Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82254
  • *Latest: Zapp

  • *Total Posts: 496637
  • *Total Topics: 14616
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 219
  • *Total: 223

Facebook

Author Topic: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications  (Read 4591 times)

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2017, 12:26:37 AM »
@h20power

You have it all wrong man.

@AlienGrey

I did not understand your post.

wattsup


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2017, 01:31:04 AM »
@h20power

You have it all wrong man.


wattsup


What do I have wrong?


I have been at this since March of 2006 and in this time I have seen many people fall flat on their faces trying to go at this technology not making use of the scientific method. Most of them have shown me quite clearly that they can't read or understand what it is they are reading on Meyer's technology. I have seen with my own eyes people showing their waveforms with only a positive voltage on it and also seen them actually tuning their waveforms to have just a positive voltage when if one actually reads the technical brief Meyer clearly states that the waveform must have an equal positive and negative voltage being applied to the water fuel cell/excitor array. I have had many of these none reading people tell me that I have it all wrong when I show my waveforms and when I point out to them just where in the technical brief Meyer states that the waveform must have both positive and negative voltages they go mute on me. These people like to go to the pictures only for their information as there sure Meyer does in fact show a lot of positive only waveforms but Meyer does this assuming that those whom are viewing those pictures have actually read the information he provided in writing for those pictures these fools love to wave at me claiming that I am doing everything all wrong. They totally ignore the fact that no one else is reaching these voltage levels I am applying to my excitor arrays and in fact no one that I know of has even reached the 4.2 kv I showed being applied to the exciter array in 2013 and I have more than doubled that since then.
I made a pdf file showing how the waveforms are supposed to look and why they are supposed to look that way but that too has been ignored by mostly everyone as far as I can tell. What is being shown in that pdf file is what I have actually learned making use of the scientific method on Meyer's technology. Only now have I learned how to increase the voltages to over 1kv per resonant cavity as I still had more to learn. People don't like these post I make as it clearly shows that what they are doing is so far off from what Meyer was actually doing that they might as well put someone else's name on it.


Meyer's technology is not for the faint hearted or the troubled minded as getting at the actually science behind all of Meyer's made up words is truly a difficult task. Meyer made up all of those fake terms to hide the technology in plain sight so that when people would read it they would have no clue to just what he had done and I must say it has worked beautifully for him as his plan truly worked until someone like me came around making use of the scientific method that would not listen to those whom are not making use of the scientific method. And if I don't listen to those whom are actually doing work but not making use of the scientific method that goes double for those that aren't doing anything at all and just have an idea in their heads about how they think it all works. If I had not done these things I'd be as lost as everyone else is on this technology and would have never solved it. But this is not to say I don't learn from other people's mistakes as I do but it is saying that most of the time I am the one that figures out that these people are making mistakes as they themselves never figure that out on their own. So, if you are saying that people with nothing but an idea in their heads need to be heard I say your wrong as an untested idea has no merit.


These people need to learn to sit these things out as if they aren't willing to test their own ideas and run around expecting others to test those ideas for them they are expecting too much. If you are not testing with real world experiments then trust me you have no say in the matter on how it all works as you have nothing real from which to base your ideas with in the first place. I have seen how these people work in that someone will say something that sounds good and then another picks up on that idea and runs with it and then hands it over to someone else to run with which somehow is supposed to make that idea factual and that is not the way it works by a long shot. Ideas have to be tested with real world experiments to see if the idea was a good one or a bad one or someplace in between. I have done this testing and observed the results and from there I ask and answer even more questions. Each failure is learned from as that is how the scientific method works and trust me I have failed plenty but I learned with each and every failure. And when I learned something I went back to reading to make sense of Meyer's made up words that were used to hide the technology and keep people from stealing his work from him. I did this over and over again until I had all of his made up words matched up with real world scientific terms. The hardest part was the science that turned out to be new to the scientific community as that had me looking over things we thought we already knew. But I don't teach anymore so people are going to have to live with what I left behind when I was in a teaching mood to study off of. This makes a lot of people mad at me as again they have ideas they wish to use with this technology and I guess rightfully so I am holding them back. But I don't care as I have a plan in place that I am following that will get this technology into the markets so that all will have a chance at getting it.


So again show me where I am wrong?








Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2017, 03:05:10 AM »
@h20power

I was referring to your post about my person which had nothing to do with anything Meyer related. In that you are totally wrong.

About Meyer, I have never looked deeply into his nor your works so I cannot comment.

