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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: My question for detractors of overunity  (Read 14495 times)

PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
My question for detractors of overunity
« on: January 18, 2008, 09:53:58 AM »
So WORK is basically movement, and ‘energy’ is the amount of detectable movement that occurs when compared with another moving thing, which we use to calculate time.

I am told the universe is expanding so it is doing work as it is moving.

Energies can change names like mechanical into heat, potential into kinetic, light into chemical and so on.

So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ‘free energy’?

What the experimenters of this site are trying to do is find a device or method that acts similar to the way a transistor works, where a small amount of current acts like a switch and lets a large amount of current flow. However in this case we want to convert the energy that makes the universe move to humanities benefit.

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2008, 05:03:04 AM »
PolyMatrix,

Your points are ones of semantics.

So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ?free energy??

I wouldn't matter what you'd want to call the energy in the expansion. How do you propose to make use of it?  If you have no idea then you might as well use solar panels.  We at least know how to use that energy.

If you're transistor analogy means to tweak the base while the transistor is biased by the power stretching out the universe I'd have to see the wiring diagram.  What do you have in mind?

Bessler007
mib HQ

PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2008, 07:43:52 AM »
;D ;D ;D (I am the first to admit I know very little and think the brain just creates theories to understand the environment it is in)

"Semantics" a nice repost but effectively just the same as saying that light energy is turned into chemical energy is 'semantics'. Are we truly in a position to say we have understanding of all the ways one moving thing transfers its movement to another moving thing. We use 'semantics' to describe experiments and how we think things work.

There are clues in many experiments to indicate that 'something' is impacting its movement on the material within these experiments and seemingly make it appear that there is more measurable movement coming out than went in, especially when it comes to experiments that involve vibrations and/or pulse movements.

If we are to be scientific about this, repeatable experiments with repeatable results and observations should be the standard way of accepting that this is the way our environment works no matter what great theories have been proposed previously.

If something comes along to disrupt the accepted viewpoint which path is wiser?  1) To encourage investigation with help, OR, 2) To call it a hoax, a lie and then persecute the experimenter and theory maker of an alternate view? Although there is always that odd thought that the last words yet to be recorded on a dying planet is 'oops'!

The transistor analogy is my first attempt at using an already acceptable concept to help the awful, for the 'normal' scientific minds, take a curious look at 'free energy' dispite its semantic implications.

Solar panels, excuse my stupidity, but I better cut down the trees blocking the sunlight from my roof. That apple tree of my neighbour is also blocking the light!

>'What do you have in mind?'
Clearly not a lot! Just transferring chemical energy(fingers) to mechanical (Keyboard) and allowing electrical current to flow across the world. See! I am mad, and will insist on helping the earth to die by using a computer!

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2008, 08:36:12 AM »


. . .
There are clues in many experiments to indicate that 'something' is impacting its movement on the material within these experiments and seemingly make it appear that there is more measurable movement coming out than went in, especially when it comes to experiments that involve vibrations and/or pulse movements.

If we are to be scientific about this, repeatable experiments with repeatable results and observations should be the standard way of accepting that this is the way our environment works no matter what great theories have been proposed previously.
. . .


Then be scientific and build it.

Bessler007

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2008, 08:42:05 AM »
I might add this idea of how you could solve your energy problems:

Solar panels, excuse my stupidity, but I better cut down the trees blocking the sunlight from my roof. That apple tree of my neighbour is also blocking the light!

has little to do with a skeptics view of overunity.  That point's classified as a personal problem.  In this case your request to have your stupidity excused is denied.  You were asking weren't you?

Bessler007

PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2008, 09:22:09 AM »
...
has little to do with a skeptics view of overunity.  That point's classified as a personal problem.  In this case your request to have your stupidity excused is denied.  You were asking weren't you?

Bessler007

Yep it would be thought that, or it could be thought of as wondering if some known solutions might actually cause more social problems than it cures.

As to whether my stupidity is excused or not that is an SEP. (Somebody else's problem  ;D ) I is what I is. ::)

Build it? Now why did I not think of doing that! - hmmm - did I mention I know nothing?  ;)

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2008, 09:43:09 AM »
I think I got this from a Tesla you-tube video.  He was working I think at his Colorado facility and in an experiment blew out the generators of the local power supplier.  They refused to sell him any power until he went and repaired their generators.

