PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-04, 16:33:31
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
Author Topic: The Death of the Lenz Law  (Read 164490 times)
Group: Guest
Feynman:

Quote
Besides the obvious like the international energy security detailed in numerous think-tank reports [1],[2], keeping the billions in 'black' space-based weapons technology secret [3],[4], the obscene amounts of money from hydrocarbon revenue [5], vast systems of technological control [6], etc  you can't see any reason you are collecting a paycheck for doing this?

You are mixing up issues related to energy security and free energy, don't you think?  The energy sector in any nation's economy is huge and has a lot of clout.  It has to be because without it there is no society.  But that in no way should be equated with or confused with what goes on on the free energy forums.  More often than not the free energy forums are about people playing and tinkering with home electronics projects.

Quote
And they psyops you and others are paid to conduct on the various free energy message boards , to discourage people from experimenting in areas which contradict known 'textbook theory'.

The old cliche is to say if only somebody would pay me to post here but Farrah beat me to it.  I have never seen an experiment contradict known 'textbook theory.'  There is a big learning curve that experimenters have to go up before they can definitively say that they are contradicting known theory.

Quote
Well, yeah besides lossless transmission of wireless energy, and the possible induction of a rotating scalar potential in a toroid where the B and H fields are colinear, or the other millions upon millions of other applications, there's nothing to see here.

You show me evidence for the lossless transmission of wireless energy.  That would require some pretty sophisticated measurements.

Quote
possible induction of a rotating scalar potential in a toroid where the B and H fields are colinear

I would characterize the above statement as nonsensical free energy babble unless you can explain that further.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest

Here is an example of how ridiculous it can get: 

During the July Renaissance conference I want to see people taking shifts riding the magic self-charging electric lawn mower so that it runs 24 hours a day non-stop for the entire duration of the conference!

MileHigh

Hey MH,

Here's an idea. I'll pay YOU you attend the July Renaissance conference, where you can bolt your armchair onto Rick's lawn mower and wear your Nay Sayer award with pride. Then we'll have YOU ride around on Rick's lawn mower until the batteries go flat. At least it will get you to experiment!


Now, if you're right in your "assumptions" that Rick's lawn mower can't self-run you'd be outta there on the first day. But if you are wrong, you might be there for a very long time. You might even need to pack some lunch!

What do you think?

DragonSlayer
   
Group: Guest
DragonSlayer:

Do you think that the conference attendees literally thought that it was a free energy lawn mower or do you think that they didn't and simply gave Rick a wide latitude as part of the fun?

On the other hand the YouTube clip simply states that it's a free energy device.

Finally, what do you think?  Do you think that it's a free energy device?

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
@PSYOPS Contractors

Quote
You show me evidence for the lossless transmission of wireless energy.  That would require some pretty sophisticated measurements.

I showed you violation of Hertzian R^2 losses during transmission of wireless energy, which is sufficient proof for further investigation.   But your purpose has nothing to do with the truth, as we've discussed before.  Thus around we go in circles.  Nothing will never suffice as proof for you, because your job is to sow doubt and prevent the inevitable..  You will fail.

Konstantin Meyl -- Tesla Scalar Wave Theory
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=754.msg11722#msg11722

Quote
I have never seen an experiment contradict known 'textbook theory.'

More lies from the deception specialist.  You can find your experiment here:

Konstantin Meyl -- Tesla Scalar Wave Theory
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=754.msg11722#msg11722


Quote

Quote
possible induction of a rotating scalar potential in a toroid where the B and H fields are colinear
-Feynman

I would characterize the above statement as nonsensical free energy babble unless you can explain that further.
-MileHigh

That should read where the 'E and H fields are colinear'.   I was referring to generating a rotating scalar impulse in a toroid (for example, a possible mechanism of a working TPU)... or more generally, to the  simultaneous propagation of magnetic and electric scalar impulses through space.  As you should realize by implication, since Tesla scalar waves exist and propagate differently than transverse waves, the 'Right-hand rule' may not always apply to such impulses (Scalar Magnetic or Scalar Electric).  My current understanding is that scalar wave impulses are colinear-- with compressions and rarefactions -- but with the magnetic and electric wave possibly separated from the transverse wave by a variable phase angle, due to variable scalar wave propagation speed.  (edit: corrected phase description) (t).