You can always point me to where your works are published and I can have a look at it and offer you a unique perspective based on my Spin Conveyance construct that I have been developing since many years now and that I have been putting out there slowly. So if you want a totally out of the box perspective, not to figure out what he was doing but to make yours work even better, that I would agree too. But I will not run after the Meyer secrets nor can I put aside time to build Meyer based stuff.

I have however done a few youtubes using a microscope showing how water fractures showing the Atoms "shooting" which is one of six of the Atomic attributes in my SC construct.

Aim way higher then Meyer man. It's the only way.

wattsup

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2017, 05:19:24 AM »
@h20power

I was referring to your post about my person which had nothing to do with anything Meyer related. In that you are totally wrong.

About Meyer, I have never looked deeply into his nor your works so I cannot comment.

You can always point me to where your works are published and I can have a look at it and offer you a unique perspective based on my Spin Conveyance construct that I have been developing since many years now and that I have been putting out there slowly. So if you want a totally out of the box perspective, not to figure out what he was doing but to make yours work even better, that I would agree too. But I will not run after the Meyer secrets nor can I put aside time to build Meyer based stuff.

I have however done a few youtubes using a microscope showing how water fractures showing the Atoms "shooting" which is one of six of the Atomic attributes in my SC construct.

Aim way higher then Meyer man. It's the only way.

wattsup


I didn't mention anything about you personally other than to say you where wrong in your assumption that someone not knowing anything could give useful advise on a technology they know nothing about. Just as right now you have no idea about how Meyer's technology works as you haven't taken the time to read anything about it nor have you performed any useful experiments designed to answer any questions you might have about the technology as you haven't even read the patents or technical brief fully. Thus you make a perfect example of someone not to be listened too when they try and give advice on how they think this technology works to break the bonds of the water molecules that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. Would you agree with this assessment?


My point was very clear in that someone not building and testing things and also not making use of the scientific method is really not to be listened too as they aren't doing things in a constructive manor and someone not doing anything other than thinking about the technology has absolutely no say in the matter. But what I have found in forums such as these is those that do nothing but sit around thinking want the ideas they come up with in their heads taken just as seriously as those of us that are performing actual hands on experiments and observing the results. I have had some of these thinkers tell me am I sure I saw what I saw as if I didn't observe the things that I have because it doesn't fit with the idea they have thought up in their heads not having a single experiment performed on to see if the idea is valid or not. These are the types of people that I find forums like these attract mostly people whom do nothing but want to be taken seriously anyway. They run around in packs supporting each others unproven ideas and building upon them not performing a single experiment in the real world as they do so.


I posted that bit about the voltage requirements to show that what I have been doing is heading in the right direction as many have come against me telling everyone that they don't need high voltage to get this technology to work correctly. Others just look at the pictures and try and duplicate that and get really mad at me when I point them to Meyer's own words stating that there must be a positive and negative voltage of equal magnitude shown in their waveforms not just a positive one as is seen in most of the drawings.


What I find interesting is each time I'd make a discovery and share what I had learned about the technology it was immediately challenged and "so-called" debunked by the forum leaders in groups like the RWGresearch, Ionizationx, and many other forums. It got so bad that there developed a great divide in what was truth and what was fiction and guess where most people spent most of their time? The fiction section. You see in the fiction section all ideas where winners and no one ever truly challenged much of anything and the scientific method was strictly not to be used in any way, shape, or form. I saw this divide forming and was basically powerless to do anything about it. Once they gained the support of the forum members I would always be shown the door and if I refused to do banned for trying to make a stand for truth. This is one of the last forums I am allowed to post in due to these people and their land of fiction they have created to replace the truth. But now their forums have began to run dry as they have simply run out of ideas to keep pushing things forwards as they did in the past. It took a while for them to run out of steam though and in their wake they have made sure that anyone trying to figure out Meyer's technology could never be done if they followed their lead. They tell you everything not to be doing most of the time and make up entirely new meanings for Meyer's already made up meanings where are really just him re-branding things we already know in science so he could hide his technology in plain sight.


Most people I did try and work with either fell short when it came to getting the right test equipment needed for this technology or got frustrated with their results and started making things up to please their doners so that it looked like there were making progress when in all truth there were not. Others simply ran out of money as this technology can be quite costly to build things the right way and most of those I still talk to too this day as it's not their fault that they ran out of funds to complete what it is they started. But the sour taste left in my mouth by those whom rose against me stopped me from ever wanting to teach this technology again as now I will just point people to Meyer's patents, lecture videos, and written work they can find on the internet as after all that is what I had to work with. On this forum I have left a lot of things I figured out and something I got wrong along the way for people to go over but they must first drop what those pretenders have left behind and be prepared to actually make use of the scientific method. I have lead people in the right direction but I will not complete the task for them as I have seen first hand that something given freely is treated as if it has no value. Thus they must all work for it just as I had to do as then and only then will they give this technology a real sense of value.