Tesla had pretty good money connections.  He also had the personal means to accomplish quite a lot.  If he could actually produce power the way he claimed, what was he buying power from a utility for?  I just searched and I think it was this link or part 2 of that series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTiiblwwLPk&feature=related

If you want to know the skeptics point of view it's this.  If there is Over Unity then demonstrate it.  If all you have is a theory based on the relativistic speeds of the cosmos or quantum physics for a model of OU then what you really have is intellectual masturbation.  You have nothing until you actual make a model that works.

The principle of seeing energy and thinking you'll tap into it isn't a working principle for OU.  A viable principle is in the form of the first law (energy can't be created or destroyed).  It could be like this:

It is possible to harvest energy between two frames of reference and deliver it between two future frames over less time providing more power in the future than you initially harvested.

The principle or hypothesis should lead to some manner to test it.   The most powerful point the skeptic makes is, "where is this model of your theory?"  When you consider all the testing that has been done with no results you have to give the skeptic that point.  Intellectual integrity demands it.

Bessler007
mib HQ

PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2008, 10:37:54 AM »
I am quite happy to encourage skeptics to argue their views as balance is vital.

Theory and model is tricky as all that is available, as far as I have so far determined, are hints.

So far the following are bits and pieces that have caught my attention.

------
Tom Valone ? Lecture http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5738531568036565057&q=zero+point+energy&total=921&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Tom Bearden ? Nuclear Physicist - http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm
John Bedini - http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/ - inventor

Daniel D demo of car running on water http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j7d-FJ7TQk&feature=user

Top Gear Water Car - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKExuHlQMQ - note the comment could run the whole street off the power generated by this car.

Joe?s Cell - ??? ? Great deal of discussion on this.
Developing and making a Joe Cell by Joe http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5838886797220015378
2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2878952337946217454
Note Joe thinks of this as a frequency.

Hamish Robertson site - http://www.thejoecell.com/

We've got the charging of the water down to a science thanks to
Bernie and some others. I'm now using a 4.5" tall three plate Joe
Cell with a .25" gap to charge my water. The outer cylinder is 4";
the neutral cylinder is 3.5", and the negative cylinder is 3". It
works great and works very fast. The gap made all the difference in
the world.

Related discussion group http://www.byronnewenergy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

----------------------------------------------

An experiment that I would like to see done is to use the Stan Meyers HHO production method then take say a tungsten steel rod with cold water flowing through it. Then with an HHO torch heat the rod and do all the measurement possible to capture the rise in water temperature, air temp, etc and have the energy equations summed up.

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2008, 10:51:17 AM »
Whoa dude.  I'm so confused.  First you say you don't know nothing then you deluge me with more links than you can shake a stick at.  Which is it?  Do you know something or do you think  you know something?

Take another hint.  Here are a couple of facts you might slip into your knowledge base.  For all the claims of over unity there exists not one single example of a model.  Not one.

It is so kind of you to allow the skeptic to argue their case.  Dude, you're so generous.  It doesn't provide balance though when the skeptic argues.  Reality argues with the skeptic.  That's the 2nd fact.

If you have some experiment you'd like to see happen then make it happen.  That's what I'm doing.  I'm no skeptic but I do see their point of view.

Bessler007
mib HQ

PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2008, 02:36:00 PM »
Had to get some sleep.

Tom Valones Lecture actually gives an example of a model. If that is what a skeptic is looking for.

There is a phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. Well my brain just collects bits and peices and makes associations between bits of 'junk' it has picked up. However I make no claim to understanding how true or false the bits of 'junk' are. So effectivly this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.

'Reality argues with the skeptic' = Repeatable experiments.

'Scientists', should be doing the experiment otherwise they just complain about how the figures were obtained. Meanwhile inventors will continue to ignore 'Physics' and have fun making things without understanding why they are doing what they do.

