Personally  I think  that   the fervor  that  Utilitarian  showed is a sine  that there is  alot  of promise   in this  idea

Another  line I  expect to pop up soon is that ALL  magnetic motors demagnatise the magnets ........... maybe some do .......but  such a broad  generalization  is  kind of like saying  " if man was meant  to fly he would have wings .......... we got  plenty of wings now ........


Personally I  don't think that most of these  guys are paid  debunkers  .........I don't see them as smart enough .
I think they  are just people  with a little  education...........and LOTS of ego .

In my opinion  the paid debunkers would be much harder to  spot . 
I think it was Stallen that said ..... the best way to  control  the resistance is to lead it  yourself .
I would  expect the  paid  debunkers to  actually be helpful most of the time ......... it would  be with  the  few critical points  needed to  get it right that they would  stear   you  wrong .


gary   

Your point about the magnets is relevant - in another forum (ATS) and before Steorn's 'revelations' turned into a farce,  this "demagnetising effect" was the debunkers main point of attack - this despite any real proof that it actually occurs...   btw, this forum also 'outed' a NASA employee, well known to fellow-scientist posters, as a paid-debunker - something he actually freely admitted to!  Apparently there is a budget allocated to this type of thing...    Also, as I posted in another thread here, one of the well-respected members here had been testing this conjecture for over 6 months and had found absolutely no reduction in field strength during this time - anyone remember who this was? - I'd like to know if he has continued testing.

I agree with you to an extent - no doubt there are a few "idiots" posting.  Also, I suspect some of the most "respected" members here are probably not what they claim either!.  However, I have seen it again and again in various forums, where 'newbie' posters join up in droves with the sole aim of disrupting a threads flow - this can be far more effective than reasoned intelligent posts!  Just look at Archer Quinn's thread, especially the back-posts of the newbies - many expend huge amounts of effort in posting purely negative crap, and just to that thread.  'Legendre' for instance, had last posted back in 2006 but has posted lengthy posts there over 40 times in the last few weeks!  So imo, 'low-brow' and 'high-brow' debunking methods are very much in use...

All it would take to shut up us "debunkers" is one experiment, replicated and validated, showing a self-sustaining machine based on permanent magnets.  Just one.  What's the problem?

I agree with you to an extent - no doubt there are a few "idiots" posting.  Also, I suspect some of the most "respected" members here are probably not what they claim either!.  However, I have seen it again and again in various forums, where 'newbie' posters join up in droves with the sole aim of disrupting a threads flow - this can be far more effective than reasoned intelligent posts!  Just look at Archer Quinn's thread, especially the back-posts of the newbies - many expend huge amounts of effort in posting purely negative crap, and just to that thread.  'Legendre' for instance, had last posted back in 2006 but has posted lengthy posts there over 40 times in the last few weeks!  So imo, 'low-brow' and 'high-brow' debunking methods are very much in use...

Sprocket 

I agree that   suppresion   of ideas is  very much in effect here .

It takes many  forms  .

I have come to belive that this  site is  totally useless  as a place to   openly  develop  an idea .

I have  a few ideas that I have been   researching for  many years .

There is no  way I will talk about them here . 

A new  unproven idea here is nothing  except  skeptic bait
In  most cases   sharing a new idea here only gets you  lots of  posts about why it won't work .   



gary   

All it would take to shut up us "debunkers" is one experiment, replicated and validated, showing a self-sustaining machine based on permanent magnets.  Just one.  What's the problem?

I have you at a slight disadvantage - I am a voracious reader of this forum and am well familiar with your posts and opinions...

