It's not such a bad thing to have the doubters here. They serve to remind us of the status quo. They can remind us of the close minded scientific community that smugly believe that all that can be discovered, has been. Frankly I'm grateful for this attitude, it leaves me so many new and interesting things to explore. I love physics and mechanical devices, and to be able to combine the two and create interesting machines is endless fun.
The exact physics behind why something like Campbell's machine would produce more energy out than in is obviously not well understood. Nothing on this forum is well understood.
Standard Newtonian physics does not adequately explain mass in rotation. Gyroscopic devices are known to loose weight when the gyros are activated. Why? Who knows, but I'm not going to listen to some scientist tell me that it can't be happening because it doesn't fit one of his "laws".
When I saw a UFO, it wasn't Venus, swamp gas or my imagination. "Science" can't explain it so it must not exist.
Rex research has hundreds and hundreds of inventors who have created things that are "impossible" according to present scientific knowlege. Either all those inventors were smoking crack, or the "scientists" and "experts" have their head up their asses. I am heavily inclined to believe the latter.
I have yet to build a machine that I haven't learned a whole lot from. I use my brain and my imagination to try new things based on my scientific knowledge and what I see other guys doing. Sometimes it works but most of the time it doesn't. I figure if I get one in ten tries right, I'm doing well.
But it's all fun, that's what keeps me trying. It's a fascinating journey full of twists and turns, successes and failures. The naysayers only spur me on.

Ted

No one has suggested that they (or anyone else) "knows everything".  Certainly, everyone will agree that learning continues and amazing new discoveries will be revealed as time marches on.

The question I have asked is more along the lines "Do we know anything?  Have we learned anything at all useful from scientific inquiry?".   My example of trying forever to lift ones' self into graceful flight by tugging upwards upon ones' own buttocks...there are few here, I would guess, who will make a career or even hobby of various attempts at this feat.  Yet there are certainly untried angles, gripping techniques, tugging rhythms, special gloves, accompanying chants and mantras...ad nauseum. 

How does any of us know for certain that it cannot be done?  Why are not more of us attempting and discussing various nuances and approaches to this "possibility of" directly-self-powered anti-gravitational flight using only our bare hands?  Children often attempt it!  Fortunately, they fail each time or there would be a rash of 911 calls from terrified mothers whose children had floated away.

My question, which no one has attempted to answer, was simple and clear:  What exactly is it that anyone perceives as the hopeful principal of operation for a Charles Campbell or Jesse McQueen type of device?  All of the well-tested physics and science of mechanics and dynamics indicates that such a machine cannot ever hope to produce excess energy.  None has ever demonstrated it. 

So why do some here continue to believe there is a sound foundation of possibilities here?  I'm dying of curiosity to know what the difference is between the idea of self-lifting by simply butt-tugging upward (which I think nearly everyone can agree is futile) and the idea of producing self-sustaining excess energy using standard motors, dynamos, gears, pullies and flywheels?  Why in the world would anyone choose to pursue such a foolish notion?  Are we the same in this way as the innocent child who tries to lift herself skyward?  Do we believe in the impossible because we simply like to defy the wisdom of science?  Or is it because we, like little children, have not learned to think critically and use the knowledge learned over centuries and which has stood all tests so far?

I'm simply asking what ideas, facts, principals or theories anyone might have for believing in the possibility of a working overunity self-running Charles/McQueen type system.  So far, no one has offered any attempt at an answer!

Linda

"You can call this futile flight all you want to, but you will never really know until you personally explore the phenomenon."   

WHAT PHENOMENON?  I KEEP ASKING, BUT GET NO ANSWER!  THE ONLY PHENOMENA I SEE ASSOCIATED WITH CHARLES CAMPBELL'S CLAIMS AND DEVICES ARE SELF AND GROUP DELUSION, OUTRIGHT FRAUD AND ENDLESS WISHFUL THINKING.  THOSE ARE WHAT I'M "PERSONALLY EXPLORING" UNTIL SOMEONE ANSWERS THE QUESTION!