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2008, 07:46:53 PM »
. . .
[*]
a.  Tom Valones Lecture actually gives an example of a model. If that is what a skeptic is looking for.
[*]b,  There is a phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. Well my brain just collects bits and peices and makes associations between bits of 'junk' it has picked up. However I make no claim to understanding how true or false the bits of 'junk' are. So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.
[*]c. 'Reality argues with the skeptic' = Repeatable experiments.  'Scientists', should be doing the experiment otherwise they just complain about how the figures were obtained. Meanwhile inventors will continue to ignore 'Physics' and have fun making things without understanding why they are doing what they do
[/list]

a.  Yes, there is Tom's lecture of a model.  Reminds me of my grandfather's attempt to get one of his roosters to mate with one of his pigs.  He did have his successes.  There was that litter of stillborns.  So cute with their little appendages of wings on their backs but unfortunately dead as they could be.  No flying pig.

b.  What you'd express and a jack of all trades, etc. I'd reword as having a shallow understanding of a lot of things.  Not that I'm attempting to manage you but you might consider getting a little depth of understanding or perhaps coming out of your pocket and hiring someone having that talent.

Your point:
So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.
is one I agree with.

c.  So your only skill is an ability to manage the resources and talents of other people.  hehehe  Ever hear of the terrible two's?  Most two year olds have that ability also.


All this is a little fun with the manner you reason but in it all you've failed to come to the point.  I'll restate it:

In reality the proponents of FE and OU have yet to produce one single solitary example of the reason for their faith and belief in FE/OU.  Not one.  Not just the talk of a model with the vague hints of how to replicate it.  An actual model that has left the mind and talk of the believers and has been transported into reality.  Reality, what an idea.



Bessler007
mib HQ

mapsrg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2008, 06:31:06 AM »
Nikola Tesla had another theory regarding energy and humanity.....basically it involved the need to increase the energy available to mankind to advance ourselves .....the industrial age advanced rapidly with new sources of energy and resulted in a population boom .We are now faced with energy constraints and the task of overcoming these....these same problems were the driving force of his endeavours....

PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2008, 08:25:29 AM »
"People believe what they fear to be true or what they want to be true"

Quote

In reality the proponents of FE and OU have yet to produce one single solitary example of the reason for their faith and belief in FE/OU.  Not one.  Not just the talk of a model with the vague hints of how to replicate it.  An actual model that has left the mind and talk of the believers and has been transported into reality.  Reality, what an idea.

So you are dismissing patents 4704622 and 3890161 as not ZPE being transported into reality, as mentioned in his lecture?

More of a similar conversation that is occuring on this thread between Tom Valone and Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA here

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: Polly want a Matrix?
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2008, 10:10:15 AM »
What hasn't happened from the believers in free energy (FE) or those of over unity (OU) is not relevant to a discussion about zero point energy (ZPE).  I'm not sure why you'd want to change the subject to that.  Maybe  your grasping at straws.

    " Zero point energy is the energy that remains after a substance is cooled to absolute zero. "   Dr. Hal Puthoff

I'd submit to you the energy required to attain those temperatures puts any application of ZPE well outside any practical application of FE or OU.

If you're aware of any OU/FE application from a patent filed 07/16/1973 (patent #3890161) for a diode array that rectifies minuscule thermal electrical noise or one filed 11/27/1985 (patent #4704622) for a transistor having negative transconductance that can perform the functions of a complementary device analogous to a p-channel transistor in silicon CMOS technology...
then by all means share some circuit with an analysis.

Those are old technologies.

If Tom or Dennis are discussing some idea for FE/OU then they are right at home with the community.  All talk.  Would you care to make a point from their discussion?  Maybe post some actual physical model that could (1) exist in reality and (2) work? 

I doubt it.


Bessler007
mib HQ

. . .
So you are dismissing patents 4704622 and 3890161 as not ZPE being transported into reality, as mentioned in his lecture?

More of a similar conversation that is occuring on this thread between Tom Valone and Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA here
. . .

Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: My question for detractors of overunity
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2008, 10:24:40 AM »
Your topic:

My question for detractors of overunity

was followed by a post with one quesiton in it:

So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ?free energy??

Your answer is that you can consider using any energy that exists and also you can call it what ever you want.

My question is, "when are you planning on doing that?"


Bessler007
mib HQ