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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

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 Members: 84219
  • *Latest: ab

  • *Total Posts: 897423
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 21
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: DEBATE THREAD  (Read 107858 times)

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #210 on: January 31, 2008, 04:17:06 AM »
Briefly the supernatural is above or beyond the present understanding of nature.  Since the answer from physicists is perpetual motion is impossible, any solution would be beyond or above that present scientific understanding or SUPER*natural.

I did look at your link, Poly, but I don't think you got my point.  People can complain they can't get funding for an energy idea blaming any sort of boogie man they invent.  Then there's BlackLight Power, Inc. founded by Dr. Randell Mills.   He has raised over $50,000,000 to fund his R&D.  He has very impressive credentials and a patent described here:

Quote
When is the ground state of a hydrogen atom not the ground state? When it is a "hydrino" state, according to Randy Mills and co-workers at BlackLight Power, a company based in Cranbury, New Jersey. In a series of papers Mills and co-workers have argued that the results of a variety of experiments on hydrogen plasmas can only be explained by the existence of a new state in which the electron has less energy than the n=1 ground state.

Regardless of what academia thinks capitalists fund ideas that are commercially viable.  The cold fusion community has a lot of interest and work is on going to produce something as we chat.   As far as I can see it isn't commercially viable.  If anyone could prove it were to a capitalist things would change in that world the same way Dr. Mills has changed his.

Complain or produce.

If there is a sound proof the SMOT is beyond overunity and is indeed a perpetual motion device (violates CoE) that proof could be published anonymously at Peswiki.  If you fear for your professional reputation Omni, that is an avenue.

I think you're coping out.

In case the point was missed I'll restate it:

Capitalists will fund ideas they're sold on.  No one has made a good case to people like Neil Moskowitz, chief financial officer of Credit Suisse First Boston or Michael H. Jordon, chief executive of EDS for cold fusion as Dr. Mills has.  (source:  Wall Street Journal)  The key point is academia doesn't run the world.



Bessler007


Edit:
BlackLight Power, Inc.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 04:50:39 AM by Bessler007 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #210 on: January 31, 2008, 04:17:06 AM »

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #211 on: January 31, 2008, 05:16:31 AM »
Quote
Capitalists will fund ideas they're sold on.  No one has made a good case to people like Neil Moskowitz, chief financial officer of Credit Suisse First Boston or Michael H. Jordon, chief executive of EDS for cold fusion as Dr. Mills has.  (source:  Wall Street Journal)  The key point is academia doesn't run the world.

That does nothing to show that violation of CoE is impossible.

You must understand that for hundreds of years there were people discussing man made flight, and countless people threw themselves of buildings in search of it.

Just like the wiki site, and this one, there have always been nutty people trying to do the "impossible". History shows that there have been lots of "crackpots" who have turned out to be right, and many "impossible" things have been shown to be real.

Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media" or "If it was real I would have heard of it" it is the same as the "impossible" man made flight situation. The wright brothers didn't test their craft in secret you know.

Quote
Briefly the supernatural is above or beyond the present understanding of nature.  Since the answer from physicists is perpetual motion is impossible, any solution would be beyond or above that present scientific understanding or SUPER*natural.

I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #212 on: January 31, 2008, 05:33:45 AM »
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.



Bessler007

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #212 on: January 31, 2008, 05:33:45 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #213 on: January 31, 2008, 06:03:35 AM »
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.



Bessler007
The prudent thing to do is to remain silent on these matters because you have no clue either regarding Randy Mills or the violation of what you call "1st Law".

Offline PolyMatrix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #214 on: January 31, 2008, 06:43:41 AM »
Here is an interesting paper on the tapping of Zero Point Energy.
http://www.innoventek.com/BassReZPET020406.pdf

The counter view to the funding side of things is the example of Tesla and Westinghouse. Westinghouse withdrew funding because what Tesla was making would not make him money.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #214 on: January 31, 2008, 06:43:41 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #215 on: January 31, 2008, 07:06:11 AM »
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.



Bessler007

Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks.

Your "fact" said that if anyone finds proof for violation of CoE that they must be a liar. This is clearly implying that CoE is absolute, and you didn't object to that.

Quote
The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

I never said it was, but I said that just because it isn't of much benefit, doesn't mean it isn't over unity. Like omnibus said, you don't need a working free perpetual motion machine to violate CoE!

You seem to misunderstand the point I am making. I have never said and never will say that the smot provides free energy until I am absolutely convinced that it is, with heaps of proof.

What I HAVE been saying is that you cannot totally dismiss the smot, simply because many people have failed or simply because you have absolute faith in mainstream science.

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #216 on: January 31, 2008, 07:10:42 AM »
Here is an interesting paper on the tapping of Zero Point Energy.
http://www.innoventek.com/BassReZPET020406.pdf

The counter view to the funding side of things is the example of Tesla and Westinghouse. Westinghouse withdrew funding because what Tesla was making would not make him money.

Exactly, people only fund things if there is money involved!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #216 on: January 31, 2008, 07:10:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #217 on: January 31, 2008, 08:41:11 AM »
I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are not mutually exclusive. Even with today's knowledge the co-existence of both is quite possible, if not probable.

All CoE says is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The idea is very old. The first recorded instance is from Parmenides (510-450 BC).

The popular Latin version of his famous statement is: Ex nihilo nihil fit. (Out of nothing comes nothing) This is CoE in a nutshell.

Quite simply put, since a something cannot come from a nothing, a something cannot turn into a nothing. A something therefore can never disappear though it can and does change form. That is all CoE says.

In other words, the totality of all matter and energy in the universe is continually re-cycled.

All we have to do is to hook a machine into this cycle and we will have perpetual motion.