I am posting this for the benefit of the community, by the way, not for you and other imbecile psyops contractors.

« Last Edit: 2011-03-08, 01:17:19 by feynman »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
After having personally witnessed one two occasions within
several months airborne craft (in broad daylight cloudless skies)
which defy explanation I suppose I'll have to count myself also
as one who is a little "off."

(And other "things/events" which cannot be revealed.)

Clearly, there are devices and phenomena which we presently
are not able to understand or to explain.

That military and other agencies expend great amounts of
manpower and resources on clandestine "Black Projects" is
reality.  That certain agencies have long established contact
with extraterrestrial "beings" is known presently by only a
few and has yet to be "officially" acknowledged.

Why do we humans seem to be so curious about these things?

It's nearly as if our desire to "know" all things is a part of our
genetic makeup.

And it is...

Answers will be found.

Yes, things are very optimistic in my "Home La-La Land!"

Well, with the exception of events which are gradually
unfolding worldwide... 

Good discussion going on here by the way!


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
DragonSlayer:

Do you think that the conference attendees literally thought that it was a free energy lawn mower or do you think that they didn't and simply gave Rick a wide latitude as part of the fun?

On the other hand the YouTube clip simply states that it's a free energy device.

Finally, what do you think?  Do you think that it's a free energy device?

MileHigh


It depends on your definition of "free energy" and the conference attanedees' definition of "free energy". Under my definition, it's a definite "YES"!


To whom and where should I address the plane ticket?

DragonSlayer
   
Group: Guest
DragonSlayer:

For this example the common sense definition of "free energy" is that you can ride the lawnmower and keep switching battery banks back and forth and collectively the two banks of batteries never run down.  I am assuming that you would agree with this definition for this example.

So I have a follow-up question if I may:  Why do you believe that the lawnmower that Rick demoed is a free energy device as described above?  If you can flesh out the answer it would be appreciated.

Thanks,

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
DragonSlayer:

For this example the common sense definition of "free energy" is that you can ride the lawnmower and keep switching battery banks back and forth and collectively the two banks of batteries never run down.  I am assuming that you would agree with this definition for this example.

So I have a follow-up question if I may:  Why do you believe that the lawnmower that Rick demoed is a free energy device as described above?  If you can flesh out the answer it would be appreciated.

Thanks,

MileHigh

MileHigh:

Nope, that's not my definition. My definition would be any form of energy that can be converted to another form of energy without having to PAY for it.

Under my definition if you were to get one iota of extra energy from the two banks then you would have a "free energy" machine. To make this simpler, if you were to get one extra second out of the batteries than you would normally get, you have "free energy".

So, a follow up question if I may: Why DON'T  you believe that the lawnmower that Rick demoed is a free energy device as described above?  If you can flesh out the answer it would be appreciated.

So, whose name shall I make the ticket out to?

DragonSlayer

   
Group: Guest
Feyman:

I realized that I saw the clip in the Google video link where he does the demo with the suitcase apparatus.  He proved nothing in that demo, he just made a few LEDs light up.  I watched some of the three lecture clips that are in the thread.  The bottom line is that if somebody is serious about energy transmission with so-called scalar waves then they are welcome to do a serious demo with serious measurements.  If they can find a commercial application for them then so much the better.  It's hard to compete against high-voltage transmission lines though.  I am not an EM expert so I can't comment in detail about his lecture except to say it doesn't smell right.  On the other hand, I certainly know what the main issue is for sending a conventional directional beam of EM waves is.

