A disappointing tale.

[studiot]

I must say I was disappointed with both the premature closure of this thread on power generation and the immediately adverse and even hostile reception a new member received.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118572-i-offer-the-innovation-green-technology-of-generation-of-the-electric-power-by-means-of-a-new-renewable-energy-resource/?tab=comments#comment-1099130

 

I say premature closure because I have just looked at the thread for the first time and it is already closed.

So I have no opportunity to offer some encouragement and perhaps a way forward to the new member.

Any schoolboy with would be able to build a conventional model generator, perhaps powered by a hamster on a treadmill, for just his pocket money.

So should we not be asking;

" Can you build a small scale demonstration?"

Pretty well every project starts with such a pilot.

[koti]

I'm dissapointed too, I was hoping the flying power plant part will catch on.

[Ken Fabian]

I'm inclined to let discussions play out so long as no-one is being rude or offensive. I found the topic already closed when I looked; very likely it would end up that way and no genuine breakthroughs would be revealed yet there is always opportunity to learn or teach. Or amuse. I would have asked if, having found a means to make low cost low emissions energy that could save the world from climate destabilisation, should an inventor withhold all knowledge of it? Saving the world isn't enough?

[Sensei]

@studiot

I agree with you studiot. Closure of thread is tool of censorship, which we should avoid.

[iNow]

Hygiene matters. Much like sanitation workers, garbage truck drivers, and janitors do more to prevent global epidemics from spreading than does modern medicine, thread closure and even occasional banning prevents sites like this from degenerating into festering cesspits littered with trollish behavior from lunatic cranks and crackpots; a site where nobody worth our time bothers to continue visiting. 

Bakance is important. We agree that we must err on the side of openness, but it’s hardly as cut and dry as you suggest. We’re speaking of gray shades here, not blacks and whites. Dismissing it as censorship, while laudable as an ideal, misses certain practical realities, IMO. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by iNow

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Closure of thread is tool of censorship, which we should avoid.

I suspect the decision had more to do with normal moderator actions than something as nefarious as censorship.

[Endy0816]

I know sometimes I want to continue the debate too, but it was turning into yet another, "I have made this great invention/discovery but don't want to discuss details" threads. :/

In contrast there's a similar PMM thread that is still going. That poster at least provided enough material on the design for extended discussion.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Endy0816

[michel123456]

I agree about the prematurate closing.

I was also impressed by the " Unfortunately, after the publication I will lose intellectual property rights on my technology, Such is the legislation "

On the balance we have on one side personal fame (& money) and on the other side we have universal benefice. And as it seems personal interest is heavier. Of course.

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

I was also impressed by the " Unfortunately, after the publication I will lose intellectual property rights on my technology, Such is the legislation "

As it is not true, I'm not sure why you would be impressed. 

If this really were some groundbreaking new invention, then discussing it with people before protecting your rights would be extremely foolish.

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

I agree with you studiot. Closure of thread is tool of censorship, which we should avoid.

Of course it isn't censorship. The information (what little of it there was) is still there. The OP is free to tell people about his invention but chooses not to.  

 

[studiot]

I am certainly not suggesting censorship afoot.

I am also pretty sure the OP is another pipe dream.

So thank you for all the responses so far, but will no one care to discuss the question I presented at the end of my opening post?

 

The context of this is that yesterday I saw three threads polluted with meaningless word salad and the continuation of a thread of complete drivel about fluid mechanics, which has been allowed to run to 5 pages now. At the same time a couple of new members with genuine technical queries seem to have got lost in the noise.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

The context of this is that yesterday I saw three threads polluted with meaningless word salad and the continuation of a thread of complete drivel about fluid mechanics, which has been allowed to run to 5 pages now.

Did you report those threads?

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

I suspect the decision had more to do with normal moderator actions than something as nefarious as censorship.

It's a bit sad really, to think that, considering the behaviour patterns of our mods is well-known. The last thing I would call them is censorial. The lines have been drawn through years of experience.

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

Did you report those threads?

Affirmative.

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's a bit sad really, to think that, considering the behaviour patterns of our mods is well-known. The last thing I would call them is censorial. The lines have been drawn through years of experience.

No I think that the fact that we are able to openly discuss the matter shows there is no overt or covert censorial policy.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Affirmative.

No I think that the fact that we are able to openly discuss the matter shows there is no overt or covert censorial policy.

Exactly.