"You can call this futile flight all you want to, but you will never really know until you personally explore the phenomenon."

This (oft-expressed here) stupid idea flies directly in the face of the essence of learning and accumulation of built-up knowledge.  It more than implies, yes it actually demands, that nothing learned by anyone else prior, regardless of how many times, no matter how well proven or demonstrated or disproven and eliminated by how many learned experimenters, none of prior learned knowledge is valid, ever!  That suggests; no...it plainly states...that everything must be learned only from personal experimentation.  That's just plain arrogant and dumb, my friend!   Absolutely stupid statement.  

"It's easy to sit back and criticize and ridicule those who are trying something new. However, nothing new has ever been discovered by people who do this. It's the guys in the garage who don't give up, and keep plugging away at it who find success."  

No...I don't ridicule those who are trying something new.  I ridicule those who keep trying things that are so well known not to have any chance of working, like the Charles Campbell or Jesse McQueen (or any other contraption of motors. generators, gears, pullies and flywheels), that it defies all reason to keep trying.  To me, it is just as intuitively obvious that these silly ideas can never work as it is obvious that I shall never be able to lift myself into the sky with my own hands tugging on my bottom.

Do you really picture a mechanical contraption put together with off-the-shelf standard motors. dynamos and mechanical transmission elements suddenly taking off and running itself?  It's not even learned physics I rely on to discard such utterly dumb hopes...it's just the same basic common sense everyday knowledge of the way things work...same way i know the butt-tugging won't work.

I just can't believe people who claim to have some gray matter and savvy about technical physical things can buy into such totally idiotic delusions as the Charles Campbell or Jesse McQueen frauds any more than they would believe it if they were told someone had lifted their own butt into smooth and free flight by tugging upward.  

To answer your question as to why I'm here...I just have to say there are two reasons:

1.  It is extremely amusing and enlightening in regard to human folly, the psychology of deception, belief, faith and hope.  The avoidance of critical thinking and the invention of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo in an ego-driven sociological group psychology setting is fascinating to me.  Look at how many words have been said here in response to my simple question, yet still, no one answers!

2.  I like to look for any really new developments that could possibly provide overunity, despite my present belief that none ever have or will be found.  Is that okay with you?  I study engineering and psychology and I find sorting through the posts here and stimulating certain responses to be educational and fascinating.  Thanks!

Linda

How does any of us know for certain that it cannot be done?  Why are not more of us attempting and discussing various nuances and approaches to this "possibility of" directly-self-powered anti-gravitational flight using only our bare hands?  Children often attempt it!  Fortunately, they fail each time or there would be a rash of 911 calls from terrified mothers whose children had floated away.

It is debunkers like you who are having a chilling effect on self-powered flight research.  Your attempts at ridiculing this area of study are exactly what Big Air wants.  Can you imagine what would happen if we had self-powered flight?  All the airlines would go out of business and there would be financial collapse.  The powers that be, including President Bush and Dick Cheney, who all have considerable stock holdings in airlines, are already doing all they can to suppress self-powered flight.  Are you on their payroll?

Let me be the first to say NO, we will not be suppressed.  With enough open source community effort, we will have self-powered flight.  Then, we will have a truly free world where people are free to go where they please, and the government cannot shut down air travel on a whim (look at what happened after the fake 9/11 event - did you ever stop to think what was so important that day that the government had to ground all planes?).  This is why government does not want self-powered flight: the FAA would not be able to control travel and keep tabs on our citizenry, as they fly from state to state.

It is well known already that in parts of Asia, there has been considerable progress into self-powered flight.  Mainstream media are of course too vested with the airline industry to report anything about this, and any leaks are written off as silly Aladdin magic carpet fantasies, but do not be fooled.  There are many websites dedicated to spreading the truth about self-powered flight.  Open your mind.