Quote
More lies from the deception specialist.

Please tone down your rhetoric.

I watched the second half of the third clip and I am not convinced.  If you can send EM energy through the air like blowing smoke rings or whatever more power to you.  I am not well versed enough in electromagnetic field theory to seriously comment on the clips.

Quote
I am posting this for the benefit of the community, by the way, not for you and other imbecile psyops contractors.

That's just gratuitous trash talk.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh:
So, a follow up question if I may: Why DON'T  you believe that the lawnmower that Rick demoed is a free energy device as described above?  If you can flesh out the answer it would be appreciated.

That's really crafty.  You don't answer my question and you bounce it back to me.

I am going to assume that we are talking about the lawnmower allegedly running indefinitely.  Saying that it might run an extra minute and calling that free energy is not on the table here if you don't mind.

The answer is that a typical pulsing inductor battery charging system like you see in the lawnmower clip almost certainly performs like a typical Bedini motor.  A Bedini motor on average transfers about 30% of the source battery power into the charging battery.  So the lawnmower loses a lot of energy when the source battery bank charges the charging battery bank.  And that's not even factoring the fact in that in this case there is a real mechanical load on the motor to move the lawnmower around.

A reasonable guess is that after the initial battery bank runs down, only about 25% of that energy made it into the charging battery bank.  Obviously after a few swaps back and forth you will run out of energy.  And no, there is no "magic" happening when the coil pulses current into the charging battery bank that sucks in energy from the vacuum.

So, the ball is back in your court DragonSlayer, do you think the lawnmower is capable of running indefinitely and why?

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2638
@All
I remember going outside with a friend for a smoke on a perfectly clear, calm and silent winter night, then I saw four insanely bright lights appear out of nowhere in the sky. The lights were not moving and there was absolutely no sound coming from the lights on a perfectly calm, silent winters night. Next an orange colored spherical object came from the lights made a perfect 90 degree radius turn and accelerated out into the vastness of space at a rate of speed that defies description. There was no sound through all this, there were no silly propellers beating at the air, there were no flames belching from the rear, there was no contrail, no vapor trail--- this was not rocket propulsion it was something else on a perfectly clear, calm winters night. later we discussed what we saw and agreed we saw exactly the same thing and that we had absolutely no explanation for it, none whatsoever, but it was real.
Now consider this event in regards to the people we call experts, can any of the so-called mainstream experts here give me any reasonable explanation whatsoever for what we saw? You see this is the point where what we call "expertise" falls flat on it's face because none of the experts have a god damn clue where to begin. There is no logic, no reason, no justification because what I saw and know as fact cannot happen --- it is impossible relative to all the the known and proven facts. The fact of the matter is that I would trade every expert here(and a thousand more) and all the knowledge they possess for 5 minutes with whomever was piloting the craft I saw, they are the real experts acting on a level which makes everyone here including myself look pre-school if not prehistoric.
Let's look at this from another perspective, let's look at the best our so-called experts have to offer, we have automobiles in which only 16% of the energy contained in the fuel actually moves the vehicle forward and on a km per litre of fuel basis aircraft are similar, we have power plants running at absolute efficiencies near 5-10% for nuclear, 30-50% for coal and natural gas, we have wind power that can barely break 16% and solar is no better. Until recently we commonly used a light source that was only 10% efficient, furnaces near 60%, our homes had and still have massive heat losses and the required average percentage of fresh clean air coming into the house is 5%. My god when I consider the very best the experts have to offer in this supposed modern day and age I feel like falling into a big bottle of whiskey and drinking myself into oblivion because it is pathetic when we actually consider the facts.
I guess this is why I take most every opinion I hear or read with a grain of salt and have returned to the fundamentals (the basics) of science,electrodynamics and nature. When we look at history and draw time lines I can only think that somewhere along the line we missed something, that somewhere along the way we took a wrong turn and were too damn stubborn to go back and correct our mistakes. I guess the most relevant question we could ask is, even if we are crazy, delusional and misguided could we do any worse than the best our mainstream experts have to offer considering the state of technology?.
That's my rant for the day,  :D
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2011-03-08, 02:24:44 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Quote
Please tone down your rhetoric.
-MileHigh

I will not tone down my rhetoric.  The open-sourcing of free energy is perhaps the highest task to which man can now aspire.   I have no tolerance for lies , nor attempts at suppression of free and open discourse via psychological tactics.