I am no ones teacher anymore as now my mission has changed towards trying to bring this technology into the marketplace by way of mass production so that the masses can afford to have it one day. If anyone one out there has a different idea as to how they would do things differently let them start at the beginning and make their ideas come true by working towards figuring out this technology on their own with what clues I left behind and the stuff Meyer left behind.

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2017, 01:30:09 PM »
I didn't mention anything about you personally other than to say you where wrong in your assumption that someone not knowing anything could give useful advise on a technology they know nothing about.

Sorry but you are putting words in my mouth and actions that I never did. I never said "someone not knowing". Usually when someone talks about an effect it's because they know something about it. My previous post was about should you replicate or not and how can time be better put to use. I never talked about Meyer.

Quote
Just as right now you have no idea about how Meyer's technology works as you haven't taken the time to read anything about it nor have you performed any useful experiments designed to answer any questions you might have about the technology as you haven't even read the patents or technical brief fully.

Wrong again. I said "I have never looked deeply into his or your works to comment." Look we all know Meyer at one level or another but not at the level you hope to discourse. 

Quote
Thus you make a perfect example of someone not to be listened too when they try and give advice on how they think this technology works to break the bonds of the water molecules that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. Would you agree with this assessment?

I was totally honest in my portrayal and never provided any comment on Meyer so I don't know why you keep thinking so. Please read, then take the time required to think about what you post. Between the time I posted and your last post was very short for such a long post so how much time did you actually take to re-read, edit, modify or decide it's better not to post such a reply.

Quote
My point was very clear in that someone not building and testing things and also not making use of the scientific method is really not to be listened too as they aren't doing things in a constructive manor and someone not doing anything other than thinking about the technology has absolutely no say in the matter. But what I have found in forums such as these is those that do nothing but sit around thinking want the ideas they come up with in their heads taken just as seriously as those of us that are performing actual hands on experiments and observing the results.

Sorry but I have tried several HHO trials but you know what. That damn pop when you ignite that gas just scares the shit out of me so I stopped. Could not concentrate. I tried it enough to realize it was not for me. But that does not take away any of my analytical acumen based on years of everything. That you cannot build, but you can grow.

Quote
I have had some of these thinkers tell me am I sure I saw what I saw as if I didn't observe the things that I have because it doesn't fit with the idea they have thought up in their heads not having a single experiment performed on to see if the idea is valid or not. These are the types of people that I find forums like these attract mostly people whom do nothing but want to be taken seriously anyway. They run around in packs supporting each others unproven ideas and building upon them not performing a single experiment in the real world as they do so.

Well this is becoming stale. I feel your anguish but you have the control over what and who you listen to, not anyone else.

Quote
I posted that bit about the voltage requirements to show that what I have been doing is heading in the right direction as many have come against me telling everyone that they don't need high voltage to get this technology to work correctly. Others just look at the pictures and try and duplicate that and get really mad at me when I point them to Meyer's own words stating that there must be a positive and negative voltage of equal magnitude shown in their waveforms not just a positive one as is seen in most of the drawings.

Sorry I cannot help in that without more info. Positive and Negative voltage means nothing if you do not add a "alternatively", "simultaneously", "sporadically" or any other descriptor to figure out what he is saying. Or he is just saying something without thinking about the correct term. The use of equal magnitude becomes a distraction to that one fact. You see the problems these inventors leave behind.

Quote
What I find interesting is each time I'd make a discovery and share what I had learned about the technology it was immediately challenged and "so-called" debunked by the forum leaders in groups like the RWGresearch, Ionizationx, and many other forums. It got so bad that there developed a great divide in what was truth and what was fiction and guess where most people spent most of their time? The fiction section. You see in the fiction section all ideas where winners and no one ever truly challenged much of anything and the scientific method was strictly not to be used in any way, shape, or form. I saw this divide forming and was basically powerless to do anything about it. Once they gained the support of the forum members I would always be shown the door and if I refused to do banned for trying to make a stand for truth. This is one of the last forums I am allowed to post in due to these people and their land of fiction they have created to replace the truth. But now their forums have began to run dry as they have simply run out of ideas to keep pushing things forwards as they did in the past. It took a while for them to run out of steam though and in their wake they have made sure that anyone trying to figure out Meyer's technology could never be done if they followed their lead. They tell you everything not to be doing most of the time and make up entirely new meanings for Meyer's already made up meanings where are really just him re-branding things we already know in science so he could hide his technology in plain sight.

