Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

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

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 515193
  • *Total Topics: 15322
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 499705 times)

Offline Enstenow

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #135 on: December 07, 2013, 01:51:59 AM »
Hi, Red_Sunset

On the previous page, all your arguments are erroneous
Your explanations are inaccurate.

No matter,
The truth will come out !

In a few months, you will understand that RAR energia deceives you, that Renato Ribeiro laughs at you.


Please...
Have you a mechanical and scientific explanation to justify these technical anomalies ???

- Official picture n° 39  (brazil) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem39a.JPG ( picture attach n° 1 )
- Official picture n° 40  (brazil) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG  ( picture attach n° 2 )
- Official picture n° 04 (Illinois) : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2004%20br.JPG  ( picture attach n° 3 )

I repeat,
All the official picture is really computer generated images !


Regards,  Enstenow

 



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #135 on: December 07, 2013, 01:51:59 AM »

Offline gdez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #136 on: December 07, 2013, 03:14:37 AM »
Hey!
 Why don't we just see if it works? Now, we have satellite spying , creepers in commando suits, wtf!!If i EVER COME UP WITH THE ULTIMATE FREE ENERGY DEVICE.. i will certainly not tell you mother f r's. 
 Get a grip,
 greg

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #137 on: December 07, 2013, 08:16:39 AM »
Hi, Red_Sunset

On the previous page, all your arguments are erroneous
Your explanations are inaccurate.
....................................................................
.............................................................
I repeat,
All the official picture is really computer generated images !

Regards,  Enstenow

Mr Enstenow,
I appreciate you have a specific view, and I would understand your argument so long you explain what you are trying to communicate.  I am not clear on the points you trying to make and their context to your argument.
I do understand that the pictures show modifications to the equipment.
They can be considered normal during the installation process for new equipment,  that is still developing and being improved. Or so we could assume, this being being most likely, since we have no further information details.
I can see no reason to assume, that there is a far fetched conspiracy theory with the information seen to-date, the scenario you presented.

Please substantiate you argument with information you haven't shared.  So we can have a productive dialog.

Regards, Red

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #137 on: December 07, 2013, 08:16:39 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PiCéd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #138 on: December 07, 2013, 12:28:42 PM »
Produce energy with only gravity is impossible, the result of is equation is 0, it is maintly time proven and it is the same thing for only magnetism.

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #139 on: December 07, 2013, 01:36:48 PM »
Produce energy with only gravity is impossible, the result of is equation is 0, it is maintly time proven and it is the same thing for only magnetism.

I fully agree, the laws of conservation/Thermo-dynamics state this very clearly.
Time has proven this position to be indisputable. Does this mean in perpetuity?
It is a high risk area to meddle in, I agree.   For a A-Z natural process flow, I agree. 

A process that has been interfered with, can make a totally different case.
Maybe if we do     look for a loophole, even if there is none, ignorance would be too bliss.

Regards, Red_Sunset
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 06:03:47 PM by Red_Sunset »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #139 on: December 07, 2013, 01:36:48 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #140 on: December 07, 2013, 03:09:15 PM »
@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:

1) I guess that most people know permanent magnets and gravity can not provide energy for a motor according to conventional science.

2) I appreciate people who put time, effort and money into trying to overcome this conventional wisdom. Why not try? There are many things which we do not know, I would say we know almost nothing which is out there in the universe. If some one proclaims that he wants to try to build a machine which overcomes conventional science, so be it, very commendable. But please, do not announce success without proof. You will not find believers, only misguided people will follow you.

3) What I really hate are people who claim to have overcome conventional science without providing proof. And equally funny are people who immediately endorse such claims without having received proof. We have seen a great number of "inventors" proclaiming OU or who put forward other outrageous claims and who want to be believed without providing proof. This is very strange and we should not even talk to such idiots.

Conclusion:
It will be well received if you announce attempts, tries and research concerning OU or other so called "impossible machines". But it will cause ridicule and averse reactions if you want to be believed without providing good proof. If you want to keep a secret, shut up. Talking around a secret with stupid hints is totally useless.

Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in
Brasilia and the other in the USA):

To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.

The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.

Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.

Greetings, Conrad

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #141 on: December 07, 2013, 06:00:57 PM »
@gdez, @Red_Sunset, @PiCéd:

................................................................

............................................

Coming back to the two gigantic machines discussed in this thread (one in [/b]Brasilia and the other in the USA):

To hope that it will work is o.k., to speculate that it will work is o.k., but proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.