But two brief points.  The abundance of debunkers on FE forums makes it clear that there is a supression agenda - these individuals claim to not even believe in OU, yet many expend huge energy and time posting, when "human-nature"  would dictate that most 'ordinary' sceptics would critique something for awhile, get fustrated that the 'FE-idiots' just didn't get Newton and move on.  This does not happen - you have been posting you overtly negative stuff since Nov '07 with no let-up.  Second, while validation is important, history has shown that the scientific establishment only adheres to scientific principles when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of bigoil - one of the most deplorable examples of this concerned MIT - until then, seen as one of the true bastions of science - and cold fusion (LENR).  They were guilty of manipulating test data to indicate that no LENR was occurring - Dr. Eugene Mallove even resigned from MIT over it at the time - when in fact the 'real' results showed that tell-tale tritium was indeed present, and this was further confirmed by another insider many years later (it's on YouTube somewhere).  LENR has also been replicated hundreds of time since by independent labs.  So, if you cannot get someone as 'prestigious' as MIT to tell the truth, why should we expect EE's lower in the food-chain to act any differently...

I have you at a slight disadvantage - I am a voracious reader of this forum and am well familiar with your posts and opinions...

But two brief points.  The abundance of debunkers on FE forums makes it clear that there is a supression agenda - these individuals claim to not even believe in OU, yet many expend huge energy and time posting, when "human-nature"  would dictate that most 'ordinary' sceptics would critique something for awhile, get fustrated that the 'FE-idiots' just didn't get Newton and move on.  This does not happen - you have been posting you overtly negative stuff since Nov '07 with no let-up.  Second, while validation is important, history has shown that the scientific establishment only adheres to scientific principles when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of bigoil - one of the most deplorable examples of this concerned MIT - until then, seen as one of the true bastions of science - and cold fusion (LENR).  They were guilty of manipulating test data to indicate that no LENR was occurring - Dr. Eugene Mallove even resigned from MIT over it at the time - when in fact the 'real' results showed that tell-tale tritium was indeed present, and this was further confirmed by another insider many years later (it's on YouTube somewhere).  LENR has also been replicated hundreds of time since by independent labs.  So, if you cannot get someone as 'prestigious' as MIT to tell the truth, why should we expect EE's lower in the food-chain to act any differently...

Sprocket

Good  example  ....... in my opinion   anyone  with a  brain can  see that there is  something to cold fusion .       I followed  it  for  years  after the news first broke .

Although they are still lying   about it  .............. It looks  like they  are starting to bring it back .

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4833.0.html

A quote   from  the article  in the link above

 While Arata?s demonstration looked promising to his audience, the real test is still to come: duplication. Many scientists and others are now recalling the infamous 1989 demonstration by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to produce controlled nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature. However, no one - including Fleischmann and Pons - could duplicate the experiment, leading many people to consider cold fusion a pseudoscience to this day.

There  were  dozens of people   that  successfully duplicated  the experment .   Some of them traveled the  country   showing  people  there results .     All these people  are  forgotten .

One of the   problems with  duplicating the results seemed to be with palladiem .......  I read that  some of it  worked ........and  some of it  didn't.     If you  got a good batch of paladium  you  would get  good results every time .      I  didn't  hear  if  anyone  found out  what  it was that was  causing  the  different results  with different batches .

It was  very  clear to me that most of the replications  failed   because they were  designed to fail .      It  isn't  very hard to  fail  at  getting  something  to work  if getting  it working may  put  your  big fat job  at risk .


gary

The Key to perpetual motion is the pendulum fulcrum.

http://www.freewebs.com/boltoncomputers/PM.htm

Sorry Jerryx,

This does not work. You need more energy to lift the hammer than the hammer imparts to the pendulum. Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid. If you don't believe me, look at the simulation below.

Hans von Lieven

another word for 'debunker' is 'marketer'....any car dealership has a paid debunker working for them.

i use to work in SEO and i would steer no less than 400,000 people per day and i literally had the tools to spam millions per day, the internet doesnt just make propagation of information easier, it also makes it easier to manipulate.

i use to know crackheads that would shoot you for a $20 rock..why wouldnt a group of people with the most violent history in mankind do it to protect $100 billion per year?

right now i could tell utilitarian a hj toy is a firetruck with sirens and he would know none the better....get it?