which case you must also allow their impact on the disclosure process. A full and open release of material on a forum such as this at least places the work in the hands of those (supposedly, although I see no clear evidence so far) dedicated to investigating such matters and advancing the science. In addition, once released there is very little point in persecution of the inventor, unless of course the material is being ignored or dismissed as unworthy out of hand, as in my own case.

So you might then allow that a philanthropic inventor having an invalid claim (since you allow no validity) yet believing completely in it, and misguidedly supposing his invention threatens 'big oil' posts here notwithstanding a real fear of the consequences, which the typical response does little to alleviate.

Apologies if this isn't a 'feel good' moment for you.

   

You don't seem to get it. Since approximately 1998 I have worked full time and as a consultant for three different organizations whose explicit purpose was (one past tense, two present tense) to seek out, find, encourage and fund speculative investors like yourself. I cannot give you the specific details of my present involvement because I am under the usual NDAs concerning my present work. But I can talk about ISSO..... The "International Space Sciences Organization" funded by the internet "former" millionaire Joe Firmage. You can look this up for yourself. Joe, in his present incarnation as "Motion Sciences" has an idea about antigravity, a mechanical system that he calls "Streptation" and is actively pursuing this even now, long after ISSO became moribund. "We", during the time I was involved with them at the laboratory in San Francisco and later at Alameda NAS, Building 29..... funded and supported with laboratory space and equipment and technical help, several sets of experimenters like yourself. These included Viktor Roznyay, whose ignitron antigravity device I have described and who got over 1.5 million dollars US in funding from Joe, and Mark Comings, who had a few speculative ideas, managed to get himself a staff position and a bunch of equipment which he then never used, and Hawkins Kirk, a fellow who had Admiral Bobby Inman's number programmed into his speed-dial and claimed to have an alien implant..... and another antigravity scheme using multiple coils and other electronics.... and so on. Purple plates. Nikolayev Newton-Violators. Mikhailov's electron anomalies. We were mostly interested in propulsion and antigravity tecnologies but "free energy" and overunity devices were also in our bailiwick. We funded Kohei Minato on a visit with a load of his magnet motor overunity generators and "self runners" to visit the lab in SF for "validation testing". He and his wife and his retainer Murakami came, stayed for a week at the best hotels in SF, demonstrated their devices... I even repaired one that had been damaged in transit, Minato was so impressed that he offered to hire me and find me a Japanese wife, I am not kidding..... and so on.
The other operation, for whom I still sometimes consult, was working intensively on the superconducting antigravity system of Eugene Podkletnov and in fact had Pod himself as consultant so we KNEW we had the ceramic SC right, we KNEW we had all the operating parameters correct.... and so on. We did the best replication of Pod's claim that anyone, including Ning Li, had ever done. We made a 300 mm sintered hot-melt YCBO doped hi-temp SC disk _in house_ with Pod's supervision and approval. This is real, Big Science, with deep pockets to delve into for support of stuff of real interest. Next we went on to Peter and Neal Graneau's ideas about water arcs releasing excess energy and Neal's MHD-style system for getting electrical OU from a similar arc discharge system, Peter working in Canada and the USA and Neal working in a completely funded (by us) laboratory at Oxford. Seven years of support and funding for Peter and three or more for Neal. And on from there.

Activity at the latter organization has slowed lately because of LACK OF CREDIBLE APPLICANTS, not from lack of funding or interest.

And another one for which I still sometimes consult is known for having the best bulk calorimetry system in civilian hands and has directly funded and examined the claims of several Cold Fusion researchers whose names anyone in the field would recognise as the best candidates for success at the time.  This lab is right now spending a good amount of time and money investigating a theory of modified Newtonian dynamics that seeks to explain the anomalies observed in galactic rotational profiles, by using a Cavendish-style balance that is so sensitive it picks up the gravitational attraction from cars in the parking lot.... so most of the lot is roped off so cars don't come too close to the building.

So I am sorry, but I happen to KNOW, of my own secure knowledge, that if you have something of real interest and can present it coherently _to the right people_ , you can get secure funding with absolute protection for your IP and your person, with real laboratory support and real scientists helping you in your investigations.

Did you bother to look up Southwest Research Institute? Tom Slick?  Please do so. I know you are not going to change your strongly held opinions, but you should at least inform yourself of the opportunities that are available to speculative inventors and scientists who actually DO have something of real interest.

I am afraid I cannot even parse the statement I highlighted. What? Maybe I need another cup of coffee.... it makes no sense to me.