We have not learned how to do this.

Hans von Lieven

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #218 on: January 31, 2008, 10:10:26 AM »
I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are not mutually exclusive. Even with today's knowledge the co-existence of both is quite possible, if not probable.

All CoE says is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The idea is very old. The first recorded instance is from Parmenides (510-450 BC).

The popular Latin version of his famous statement is: Ex nihilo nihil fit. (Out of nothing comes nothing) This is CoE in a nutshell.

Quite simply put, since a something cannot come from a nothing, a something cannot turn into a nothing. A something therefore can never disappear though it can and does change form. That is all CoE says.

In other words, the totality of all matter and energy in the universe is continually re-cycled.

All we have to do is to hook a machine into this cycle and we will have perpetual motion.

We have not learned how to do this.

Hans von Lieven
Absolutely not. The impossibility of a CoE violation and the idea of a functioning perpetuum mobile are mutually exclusive although, as explained many times, existence of a working perpetuum mobile is not a condition for the violation of CoE. CoE may be violated without ever having a perpetuum mobile in existence. The opposite isn?t possible, however. In other words, CoE must be violated for a perpetuum mobile to exist. Energy from nothing must be produced for a perpetuum mobile to exist. A machine tapping existing energy from any source isn?t perpetuum mobile.

Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.

What is really interesting is that it has already been proven that CoE can be violated (by producing energy out of nothing (excess energy)). As explained many times, the only necessary and sufficient criterion for CoE to be obeyed is to have the same amount of energy out than in, in a closed loop, and nothing else. SMOT, however, does not obey this criterion because if it did then the only energy that stands to be transformed back into other energies upon closing the loop is the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to it. Thus, if CoE were to be obeyed in SMOT the absolute value of energy in |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to raise the ball from A to B will exactly equal the absolute value of the energy out |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| to move the ball back at A and thus close the loop. This isn?t the case in SMOT, however. In SMOT the absolute value of energy in |(mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb))| imparted to the ball differs from the absolute value of the energy |(mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc)| the ball stands to convert in other energies upon its return back at A, thus closing the loop. This difference in the energy in and energy out in SMOT is in clear violation of CoE.

Again, the said violation of CoE leading to the production of excess energy has nothing to do with whether or not that excess energy can be utilized for practical purposes, especially whether or not a functioning perpetuum mobile can be constructed. Constructing of a perpetuum mobile is a separate, purely engineering, applied problem which may or may not be solved but that will not affect the rigorous proof that CoE can be violated.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #218 on: January 31, 2008, 10:10:26 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #219 on: January 31, 2008, 10:21:25 AM »
The smot debate was settling down anyway...

Lol! I wish it was!

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #220 on: January 31, 2008, 11:28:57 AM »
You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.



Bessler007

Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks.

Your "fact" said that if anyone finds proof for violation of CoE that they must be a liar. This is clearly implying that CoE is absolute, and you didn't object to that.

Quote
The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

I never said it was, but I said that just because it isn't of much benefit, doesn't mean it isn't over unity. Like omnibus said, you don't need a working free perpetual motion machine to violate CoE!

You seem to misunderstand the point I am making. I have never said and never will say that the smot provides free energy until I am absolutely convinced that it is, with heaps of proof.

What I HAVE been saying is that you cannot totally dismiss the smot, simply because many people have failed or simply because you have absolute faith in mainstream science.

Quote
Capitalists will fund ideas they're sold on.  No one has made a good case to people like Neil Moskowitz, chief financial officer of Credit Suisse First Boston or Michael H. Jordon, chief executive of EDS for cold fusion as Dr. Mills has.  (source:  Wall Street Journal)  The key point is academia doesn't run the world.

That does nothing to show that violation of CoE is impossible.

You must understand that for hundreds of years there were people discussing man made flight, and countless people threw themselves of buildings in search of it.

Just like the wiki site, and this one, there have always been nutty people trying to do the "impossible". History shows that there have been lots of "crackpots" who have turned out to be right, and many "impossible" things have been shown to be real.

Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media" or "If it was real I would have heard of it" it is the same as the "impossible" man made flight situation. The wright brothers didn't test their craft in secret you know.

Quote
Briefly the supernatural is above or beyond the present understanding of nature.  Since the answer from physicists is perpetual motion is impossible, any solution would be beyond or above that present scientific understanding or SUPER*natural.

I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

In addition to you attributing conclusions to me, I never made this statement you attribute to me.  Your points are so riddled with fallacy of a similar nature it's not worth dealing with.


Bessler007

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #220 on: January 31, 2008, 11:28:57 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #221 on: January 31, 2008, 11:40:17 AM »
Omni, you can attempt to change the subject to what people know or don't yet it's clear you don't have a proof the SMOT violates CoE.  You don't seem to know the difference between overunity and a violation of CoE.

It would be prudent for you to take an early retirement before your employer realizes just how incompetent you are.


Bessler007


. . .
Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.
. . .

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #222 on: January 31, 2008, 12:00:08 PM »
Free energy is "foreseeable"??  Good Lord.

Bessler007

Offline psychopath

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #223 on: January 31, 2008, 12:47:41 PM »
@Bessler,

I said like,

I said
Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media"

Not "Every time you say "If it was possible it would have been all over the media""

If you cannot understand this, I will simply give up.

I also said "Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks"

not "Anything wrapped up in quotation marks are quotes of you"


Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: DEBATE THREAD
« Reply #224 on: January 31, 2008, 03:18:14 PM »
Omnibus,

Have you ever thought how idiotic your idea of "Energy from Nothing" really is?

Logic dictates that if you can extract something from a nothing it was not a nothing to begin with.. But then you were never logical, were you?

Hans von Lieven

 

OneLink