Not really. The challenge needs to be fair to work and that's the only requirement for it to work.
It also needs to be accepted - people have to present themselves to be tested. Being fair is important, but not sufficient for that, our target audience also needs to
see that it is fair. It's like the old saw about justice.
Sylvia browne continues to avoid the test, this fact is a clear statement enough on her validity but she continues to make excuses and accusations regardless.
Connie Soon took the test, she failed. She makes excuses for it just like Browne does and there is no real difference between them.
Do we really expect the test to change the attitudes of people like Connie and Sylvia? Surely the point is to generate discussion, provide sceptics with a re-joiner, and provide an education point for the observers ... the people who may otherwise find these claims convincing? The exact aims are spelled out.
I submit that the MDC will better fulfil its aims
with regard to pmm if people get tested than if they don't. It is possible to fulfil these aims without - just not as well. You have countered that we don't need to test to fulfil the aims - fine: that is not being disputed.
The MDC should not lower its standards just to become more popular in applications.
But I am not advocating
lowering standards. In fact, my proposal would increase standards for entry by insisting that a specific class of definitive empirical test be carried out to make a pmm eligible for consideration.
It is a characteristic of pmm work that those doing the work studiously avoid this sort of testing. We should encourage them to take this step should we not?
You are compromising your values because you fail to note that it is impossible to test a device that's not currently operational.
<digression>Then substantiate the claim: What is the value that is being compromised? How? Without substantiation, are you not just dismissing my claims out of hand? After all, I have supplied
you with examples to illustrate what I mean. How would you feel if I just responded "well, you are compromising your values by failing to note that it has to be possible to test non-operational devices." without support?</digression>
If we insist that a pmm must work in order to be a candidate for testing, then no pmm proposal can ever be considered because none of them can ever work. Perhaps what you mean is that we can only consider for testing those machines which are claimed to be working - and appear to be doing
something? Perhaps you mean that the claimant must produce a machine that demonstrably does work, and we test to see if it is a pmm (or just a normal engine like we are used to.)
There is a problem with terminology - we should not refer to working or operational PM machines a-priori since this is what the test is supposed to determine. It is a discipline in science to avoid prejudicial language. We can only test proposals, propositions, and claims.
It
is possible to test a device that is not (known to be) currently operational. To
illustrate what I mean: Edison (probably, his employees) tested 1000s of non or insufficiently operational light bulbs before hitting on the final "working" configuration.
With that in mind: I have provided an example, actually several, on the link. How does that example not measure up?
Here is another example:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/smot.htm
Perhaps what is really needed is a neutrally worded description of how you would be able to tell that a claimed pmm was suitable for testing for the MDC?
In a nutshell, that is the key question in the first post.
Of course
technically what I have proposed is not a test of a pmm. at all.
For example - in Donalds examples (links), the claim being tested is not "this is a pmm" - but that "the moving weights help the wheel move". If this claim is born out, with sufficient attention paid to the controls, then it would appear that something sufficiently extraordinary is happening to warrant the attention of the JREF. We'd want to see a refined test of the claim: "the moving weights help the wheel move to such an extent that, should other dissipative effects be sufficiently reduced, it would constitute a perpetual motion machine." Which is a trickier, but possible, test.
So, strictly speaking, the pmm has not been tested exactly because it does not work. I have asserted that this sort of test can constitute an indirect test of the concepts behind the design. And it is possible to construct such a test so that its outcome is not a matter of opinion or interpretation.
An alternative way of describing Donalds example is to point out that the proposed test actually measures the efficiency of the wheel in storing energy - the wheel, then, includes a
working over-unity device.
Provide the initial acceleration to the wheel with a weight falling a certain distance. The wheel probably has an axle. Put a peg in the axle, and fasten a string on that peg. Wind up the string around the axle. Hang a weight on the other end of the string. Now tinker a bit, so that the weight is large enough to give a brisk rpm to the wheel as the weight "falls" to the floor, but takes a reasonably long time to do so, perhaps at least 10 or 20 seconds. Make sure it gets moving fast enough that the wheel's performance enhancing mechanisms are actually operating. Now time the weight's fall with a good stopwatch in two cases: (1) with all your performance enhancing mechanisms working and (2) with those mechanisms disabled.
--- from the web page.
... so the "enhancing mechanisms" are the working over-unity device for the purposes of the MDC, they just happen to be utilised in a lossy way (it is claimed). Their energy enhancing effect is revealed by the test... if they really work.
The device is "operational" in the sense that it is [appears to be] doing something paranormal which is consistent with the requirements of the MDC.