If both you , 'MileHigh' , and 'Farrah Day' are not on the three-letter Psyops payroll, as you so innocently claim (which I certainly do not believe)  , you two are quite lucky to spend ALL your free time repeating educational brainwashing back to us , like the insistent bleat of a couple of dull sheep.

Thus,

1) I will no longer respond to any of the negative , time-wasting drivel that you 'MileHigh' , or 'Farrah Day' , post.
2) I will encourage anyone else involved in energy research -- including my friends -- to quit responding to both of you , as you both are a complete waste of time.

Whether myself (or anyone else involved in this research) is 'correct' or 'incorrect' , what does it matter to you?  

You can spare yourself answering this rhetorical question because you will get no response.
   
Group: Guest
That's really crafty.  You don't answer my question and you bounce it back to me.

I am going to assume that we are talking about the lawnmower allegedly running indefinitely.  Saying that it might run an extra minute and calling that free energy is not on the table here if you don't mind.

The answer is that a typical pulsing inductor battery charging system like you see in the lawnmower clip almost certainly performs like a typical Bedini motor.  A Bedini motor on average transfers about 30% of the source battery power into the charging battery.  So the lawnmower loses a lot of energy when the source battery bank charges the charging battery bank.  And that's not even factoring the fact in that in this case there is a real mechanical load on the motor to move the lawnmower around.

A reasonable guess is that after the initial battery bank runs down, only about 25% of that energy made it into the charging battery bank.  Obviously after a few swaps back and forth you will run out of energy.  And no, there is no "magic" happening when the coil pulses current into the charging battery bank that sucks in energy from the vacuum.

So, the ball is back in your court DragonSlayer, do you think the lawnmower is capable of running indefinitely and why?

MileHigh

MileHigh:

There are an awful lot of guesses and assumptions in your last post, not very scientific, eh?

I am not talking about the lawn mower running indefinitely as that would be perpetual motion. Even the bearings will eventually wear out. So I do mind in saying that the lawn mower running an extra minute and calling it free energy is taken off the table.

I believe that the video is called a "free energy" machine. I didn't know that free energy all of a sudden had to be quantified to "run indefintely".

So, you agree that the lawn mower will actually run for 25% longer than if it was just a normal conventional motor! That's great, now we're getting somewhere! So why are you arguing?

Gee, you might have to pack some dinner as well as lunch for your lawn mower with armchair ride at the July Renaissance conference.

So where was I sending that ticket to?

DragonSlayer
   
Group: Guest
I will not tone down my rhetoric.  The open-sourcing of free energy is perhaps the highest task to which man can now aspire.   I have no tolerance for lies , nor attempts at suppression of free and open discourse via psychological tactics.

If both you , 'MileHigh' , and 'Farrah Day' are not on the three-letter Psyops payroll, as you so innocently claim (which I certainly do not believe)  , you two are quite lucky to spend ALL your free time repeating educational brainwashing back to us , like the insistent bleat of a couple of dull sheep.

Jesus, what a drama queen you are.  You are wrong when you call me a liar and frankly it's offensive.  You confuse free expression with suppression and you ironically shoot yourself in the foot.  You say that you want open discourse yet you want to suppress me.  How Orwellian of you Feynman.  I can smell the cognitive dissonance.