The inventor or firm building the two gigantic machines are doing a bad job as far as convincing the world is concerned. Strange advertisements do not support credibility. Announcements without proof are not helpful. Why not do the obvious, why not let other people do independent measurements? Why not at least publish measurements and the measurement method? If there are no measurements at the moment, well, the announcement was then premature. Premature announcements are always very bad for ones reputation.

Of course, the inventor has no obligation to do anything. But if he wants to be believed, he should do the obvious.

Greetings, Conrad

Conradelecktro,

You have spoken some wise words, 
Nothing to delete,  only something to add if I may,

1.. To hope that it will work is o.k.,
2.. To speculate that it will work is o.k.,
 but
3.. proclaiming that it works should only be done simultaneous with providing proof.
4.. proclaiming that it DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.

Regarding your last line about a believable inventor
To be believable, as an inventor, you will have to bare ALL details about your invention to conclusively prove your claim, this is easily done in a boardroom with a selected audience. To broadcast those details on a public forum clashes with all business interests he might have with his invention.
We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap.  It will never happen.  Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.

Regards, red





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #141 on: December 07, 2013, 06:00:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #142 on: December 07, 2013, 07:45:11 PM »
Nothing to delete,  only something to add if I may,

4. proclaiming that it DOESN'T WORK should only be done simultaneous with providing some proof or reasonable analysis to support.

We should never expect that we can take the easy way out by expecting an inventor to throw the blueprints with instruction data into you lap.  It will never happen.  Discovery will have to come from within this forum community by due diligence, not by way of a free lunch.

Regards, red

@Red_Sunset:

1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.

2) Nobody has to prove that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor is not possible. Classical science says that gravitational forces and also the forces of permanent magnets can not be used to drive a motor because these forces can not be switched on and off or can not be made weaker by shielding, the shield itself interacts with gravity or magnetism in a way to counteract the shielding. No more proof necessary. That is all there is to say.

So you see, demanding proof that OU is not possible and that a permanent magnet motor or a gravity motor are not possible is utter stupidity.

You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.

Therefore, if you claim OU you have to give proof. If you claim a permanent magnet motor you have to give proof. If you claim a gravity motor you have to give proof. Conventional science says very clearly, that this can not exist. Why should any one repeat 200 years of science? Every inventor should know conventional science in his field. He might not agree with conventional science, but he can not demand that anybody teaches him conventional science.

3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.

Greetings, Conrad

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #143 on: December 07, 2013, 08:43:32 PM »
@Red_Sunset:
1) Nobody has to prove that OU is not possible. Just mention "conservation of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. So, if someone proclaims an OU-device one cites "conservation of energy" and that is all the proof there is against it.
2) ...................................................
You might not like these standard proofs given by conventional science, but more proof is not possible.
.................................................
......................
Greetings, Conrad

Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
The results will not be "well" either because you are not addressing both aspects (science/technical & business).
When there is a bi-directional interchange, things change dramatically. (like win-win for example)

3) Nobody expects that an inventor gives away anything for free. But if he wants to be believed by the general public, he has to publish credible proof. May be the inventor does not care about the general public, but why does he publish his claim in a newspaper advertisment? I see the "desire to be believed" in these strange advertisments.
Greetings, Conrad

I do not think any inventor in this field wants to be believed by the general public.  What would be the incentive ?  The general public would not be the direct users in any case. 
The prime objective would be to get the invention into production, now that needs help from the business world, finance and others.  To be believed by the academic world would have importance because it would provide assurance for the business world (investor confidence ...ect), but is not necessary essential.

For example, did someone came to you in the 80's (or general public) to get your buy-in to the workability of the concept of a cell phone network.  I don't think so. Were investors and other key businesses approached and the academic world consulted, I am pretty sure they were to get their buy-in, to get it off the ground.

I do not think that we were the intended audience of these strange adverts you are referring to.
Regards, Red

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #143 on: December 07, 2013, 08:43:32 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #144 on: December 07, 2013, 09:31:25 PM »
Hi Conrad,
You present an interesting angle,
I agree that you can justifiable take a position of high standing, but that position is not going to serve you well.
...........
Regards, Red

I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".

But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)

Someone who makes an extraordinary claim (in science, in technology or in any area of human interaction) must provide proof. Nobody has to prove him wrong. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.

If one makes an extraordinary claim and if one does not provide proof (for whatever reason), one will be ridiculed, scolded, taken for a fool and one's reputation will suffer severely. Such is the nature of extraordinary claims.

All the strange people who showed up in this forum with their extraordinary claims wanted to be believed without providing proof. Well, they were not believed and they disappeared and no working device ever surfaced.

I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:

- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent

Greetings, Conrad

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #145 on: December 07, 2013, 10:02:29 PM »
I do not take a position of high standing and I do not defend "conventional science".