If you are that determined, why let those people stop you? But let me correct one thing. After so many years you are spending on this, this is no longer Meyer technology, it's your technology. Once you agree to that, the rest will start to take shape. Don't push a dead cart when you can make a better one.

Quote
Most people I did try and work with either fell short when it came to getting the right test equipment needed for this technology or got frustrated with their results and started making things up to please their doners so that it looked like there were making progress when in all truth there were not. Others simply ran out of money as this technology can be quite costly to build things the right way and most of those I still talk to too this day as it's not their fault that they ran out of funds to complete what it is they started. But the sour taste left in my mouth by those whom rose against me stopped me from ever wanting to teach this technology again as now I will just point people to Meyer's patents, lecture videos, and written work they can find on the internet as after all that is what I had to work with. On this forum I have left a lot of things I figured out and something I got wrong along the way for people to go over but they must first drop what those pretenders have left behind and be prepared to actually make use of the scientific method. I have lead people in the right direction but I will not complete the task for them as I have seen first hand that something given freely is treated as if it has no value. Thus they must all work for it just as I had to do as then and only then will they give this technology a real sense of value.

Hmmmmm. All this goes way above my head man. Shit happens. It's part of the scenery. It's part of the growing process.

Quote
I am no ones teacher anymore as now my mission has changed towards trying to bring this technology into the marketplace by way of mass production so that the masses can afford to have it one day. If anyone one out there has a different idea as to how they would do things differently let them start at the beginning and make their ideas come true by working towards figuring out this technology on their own with what clues I left behind and the stuff Meyer left behind.

Yep, many people  have abdicated to the stresses so you will not be the first. But if what you have learned is truly capital and has merit and potential value for humanity, then you are basically cheating yourself while blaming others to rationalize all this doom and gloom. Sorry to be blunt but I am not the source of all those problems.

wattsup


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2017, 01:30:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3934
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #35 on: November 28, 2017, 09:18:38 PM »
' So
in most cases replicating is just repeating the errors
of the past.'

OR,ridiculously improving the correctness of tomorrow

Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 465
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2017, 11:05:27 PM »
yes it's called radiant energy, every thing comes from it but electrons (screw with it), even your soul is energy from the cos-mos battery ;) your problem is you don't know hoe to tap into it, that's your main objective if its not make it so.

The fact people in power don't want you to know and make any one look stupid who asks questions in not important.

Y ou want Ricity not Electricity  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

AG
what? What has that got do with batteries?
You lost me.
Batteries can only cycle so many times before thier done.
artv

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2017, 11:05:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2017, 05:23:23 PM »
what? What has that got do with batteries?
You lost me.
Batteries can only cycle so many times before thier done.
artv
I would 'respectfully' say to you if you don't know then you should watch some of the older John Badini Educational films on youtube then you would know other wise you wont ever know how to make them last your lifetime and beyond.

Have fun learning

AG

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2017, 05:29:17 PM »
@h20power

You have it all wrong man.

@AlienGrey

I did not understand your post.

wattsup
Hi are you the guy 'Rus Greese' ? not sure of the spelling if your not the sorry i'm totally confused on this one ;)

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2017, 04:08:11 AM »
I would 'respectfully' say to you if you don't know then you should watch some of the older John Badini Educational films on youtube then you would know other wise you wont ever know how to make them last your lifetime and beyond.

Have fun learning

AG

So many claims by JB-so few working replications--in fact,not one working replication to date.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2017, 04:08:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: How We Should Approach And Proceed With Building Replications
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2017, 07:52:36 AM »
So many claims by JB-so few working replications--in fact,not one working replication to date.
Oh come on the guy  was in that group his hands were tied all he could do was mechanical
gain stuff school girl mechanics.

Or are you referring to hard core Moray type sea of energy so called statically charged ions collection thingy
Akula, Ruslan setups ?

How do you think the Gray's get here the so called 'visitors' the yanks BS that don't realty exist
yes how do they get here with out vast tanks of fuel, bloody easy peasy fuel is matter and therefor energy
and all are interchangeable if you know how change one to the other. What is it you want and why ?

Have you had any contact with 'desert experimenter' lately or whatever his name (had HD problems had to put the dam thing on it's side it's getting old lost a few files(shit happens)) he seams to be a keen experimenter with a good sense of humor.

Oh well chin up any things possible because it's already been done, catch ya later praps  ;D :(

AG

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink