Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

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

 

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

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

@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

@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

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

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

"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