[Phi for All]

OK, so we ran into a convergence of red flags on this thread. Ilige used the last of their 5 first-day posts to state that they couldn't tell us about their idea because of laws in their country. It seemed like there would be nothing to discuss, so the thread was closed.

Language was another difficulty, so after the thread was closed we asked Ilige if we understood the situation correctly. Apparently the idea isn't something they can share, but they were hoping they could get an idea of how to approach the energy industry properly to ensure the best deal selling the concept. Ilige will think about it some more, and if they feel they can share anything for discussion, they'll open another thread on it. 

I was convinced Ilige was being coy about their overunity device, and wanted us to persuade them to tell us all about it. I was wrong, and helping someone sell an idea they won't tell us about is not a good use of our time for conversations, and swansont was right to shut it down.

[koti]

Boring.

[nevim]

14 minutes ago, koti said:

Boring.

I know. And it’s Friday night...

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, koti said:

Boring.

... and then an ominous droning sound made the hair on everyone's neck stand up as the enormous flying power plant appeared against the backdrop of the dark and stormy night sky. Electricity arced down at the buildings and people below, its vivid lashes lighting up the sky like fireworks.

[nevim]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

... and then an ominous droning sound made the hair on everyone's neck stand up as the enormous flying power plant appeared against the backdrop of the dark and stormy night sky. Electricity arced down at the buildings and people below, its vivid lashes lighting up the sky like fireworks.

Ah, thank you. Nice bedtime story  Goodnight.

[koti]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

... and then an ominous droning sound made the hair on everyone's neck stand up as the enormous flying power plant appeared against the backdrop of the dark and stormy night sky. Electricity arced down at the buildings and people below, its vivid lashes lighting up the sky like fireworks.

Thats what Im talking about!

[Bignose]

Did you guys all forget that this is a discussion forum? The OP starts a thread on a forum, by definition, because they want to discuss something. Then OP in a matter of a very short time says (paraphrasing) "well, actually I can't discuss it". 

So... if there isn't anything to discuss, why are we surprised that the thread was closed? There is little need to document everyone asking questions and providing critiques that OP has stated they cannot or will not answer. Thread closure is the logical next step; if there is to be no discussion, then there is no point on a discussion forum.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Bignose

[swansont]

On 3/28/2019 at 6:27 PM, studiot said:

I must say I was disappointed with both the premature closure of this thread on power generation and the immediately adverse and even hostile reception a new member received.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118572-i-offer-the-innovation-green-technology-of-generation-of-the-electric-power-by-means-of-a-new-renewable-energy-resource/?tab=comments#comment-1099130

 

I say premature closure because I have just looked at the thread for the first time and it is already closed.

You are not privy to discussion that occurred between the OP and staff, but even in the thread the OP confirmed that they would not be discussing any technical details. I don’t see that they were treated any differently than anyone who shows up and declares their intent to soapbox and advertise.

And I can’t find it in the rules that your review/permission is required to close a thread.

On 3/28/2019 at 10:56 PM, Sensei said:

@studiot

I agree with you studiot. Closure of thread is tool of censorship, which we should avoid.

That’s not what we’re discussing, and “censorship” has been discussed many times before.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

And I can’t find it in the rules that your review/permission is required to close a thread. 

Nor would I expect it to be.

Is it then in the rules that an OP may not change their mind and admit they were wrong about something?

 

Oh I forgot, he had used up all his current allocation immediately before closure.

So this was not a possible course of action for him.

On 3/29/2019 at 6:31 PM, Phi for All said:

Ilige used the last of their 5 first-day posts to state that they couldn't tell us about their idea because of laws in their country

 

3 hours ago, Bignose said:

Did you guys all forget that this is a discussion forum?

How is this a discussion when no one is prepared to address the only question in my opening post ?

Is it somehow also against the rules to offer the OP a better course of action?

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You are not privy to discussion that occurred between the OP and staff

 

No of course not. I was not even aware there was any.

But please note that I have not said that the thread should not eventually have been closed, only that I could see a way of helping overcome one of the obstacles he identified, notably that of the resources required for a large scale implementation.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

How is this a discussion when no one is prepared to address the only question in my opening post ?

 

In response to your only question; it is okay to ask him if he can build a small scale demonstration.

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

In response to your only question; it is okay to ask him if he can build a small scale demonstration.

 

And at least one person did suggest building a demonstration device.