Speaking of dull sheep, I will quote you:

Quote
We can generate and propegate Tesla scalar waves using his pancake type coil  , when it is properly driven in resonance connected to the ball-like antenna.  This mirrors Tesla' Colorado Springs experiments where he lit lights 25 miles away, and he properly called his 'Tesla Magnifying Transmitter' because he was getting overunity power reception at his receivers (unlike transverse/hertzian waves, which diminish with the radius squared).

Quote
So Meyl has predicted the magnetic scalar waves' existence theoretically -- but says that it has a basis in reality.   Meyl states that the three waves a separable and distinct.  He says Tesla is concerned primarily with the longitudinal / scalar electric wave.  He says that biological cell communication can occur via magnetic scalar waves , filtered via cell-level hyperboloid structures. 

Basically, for now, I think we consider the magnetic and electric components of the scalar wave simultaneous with a possible phase relationship, and possibly separable.  This is in need of experiments.

Frankly, I would characterize that as pseudo free energy intellectual electromagnetic braying from you.  When push comes to shove, you actually don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to electromagnetic wave propagation.  Not that that's going to stop you from speaking more pseudo electromagnetic techno-babble because most of your audience won't know one way or the other.

Are you sure you aren't just the Revenge of Quarktoo?

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh:

There are an awful lot of guesses and assumptions in your last post, not very scientific, eh?

I am not talking about the lawn mower running indefinitely as that would be perpetual motion. Even the bearings will eventually wear out. So I do mind in saying that the lawn mower running an extra minute and calling it free energy is taken off the table.

I believe that the video is called a "free energy" machine. I didn't know that free energy all of a sudden had to be quantified to "run indefintely".

So, you agree that the lawn mower will actually run for 25% longer than if it was just a normal conventional motor! That's great, now we're getting somewhere! So why are you arguing?

Gee, you might have to pack some dinner as well as lunch for your lawn mower with armchair ride at the July Renaissance conference.

So where was I sending that ticket to?

DragonSlayer

So what you are really saying when you read between the lines is that you agree with me.  You agree that the lawnmower will not run for a few thousand discharge/charge cycles without an external recharge before the batteries wear out.

Forget about playing with the semantics of what "free energy" means.  You are fully aware that the impression created at the November Renaissance convention was that the lawnmower was a self-charging device that would run indefinitely.  You are just spinning yourself into the mud when you try to change definitions or talk about the bearings wearing out.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the lawnmower will not run indefinitely.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2638
Wow, you guys are sure making a lot of progress towards beating Lenz Law and I can almost feel the excitement in the air, oh sorry that was me I just farted, no excitement here--move along nothing to see here.
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Thanks for agreeing with me that the lawn mower is a "free energy" device  O0

No, I am not fully aware that the impression was that the lawn mower was a self-charging device that would run indefinitely. You are the first person to state that. I watched the video, Rick did not say that and no one at Renaissance has claimed that it is.

Let me just take some of those words out of my mouth that you casually shoved in there:

I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU
I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE LAWN MOWER WILL NOT RUN FOR A FEW THOUSAND DISCHARGE/CHARGE CYCLES WITH AN EXTERNAL RECHARGE BEFORE THE BATTERIES WEAR OUT

You speak like one of those types that would say "I suppose you think you saw a flying saucer". You seem to have a very bad habit of saying things that YOU think other people have said. I would see a therapist for that 'cos it's not a very healthy state of mind to be in.

Who's playing semantics? I'm not playing sematics. I know what my definition of free energy is, you seem to think that something has to run indefinitely to be called free energy. Poppycock!

No mud on my boots here! Yes, I AGREE the lawn mower will not run indefinitely. Neither will the Sun, the wind, a solar panel, a wind turbine, a heat pump... but aren't all of those free energy devices?

DragonSlayer

So what you are really saying when you read between the lines is that you agree with me.  You agree that the lawnmower will not run for a few thousand discharge/charge cycles without an external recharge before the batteries wear out.