I'm here for a number of personal reasons, but one big personal reason is that I am keeping my "ear to the ground" so to speak. If I can bring an inventor with a good idea, something that looks good, to my principals and get them interested in it, this will not only be very good for the inventor/claimant, but also for me, personally. I might get assigned to help with the project in a real way, and I'd get my usual consulting fees paid and the inventor would not be out a thin dime, nor would he be at any risk of the kinds of mythological suppression you seem to fear.

It is my opinion that the fear of suppression is a hystrionic excuse for the avoidance of exposure to real investigation that would in most cases result in the demolishing of the claimant's house of cards, in the way that it did for Rosemary Ainslie, or, in the final end, for Podkletnov, for Roznyay, the Graneaus, some Cold Fusion claims, and many many others.

The stories of active suppression and the difficulty of finding real "validation" without personal risk.... just do not wash with me. Or perhaps my whole career for the past fifteen years has been one of disinformation, as I unwittingly worked for the very agents of suppression you fear. Right.

If you like, I will put you, Tusk, in touch with the organizations for whom I still consult, and you can present your device and ideas to them directly for consideration. If you can strike up some interest, it's possible that they might hire me to look into your system officially, in their labs with their facilities at my disposal as usual.  Or you might disappear, never to be heard from again. But your strongbox, when opened years from now, will still have your working prototype inside, and the legend of your disappearance at the hands of the forces of Big Oil will spread. Right.

More aliens?!

Where are my pills?...

Neither I nor the people I sometimes work with care _one whit_ about theoretical explanations or predictions of unusual behaviour.

I was genuinely not aware of this TK. Your response (and that of others) left me with the impression that it was otherwise.

So perhaps we now have a mutual understanding of the basic requirements; is this thread the place to advance the investigation, or would it be more acceptable to discuss the matter either in private or elsewhere on this forum? Or have I misunderstood your level of interest?

And btw, what probably appeared as my 'dismissal' of your  knowledge and your analysis earlier was in fact the exact opposite. Anyone familiar with classical physics would likely not see the paradox, which is neither an accusation or condemnation. I would be surprised if you believed your own experience with the education system to have been completely without fault. Knowledge is everything, as they say, but there is an occasional benefit to being in a position to disregard convention. 

...and while my thread becomes the inevitable sausage swinging contest....

quick, yet unrelated observations....

1.  I am not 100% convinced this forum is completely open source at this point.

2. What I am getting from Tusk (correct me if I'm wrong), is simply that he doubts others will understand the phenomena he is describing, therefore not validate it based on misunderstanding, not because it isn't there or until now discovered (is that close?).

3. TK, paraphrasing your "show me the sausage and we'll figure it out later" is not fundamentally unlike my presentation of "show me it works and we'll do the math and data later".

4. I feel my desire to improve the mechanism with which this community winnows the wheat was mostly ignored here, so I'm going to pout like a little girl

Cheers!

Apologies audiomaker, missed your earlier question:

2. What I am getting from Tusk (correct me if I'm wrong), is simply that he doubts others will understand the phenomena he is describing, therefore not validate it based on misunderstanding, not because it isn't there or until now discovered (is that close?).

Correct. On the basis that it constitutes a key element of the fundamental nature of the universe. Such things always go unnoticed (hidden in plain sight) until someone notices them. They are also usually quite easy to test, i.e. the twin peg experiment. Another explanation for the result might yet be forthcoming, yet it sits there quietly resisting apprehension.

Apologies also for hijacking your fine thread. Once someone points me in the right direction I'll be out of your hair.

Apologies audiomaker, missed your earlier question:

Correct. On the basis that it constitutes a key element of the fundamental nature of the universe. Such things always go unnoticed (hidden in plain sight) until someone notices them. They are also usually quite easy to test, i.e. the twin peg experiment. Another explanation for the result might yet be forthcoming, yet it sits there quietly resisting apprehension.

Apologies also for hijacking your fine thread. Once someone points me in the right direction I'll be out of your hair.

Well Tusk, I hope you'll forgive me for saying, but that kind of puts you in a bind that will require an enormous amount of patience and effort on your part.

It would not be unlike me saying "I've discovered the falabriganth effect and you can't understand what it does." (I made that word up).  You might as well resign yourself to the idea that very few are going to be able to jump on your boat.

What if what the "falabriganth" effect does is make things smell like strawberries elsewhere in the galaxy?  It may exist, but hey... you see.   In your case, not only will data need to be provided, but there is the risk that there is no way to interpret the data itself.   Tough spot to be in.

I could come up with 100's of examples about being unable to prove that which nobody can understand the effect of.  I might write a book, but that doesn't help you.

I would suggest taking it easy on yourself, and especially others while you formulate the best presentation of your ideas that you can.  There will be some frustration involved, both coming and going.