Why do you think that when the government faked 9/11, they put Middle Eastern "terrorists" on planes?  Why would Middle Eastern people need to be on planes if they already had self-powered flight?  It does not make sense, does it?  Think.  Connect the dots.  It is a plot to convince us that there is no self-powered flight in the Middle East.

Please, do not spread disinformation here.  Big Air can pull the wool over the sheeple in the rest of the world, but not here.

Quote from: linda933 on November 17, 2007, 04:50:45 PM

So why do some here continue to believe there is a sound foundation of possibilities here? 


 I study engineering and psychology and I find sorting through the posts here and stimulating certain responses to be educational and fascinating.  Thanks!

Linda

  Linda, I think you're alright. Why do I think it is possible ? Math. Engineering and science are both based on them.
 So when I look at a specific design and apply the laws of physics and see momentum is generated, why not try it ?
 It could be that because some people say it is impossible that people who do try it, over complicate it.
 When I was in the Navy, they taught us the KISS principle. It is something that I have remembered.
 But just like anything else, to become familiar with something new takes time.
 If you take the time to read pequaides thread, you might find it interesting. But haven't seen you comment yet )

I think you're alright, too.  Maybe not the sharpest axe in the shed, but alright.  I may be even duller, myself.  For instance, I have no clue what you are tryng to say when you say: "when I look at a specific design and apply the laws of physics and see momentum is generated". 

What does that mean...momentum is generated?  That happens every time anything changes velocity relative to anything else in the universe.  To me, it says nothing at all about any specific situation or theory, since it is a totally and vastly unqualified and generally a semantically logically circular, meaningless statement.

But what else is new?  Illogic and mumbled jargon seems to be behind about 99% of the "research" being done on this forum and 100% on this particular thread!

Link me to this ??pesqualy?? thread you recommend...I'm ready!

Linda

Hi Linda,
I appreciate your candor in admitting you are here for your own amusement. Do you also frequent religious sites and shower them with derogatory comments about their faith? Do you get off by ridiculing little kids for believing in Santa Clause?
Nobody here owes you anything, least of all any sort of justification for what they believe. If I want to believe that Chas Campbell is the second coming of Christ it's none of your concern.

Hi Linda,
If we all just took standard physics at face value, as you apparently do, we wouldn't be here. However, once one studies the works of people like Bruce Depalma, Jim Murray, Milkovic, Tesla and many others, a different understanding emerges. These guys have explored aspects of physics way beyond what is established in the textbooks as definitive science. They have discovered that the laws of nature do not always follow the laws of science.
Building and studying Milkovic's double oscillator has given me profound insights into the mechanism of a rotating mass. I have found that centrifugal force is a real and important element in this type of system. Standard physics says the centrifugal force is a phantom force, and it's really centripetal force in disguise. I have found this to be utter bullshit. Standard physics claims that a rotating mass can be completely defined according to classic Newtonian law. More bullshit.
When I find a lot of BS on one side of the argument, and a lot of interesting results on the other side of the argument, I tend towards the side that smells better. You can call this futile flight all you want to, but you will never really know until you personally explore the phenomenon.
It's easy to sit back and criticize and ridicule those who are trying something new. However, nothing new has ever been discovered by people who do this. It's the guys in the garage who don't give up, and keep plugging away at it who find success.
Hanging around forums like this one will provide the cynic with endless fodder for ridicule. This then begs the question: what's the point? Do you find it gratifying or amusing to belittle and criticize those who are trying to understand a new concept? Or are you trying to sow doubt and cause disruption for some other reason? Why are you here Linda?


Ted

Milkovic had me baffled for awhile as well.  The best way to think of it is comparing a 409 pump bottle to a bug sprayer.  The bug sprayer has to use built-up air pressure to push the fluid out of the bottle but the 409 pump bottle has to be repeatidly pumped, and pumped hard.  The bug sprayer is not over unity....just easier for that particular application.

Rich