Forget about playing with the semantics of what "free energy" means.  You are fully aware that the impression created at the November Renaissance convention was that the lawnmower was a self-charging device that would run indefinitely.  You are just spinning yourself into the mud when you try to change definitions or talk about the bearings wearing out.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the lawnmower will not run indefinitely.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
DragonSlayer:

I guess that you are not comfortable in expressing the fact that the batteries in Rick Friedrick's lawnmower will run down.  So his act of driving into the conference hall in the hotel was nothing more than a stunt.  The fact that some of the energy from the main battery bank could be transferred into the charging battery bank is old hat, a glorified Bedini motor on wheels.

And that's the real point:  Rick driving his electric jumbo Bedini motor at the November Renaissance conference was a meaningless stunt that still managed to impress a lot of the attendees.

If I was there I would have been groaning and squirming when I saw that.  I would have walked up to Rick and asked him if he had any specifications for the lawnmower.  In fact he didn't because the whole thing was put together at the last minute.  You can expect that he will never do any serious measurements on the lawnmower, it's nothing more than a prop.  So what gives Rick the right to call that a "free energy" device?  The answer is nothing gives him the right to do that but he does because that's good for business.  There are your psyops in action.

Quote
Thanks for agreeing with me that the lawn mower is a "free energy" device

The fact that one battery bank charges another battery bank does not make it a free energy device.  The truth is that if you selected the right motor that was a good match for the application then that motor would be more efficient than the glorified Bedini/Window motor that Rick built for the show.  The cult of recycling the back spike has it's limits and it does not automatically mean a Bedini-style motor is better for the application.

The whole point is to get at the truth about Rick's electric lawnmower.  Was it a miraculous demonstration of free energy technologies in action or was it just a funky under unity prop used to wow people at the conference but was otherwise useless?

The people following the thread can decide for themselves.

Quote
Neither will the Sun, the wind, a solar panel, a wind turbine, a heat pump... but aren't all of those free energy devices

Most of the above are derived from the Sun.  The Sun is not a free energy device.  It's operation is a manifestation of the conservation of energy too, it burns fuel.  And a heat pump is only a free energy device if you have myopia and don't want to look at the total thermal system, notwithstanding that it can be put to good use to heat and cool a home.  Do you say that the fridge in your kitchen is an free energy device too?

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2638
@Dragonslayer
Quote
I know what my definition of free energy is, you seem to think that something has to run indefinitely to be called free energy.

I as well as most everyone would agree, there is nothing in the term "free energy" which in any way implies perpetual motion and to say it does is absurd. Here is the popular definition of free energy----"A thermodynamic quantity that is the difference between the internal energy of a system and the product of its absolute temperature and entropy",lol, if this is the standard accepted definition then we are no better than chimpanzees. This is a prehistoric remnant from the beginning of the industrial age and has little relevance in modern physics. One argument for free energy may be an atomic bomb, a small amount of energy will release an insane amount of energy, so where did it come from? It came from the energy it took to create it in the first place which may have occurred billions of years ago but we did not have to input this energy nor is it perpetual.
What 99% of people can agree upon is that "free energy" means "free" -- at little or no cost and "energy" -- the capacity of a system to perform work, hence the the capacity to perform work at little or no cost. This is by far the most popular and accepted definition of free energy because it means what the words imply, free energy is not perpetual motion.
Another point of confusion is when people drag the conservation of energy into the debate which is again absurd, we can receive any amount of free energy and never violate the conservation of energy. Consider nuclear energy, where did it come from? What was the cost of this energy? Well it has been assumed that nuclear material may have been formed billions of years ago when the universe was formed which is pure speculation but so be it. So when we receive a huge amount of energy utilizing a small input energy we are releasing energy from billions of years ago, no violation of the conservation of energy ---- check, very little input energy for a huge energy output ----check, free energy because we get more energy than we put in ----- check, no silly perpetual motion required ---- check. Consider that, the electrical energy powering my computer right now may in some small part be a result of energy from nuclear reactions which occurred billions of years ago when the universe was young, amazing.
Regards
AC




---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Free Energy can make its appearance in unexpected ways.