But I do not allow to turn the burden of proof around. (I am realistic enough to realise that nobody has to listen to me.)
....................................................................................
I hope that the gigantic machines will be different, but so far everything happens like with all extraordinary claims:

- secrecy
- extraordinary claims
- strange revelations (which are absolutely not helpful)
- useless patent

Greetings, Conrad

Having said all that, lets dig in a bit deeper  ( I agree that the world isn't perfect, and we do not always get our own way). 

So what do YOU want out of any exchange in this forum ?
    1.. A workable blueprint explained by the designer/inventor ?
    2.. Some knowledge that can possibly advance your own inventory of idea's
    3.. Or something else ......?

With reference to required info that needs to be supplied by the inventor,
As an example, lets focus on Renato Ribeiro, as an inventor (his profession), he made available publicly the most comprehensive documentation (drawing and explanatory text in the patent) and photo's of his invention on the website (the piece lacking as I read is the working video).  It is rare to have this much information available on a new invention.

Sure Ribeiro makes some (extra-ordinary) claims in his patent application.  He described the working principle of his invention.
   1.. Did he explain his idea well enough ?  If no, what did he garble?
   2.. Is he wrong?  meaning did he made assumptions that are not possible ?  If yes what and why are they not possible?
   3.. Is his patent application useless (do you think you should tell him not to proceed and waste his money) ?

Would all this satisfy the need for information discussed in this forum, I would assume it does.  Although I still see a lot of objections and denunciations.  Is there still something lacking ?.
If the answer is yes, please tell me, what is it !.  So we can utilize this forum beneficially !
Please enlighten me.

Regards, Red




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #145 on: December 07, 2013, 10:02:29 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1680
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #146 on: December 07, 2013, 10:23:01 PM »
Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.

I have not received enough hints. So be it.

I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.

I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.

Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.

That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).

Greetings, Conrad

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #147 on: December 07, 2013, 11:19:52 PM »
Well, Red_Sunset, you seem to have received enough hints to let you believe that the gigantic machine is indeed working. So be it.
I have not received enough hints. So be it.
I do not make the rules in this forum and I do not want to make them. But I do state what I like and what I do not like.
I do not like people who make extraordinary claims without providing proof. So be it.
Not having proof does not seem to bother you. So be it.
That is all there is left for me to say. You have won. I have lost (mainly time, which is my own fault).
Greetings, Conrad 
Hi Conrad,   
I am sorry you feel this way, you seem to be limiting your world by your own choice and winning or loosing is not the point here.
I get the feeling that you need to "break a leg" over it before you consider it proof.  Sometimes it is only a hint that eventually leads to the proof.

The good hint (as you call it) is a plain explanation in the patent, section [0046], I made reference to this in a previous posting.

It says the following.
[0046] The force of gravity exerted over the weight is trans
ferred to the assembly through the central shaft. This shaft,
depending on where the locks are exercising the support, if
they are on the positive or neutral arms and when, transfer
more or less force to the blue bar.
This in turn transfers the
force to the crankshaft arm that is transferred to the crankshaft
where the torque is applied.

What is being said is, that the weight force to the blue bar is not the same all the time. It is more clear further in the patent, that there are two forces, a downward weight force and a lever force. Both aiding the rotation of the crankshaft.
I would guess that the effect of this additional lever energy quantity is relatively small (** due to the effect of initially opposing the direction of rotation and not optimum force angles).

I would guess this the reason for the additional changes seen in the pictures (with a balanced telescopic weight lever) and the reason it was not envisaged or documented in the patent.
Is this the proof you need ?, that depends on your own verification requirement, theoretical, practical or otherwise. Your choice.
But please do not say, he doesn't proof his claim.  He does says he verified this force effect and used it as the fundamental principle of his invention, what more can you expect from the inventor at this point.  In this case, where do you want to draw the line of "no proof to proof". We surely can put a certain amount of trust in his word, reputation...ect

 In the end, the absolute proof lies with you, (at least in this type of circumstance)  in the same way you verified in the class lab what was said in the theory class, peer verified.  This I would call "indisputable practical proof" .  A lot lies in the understanding of proof and the reasons why to want a specific level of authentication.  "Absolute indisputable proof" comes for me toward the end of the proof process. There are many steps in between.

I hope this helps
Regards, Red

This post last modification was 8 Dec 13  @ 7:07AM   OU-server time
« Last Edit: December 08, 2013, 07:10:08 AM by Red_Sunset »

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #148 on: December 28, 2013, 03:25:07 PM »
Well said, Red Sunset. :)

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #149 on: December 29, 2013, 04:49:11 PM »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...

in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.

Poit

 

OneLink