Last year we acquired a new energy efficient refrigerator and
installed it next to our older less efficient refrigerator.

Our electricity consumption from the grid actually decreased
with the two refrigerators running side by side from the same
wall outlet.

Whether it is some electrical power factor correction taking
place, or simply the close proximity of the two helping to
retain some of the "cold" is yet a mystery.

I consider two refrigerators using less electrical power than
the original single (which is still there) a case of "free energy."

Anyone have any opinions?


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Dumped, that is very interesting.  Make sure you do a proper scientific investigation, use power meters, start at same temp, etc.

   
Group: Guest
Quote
If both you , 'MileHigh' , and 'Farrah Day' are not on the three-letter Psyops payroll, as you so innocently claim (which I certainly do not believe)  , you two are quite lucky to spend ALL your free time repeating educational brainwashing back to us , like the insistent bleat of a couple of dull sheep.

Thus,

1) I will no longer respond to any of the negative , time-wasting drivel that you 'MileHigh' , or 'Farrah Day' , post.
2) I will encourage anyone else involved in energy research -- including my friends -- to quit responding to both of you , as you both are a complete waste of time.

Whether myself (or anyone else involved in this research) is 'correct' or 'incorrect' , what does it matter to you?

You certainly have me all wrong Feynman.  All I ever seek is the truth, and sometimes that means outing the frauds and scamsters like Fast Freddy.  All I ever attempt to do is open peoples eyes to the lack of science behind some of these 'great', yet unsubstantiated claims instead of simply accepting it all as fact.  I have no ulterior motives as you are suggesting I have... but frankly I don't give a rats ass what you think! You're beginning to sound as brain-washed and delusional as most of the EF forum members.

In fact, in the context of what you have stated about me in recent posts, you are the real harbinger of disinformation.
   
Group: Guest
Whether it is some electrical power factor correction taking
place, or simply the close proximity of the two helping to
retain some of the "cold" is yet a mystery.

Anyone have any opinions?

I think your second theory is the right one. If the two refrigerators were in very close proximity then they could act like a single thermal entity with less overall surface area to the outside world.  Less surface area equals less heat flowing into each refrigerator hence less electricity required to pump that heat back out.

<<< Woops!  I made a mistake here.  I was thinking less of an increase in your electrical bill than expected, not less overall consumption of electricity.  So I defer to EMDevices' statements.  You really would have to make proper measurements to see what was going on.  I assume a Kill-a-Watt meter will work with a fridge. >>>

You have a very liberal definition for "free energy."  I would call it increased efficiency.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
And another one bites the dust!

I used the tools that Haithar at OU forum developed and increased the sample rate sufficiently and I can say that it's far too early to judge.
Playing with some of the parameters results in constant power output while having the sample rate far above the Nyquist sample criteria.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3208
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

If both you , 'MileHigh' , and 'Farrah Day' are not on the three-letter Psyops payroll, as you so innocently claim (which I certainly do not believe)  , you two are quite lucky to spend ALL your free time repeating educational brainwashing back to us , like the insistent bleat of a couple of dull sheep.

Thus,

1) I will no longer respond to any of the negative , time-wasting drivel that you 'MileHigh' , or 'Farrah Day' , post.
2) I will encourage anyone else involved in energy research -- including my friends -- to quit responding to both of you , as you both are a complete waste of time.

Whether myself (or anyone else involved in this research) is 'correct' or 'incorrect' , what does it matter to you?  

You can spare yourself answering this rhetorical question because you will get no response.

Feynman,

The notion that Farrah and MH are MIBs or whatever, is pure nonsense. Please refrain from such rhetoric.

Make a technical stand to back up your assertions instead.

Thanks,

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-04, 16:33:31